Design inference Intelligent Design

Intelligent design: The next decade

Spread the love

This morning we noted the 50th peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific paper published. Having been on this beat for a decade now, I can safely say that no one who is not involved can have any idea how difficult an achievement that is, in the face of a corrupt, tenured establishment that is unashamed to use outright suppression.

Indeed, this very year, Granville Sewell had an accepted paper rejected from a journal because a Darwin troll started bawling about it to an editor of that journal. The wrong was never righted, though some justice was done. Because it is only recently that any justice has even been attempted in this area, we can reasonably assume that more such papers would be in print today but for Darwin’s intellectually fulfilled trolls, and the ‘crats who cower before them.

It’s interesting to follow the pattern of the last five years or so:

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

As for the next decade, with luck, we are reaching the point where it’s safe to test design hypotheses, in the sense that many might fail and a few succeed. That’s the usual way with any endeavour in science, of course. But in a corrupt environment, success means hewing the party line and failure means departing from it. So rational analysis will remain impossible in many venues. But not, it seems, in all.

Let me leave you with one thought: The science establishment today is firmly in the hands of people who embrace multiverse theory to avoid the idea that fine-tuning of the universe is real – even though they know it means the end of science.

They’ve made their choice. But it seems they haven’t made it for everyone.

Some related stories about the ID community and its aims:

Why intelligent design theory benefits from the progress of any non-Darwinian hypothesis for evolution

Self-organization theory is not a threat to design

The last five years: Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Intelligent design: The next decade

  1. 1
    StuartHarris says:

    Yes, and in this universe most all scientists are paid by the government in one way or another. In other words, money is taken by force out of my wallet and placed into theirs. If physics, by the admission of physicists themselves, is now meaningless, then those boys need to empty their desks, pack up, and go home. In this universe, in my home town, Home Depot and Walmart are hiring.

    PS As an undergrad in the 70’s I almost majored in physics — I’m so glad I majored in math instead. I’m more fine tuned as a result.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    As a YEC i welcome the great invasion by ID.
    The opposition is so sensitive!
    its like they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims.
    So ID shows this problem clearly.

    Either ID and YEC are on the edge of a great revolution or pretty good overhaul of the old evolutionary ideas OR creationism(s) are on their last ammunition in the trenches.
    I say the ID movement is only what could be true of the former option was true.

    It could only be that evolutionism and God denyingism and other aspects of nature IF UNTRUE would soon be found out as more and smarter people pay serious attention to these matters.

    Surely we live in historic intellectual days if creationists are right or the others are right.
    Its reaching toward the crest of the wave surely.

    So be in on the kill or already start hiding.
    This is going somewhere.

  3. 3
    Genomicus says:

    As for the next decade, with luck, we are reaching the point where it’s safe to test design hypotheses, in the sense that many might fail and a few succeed.

    Finally we get to start developing a rigorous design hypothesis in biology, after all these years 😛

Leave a Reply