Recently, someone drew my attention to an Australian biology student who blogged,
The intelligent design (ID) movement has been around for over 20 years, and few (if any) of its stated and implied goals and plans have thus far come to fruition.
Most of what he has to say is self-importance cubed – the usual stance of Darwinists expecting a lifetime on the government payroll, tending a state cult (but then who else would need a Darwinist anyway?) Still, the question is interesting.
In principle, it is hard to evaluate how far a community has come with its stated and implied goals because some goals are corporate, some factional, and some individual, and that means different checkoffs. Also, ID theorists may see some developments as advances or setbacks that others do not.
Here’s a possible approach: Every year starting with 2006, the not-for-profit Access Research Network has put up a list, publicized by ID folk, of the year’s top ten stories on design vs Darwin. Here are UD News’s three top picks from each year. Obviously, the following list omits many stories that matter, as did the original list of ten, but it does address stories on which there was a consensus among the jury. Sometimes, similar stories have been grouped.
Next: 2006: Dissent from Darwin is becoming more open among professionals
All posts in this series:
2006: Dissent from Darwin is becoming more open among professionals
2007: Darwinist efforts to stifle the ID community are failing
2008: Lots of people doubt Darwin that you didn’t think would, and are not afraid to say so
2009: The modern (neo-Darwinian) synthesis is – safely – admitted to be fading
2010: Layer on layer of intricacy outstrips Darwinian just-so stories
Follow UD News at Twitter!