Home > Intelligent Design > The Year in ID – 2008 Edition

The Year in ID – 2008 Edition

January 1, 2009

It has become sort of a tradition for me to present an end-of-year roundup of the “achievements” of the intelligent design movement. Last year I noted that the IDists achieved even less than in the previous year, noting that they had achieved so little that I actually didn’t blog much on ID. This year, it looks like they achieved even less and my statement from last year looks even more accurate:

Put bluntly, ID has not moved forward as a science one iota since this time last year. Depressing really. I mean, you’d like the opposition to at least try, otherwise the victories are just too damned easy.

Looking back on this year’s coverage of ID, I don’t see much that needs to be recounted. The “high point” for the IDists has to have been Expelled though this appears to have badly back-fired on them (see here for my coverage). If it wasn’t for the unholy alliance of Steve Fuller with Uncommon Descent, I probably wouldn’t be bothering with this post. However, it does give me an excuse to post my (now annual) list of things we didn’t see from the main players of the ID movement:

  • A peer-reviewed paper by Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer …
  • Or for that matter, a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing, by any fellow of the DI.
  • An exposition of Nelson’s theory of "ontogenetic depth" (promised in March 2004)
  • An article by Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (promised in April 2005).
  • Nelson’s monograph on common descent (currently MIA since the late 90′s).

Last year’s predictions by me were remarkably accurate:

So what does next year hold for us? I predict more political action from DI flacks, a movie – Expelled – that will make nary a ripple, a quixotic attempt to get Gonzalez tenure that will fail (and result in his being condemned to teach in some place like Liberty University), and the non-appearance of the five desired items above. Stay tuned!

Politically, the DI shifted from “teach the controversy” to bleating about “academic freedom”. Expelled bombed and influenced no one. Gonzalez ended up in Grove City College, an “authentically Christian” college in Pennsylvania. The five items are still MIA.

I don’t think there is any need to make predictions for 2009 beyond saying there there will be much moaning about the Darwin Bicentennial and “academic freedom.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, I guess.

About these ads
  1. kamaka
    January 1, 2009 at 10:45 pm | #1

    What a wonderful time to be re-reading “The Origin of Species”.
    Hahaha, the stupid-heads said it wasn’t peer-reviewed when it was published. Ahhh, no, but it is the most scrutinised science book ever written, and is still winning after 150 years of attempts to disprove it’s concepts.
    It’s just a theory, IDers, so where’s your theory? Ummm, ahhh, ummm, godditit…ummm. C’mon, come up with a HYPOTHESIS I can’t rip to shreds, theocratic bullies.
    Excuse me while I go aquire some characteristics.
    Happy Year of Darwin!

  2. January 2, 2009 at 1:58 am | #2

    And they haven’t even got the grace to be embarrassed, have they? I think Phillip Johnson once said he was disappointed that DI hadn’t made more progress, but otherwise they just keep up the mindless happy talk. Sad, sad, sad.

  3. Frank J
    January 2, 2009 at 9:37 am | #3

    I predict that ID will be out and that classic creationism will return to the front pages. The key moment will be when Ray Martinez publishes his long-awaited paper. I’m betting Feb. 29. ;-)

  4. James F
    January 2, 2009 at 2:46 pm | #4

    The new strategy might be to claim everything published by people affiliated with the Biologic Institute as ID research. Interestingly, as far as I know only Douglas Axe’s paper in PLoS ONE was featured at the DI’s Evolution News, and none of the BI papers have been featured on the CSC’s list of “peer-reviewed” publications.” Perhaps the DI has given up on lists of “peer-edited” papers and the like to help the credibility of the BI? Meanwhile, what do you suppose will happen with the elusive paper by Robert Marks and William Dembski mentioned recently UD?

  5. John Lynch
    January 2, 2009 at 10:56 pm | #5
  6. John Lynch
    January 2, 2009 at 10:58 pm | #6

    Doh! Last comment should have been addressed to James.

  7. RBH
    January 3, 2009 at 1:24 am | #7

    Hm. I threw a trackback from PT, but I don’t see it here. IS that a problem, or a feature?

  8. John Lynch
    January 3, 2009 at 1:58 am | #8

    Ah, a “feature”. I disabled trackbacks a few years back … the signal to spam ratio made them worthless.

Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: