Pindi @ 16: Saying that the theory of Darwinian evolution is in free fall has nothing to do with the state of ID, or whether William Dembski is breaking ranks from the ID movement.
News: Dembski isn’t “breaking ranks from the ID movement” and has never said he was. He just wanted to do something with his life for a while other than scrap with tax- or Templeton-funded Darwin trolls. You bought ‘em, you pay for ‘em.
Darwinian evolution is in free fall because it is not supported by empirical science. Lots of speculation and philosophizing, but no empirical evidence to prove that natural selection working on random, unguided processes is capable of speciation, let alone abiogenesis. Modern science is revealing not only that there is no evidence for such things, but that it is highly unlikely that such things could happen by Darwinian evolution. Hence the free fall.
News: Darwinian evolution is largely a cultural enterprise, as Tom Wolfe has recently pointed out. It doesn’t need to be true—or even make sense—as long as some Bimboat can front it earnestly on Taxpayer TV.
Thanks in large part to leaders of the ID movement, including William Dembski, people are no longer afraid to challenge atheists on this issue. If nothing else, the ID movement has exposed the glaring flaws in Darwin’s theory. That alone is a major accomplishment given the entrenched and untouchable status the theory has held in academia for many years.
News: That part was what first got me (O’Leary for News ) involved. Having been alerted by a poli sci prof to the political craziness of Darwinism (approx 1996), I had to get used to
1) the sickening, hagiographic media releases from researchers who breathlessly announced that they were defending the Ol’ Brit Toff
2) the cringeworthy cowardice of Christian BigThink media who decided to switch gears under pressure and fawn all over the Toff’s followers, instead of giving them a boot where they deserve it.
3) really insane stuff like wanting to put Darwin (a classic racist) alongside Lincoln in the U.S. as an American liberation hero (sponsored by the last people you would expect to do so—except that they may not have done any homework at all and were egged on in this venture by Darwinbots).
Also, Stephen Meyer, Jay Richards, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Ann Gauger, Jonathan Wells, and many others are more than capable of carrying the torch for ID, as is Douglas Axe, whose recent book, Undeniable, has become an instant classic in the ID genre, garnering much praise, even from scientists.
News: Probably especially from scientists.
By the way, there are other scientists, doctorates, professors, etc. who challenge the theory of Darwinian evolution but not under the banner of ID. Hugh Ross, James Tour, Dave Berlinski, and many others fall into that group.
News: A lot of people feel better when they crawl out from under a load of horseshit. You don’t have to be a scientist.
Regarding your point “not a lot of science going on here” (at uncommondescent.com), surely you know that everyone here understands and appreciates the scientific method. You should not expect to see “science going on here,” but you should expect to see a robust discussion about science going on here. Which is exactly what you find.
News: Uncommon Descent is a Colorado-based not-for-profit that provides independent news of interest to people who follow the intelligent design controversy. As your principal newswriter, I would be happy to think that, now that the Royal Society is taking these issues on, there is some hope that a bigger shovel than we can rent will be applied to the pile.
See also: What to expect from the Royal Society’s public evolution summit November 7-9
Follow UD News at Twitter!