Intelligent design: The next decade
|January 10, 2012||Posted by O'Leary under Design inference, Intelligent Design|
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!