There's a great posting over at the Panda's Thumb by Nick Matzke who assisted the legal team for the Kitzmiller case. Here's a snippet.



No duh, as we say in Texas. The Discovery Institute and it's minions are like the Wicked Witch of the West after being doused with water: "I'm melting! Melting!"

Invented research programs and useless lashings against a court decision about which they have no possible influence.

Intelligent Design is dead.

However, like the phoenix, a new incarnation will rise from the ashes. Will it be "sudden appearence" or "special complexity" or "Salification?"

Only time will tell, but as they said in midieval times, Intelligent Design is dead! Long live Intelligent Design!

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/seed_magazine_n.html#more

Yes, but remember that at base, Medieval Times is nothing more than a dinner theater.

The deconstruction of Pandas produced the wonderful construction cdesign proponentsists when some goof did a lousy cut-and-paste job, trying to replace "creationists" with "design proponents."

"cdesign proponentsists" is a useful fossil which confirms the evolution of creationism. As in paleontology much fossil evidence has been destroyed by the environment. Fortunately there's at least one environment (FTE) which has preserved the fossils.

On the other hand, creationists have always known that ID is creationism, as it was intelligently designed as an end-run around the constitution.

- virtually all proponents are religious, the vast majority conservative Christians
- most have admitted to having a religious motivation for their belief in ID - that is, unlike evolutionists, who are convinced by the evidence that the theory is true (no matter their faith stance), ID-ists are convinced by their faith, and go looking for proof
- when confronted with evidence that contradicts their belief, they revert back to some form of, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

What astounds me, given the high ethical standards Christians are supposed to live up to, is why they pretend (and when pressed, lie) that this is not a faith position, and that it is really all about science.

The only thing I can figure is that they figure that ID MUST be true, so when they say it is about science, this is a faith position, not an evidence-based position.

I figure it's more of a "the jig is up" defense. Similar if not identical to the rhetoric of using code phrases like "teach the controversy" and "critical thinking." The elephant in the room is that we all know it's a push for creationism but to acknowledge the elephant is to have it led away by the supreme court rulings on teaching creationism in public schools.

So, they're stuck. They have to stand behind the story; deny, deny, deny. And if they don't budge they might squeak by.

No different than my son standing in a pile of chocolate chip cookie crumbs.

"You been eating cookies?"

"No."

"Well, how did all those crumbs get there?"

"I dunno."

Creationists don't care about science; they don't understand science. All they want is their beliefs affirmed and they are frustrated that this is not happening.

ID is scientifically dead because science doesn't encompass the supernatural. And even if the ID proponents try a ruse by saying "we don't discuss the Designer" you simply can't have "intelligent design" without a designer, which is supernatural; case closed.

ID is legally dead following Kitzmiller. ID is legally equated to creationism which is illegal to teach as science in public schools in the USA; case closed.

ID is politically dead following defeats in Pennsylvania, Kansas and Ohio and backtracking by current political candidates: deVos in Michigan, for example, and Rick Santorum who backed away the day after the Kitzmiller ruling. I believe Tom DeLay is still a supporter, but who cares? Case closed.

So, that's it in a nutshell for ID and Kansas (thank you!) played a large role in pushing back the tide of ignorance both politically and scientifically. In a few weeks Kansas will knock both the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design Network flatter than an armadillo speed bump in Texas. Hoo-ray.

Let's see now.
ID is dead scientifically, dead legally, dead politically.
Triple dead, baby.
Cain't git no deader 'n' that, I reckon!

*****

I can accept that. Dead is dead, like they say in the movies. Only got one small question:
How come the nation's universities keep acting like ID is still alive?

Like KU, for example. You've got these 'Commons' folks at KU inviting Dr. Michael Behe to speak about the dead 'n' gone ID (and dollars to doughnuts he will draw a bigger evo-audience than Os Guinness did). And they also invited noted ID opponents like Dr. Kenneth Miller to speak at the same discussion series.

But why? With ID toe-tagged in the morgue, there's no reason to spend money on the topic, let alone on bringing Behe and Miller to KU in person. Dead is dead!

Then you got Fort Hays State doing a panel discussion in January, and at least one panelist is slated to specifically discuss ID (it was not clear from the announcement what position he will take on the issue.) But why go to all that trouble? ID is triple dead. So what's with the ID discussion?

Then there's Loyola University, pitting ID supporter Paul Nelson against ID opponents John Haught and Barbara Forrest on Nov. 6 and 7. But what's the point? The debate's over. Right?

And what's up with the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity? They recently attracted an audience estimated somewhere between 3500 and 4000 to the Sun Dome at the University of South Florida for Darwin Or Design, a presentation on ID featuring Drs. Behe, Wells, and Seelke.

Don't those thousands of people, those multiple multitudes of college folks, know that ID is dead and gone? What could they possibly be thinking? Why didn't they stay home?

*****

So, you know, I'm with you dude. It's strictly RIP for ID as I see it.
It's Finito amigo, seven ways to Sunday.
I even got the MIDI files ready to play "Taps" on my computer.

But I just cain't figure out what's going down within the nation's universities and colleges.
Why can't *they* understand that ID is dead?

FL

FL -



FL, that panel discussion occurred this past January. Don't take my word for it - listen to the audio link I provided to figure out the ID panelist's position.

I'm not sure ID-as-science can be labeled "dead," because it never seemed to have a live research program at any time.

ID-as-politics is moribund, but not dead. There are enough True Believers who will make sure it morphs into something else that might seem more politically acceptable to voters and the courts.

For the same reason that, even after all these centuries, there are still people around who refuse to give up on Geocentricism and a Flat Earth.

ID is just as dead as those two ideas, it's just that there's been less time for the fact to sink in, so more people are still able to pretend to themselves that it's still alive.

FL,

Dead, but undead.

That could only mean one thing!

(cue dramatic music)

Zombies!

...or vampires...

...or liches...

...or revenants...

...or any other type of undead beastie the human imagination can concieve.

Liches, I think ID is a bunch of liches.

To address FL's points (again), just because people are still talking about things doesn't mean it's not dead in just about every sense of the word.

I have been to discussions about a specific battle in WW2 in recent years, does that mean the war's not over?

I believe pretty much al of wffarrels points sand on thier own. And just because Behe may pull a bigger audience than Os, doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. Are you willing to make the same bet wrt the audience from Judge Jone's presentation, or Ken Miller's?

Anyone have attendance figures from those two?

Cheers.

Aerosmith packs 'em in, too.

Are you suggesting we teach "Dude Looks Like a Lady" in science class?

(actually, not a bad idea! That song has more biology in it than all of ID combined.)

Makes sense!

Zombies feed upon the brains of others . . . just as ID tries to piggyback its way into science class by feeding on the brains of the real scientists who've actually done . . . you know . . . research.

Zombies also mean something different, each person you ask (and even then their meaning is rather vague and equivocal):

Voudoun zombies (under the command of a Voudoun Priest, but not necessarily evil)
Hollywood zombies (flesh/brain-eating)
Dungeons and Dragons zombies (animated by an evil necromancer or priest)
Etc, etc

Sounds a lot like trying to work at exactly what ID means, doesn't it?