Intelligent Design News

The twilight of the (anti-ID) Skeptical Zone?

Spread the love

The Skeptical Zone? Yes, that anti-ID Web site that we referred to here. Barry Arrington mentioned to me that they now have hardly any posts. The most recent post I can find is is December 30.

The fourth one down dates all the way back to December 15 and is about the “twilight of ID:”

It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Despite everything that has happened recently? Scroll down the news items here at UD below.

Dembski is off all radar. He doesn’t even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

I don’t think Dembski works at a South Carolina Bible college (he lives in another state), which could be a reason that one doesn’t hear about him in SC.

Some readers may wish to read the other claims for themselves. This much I know is true. The site numbers at UD, the only source of info to which I have easy access, don’t show that ID is moribund.

Unless “moribund” is a technical term for “we might need a bigger server soon.”

On the other hand, maybe it’s just the time of year for twilights and we are missing out.

O’Leary for News

22 Replies to “The twilight of the (anti-ID) Skeptical Zone?

  1. 1
    Neil Rickert says:

    The most recent post I can find is is December 30.

    There were three comments posted today. The previous comment to that was on Jan 20th.

    No new threads started since Dec 30th, but most of the activity takes place in comments on existing threads.

  2. 2
    DesignDetectiveDave says:

    They are obsessed with Uncommon Descent:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=5168

    “Barry Arrington doesn’t understand ID. KF talks about math and design detection but never does it. ID exists as an amorphous miasmic anti-evolutionary argument. It is the North Korea of the internet”

    Someone sort this joker out.

  3. 3
    Moose Dr says:

    I just posted a comment on their site — after all somebody’s got to keep it going. I found it interesting, however, that when I logged in it began by giving me administrative access. I do maintain my own wordpress blog, but I found it a bit weird that I could have put up an interesting post myself.

  4. 4
    News says:

    Neil Rickert at 1, thanks for clarification. So they don’t think anything much has happened so far this year? Or? Dunno.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    They are waiting for ID to die so they can celebrate “Febble” as a proper prophet.

  6. 6
    wd400 says:

    As long as acceptance of evolutionary biology is a shibboleth in the American culture ware there will be interest in ID.

    But I think the post you refer to is about ID as sceintific project.

    It does seem pretty much dead doesn’t it? Biologic publishes about a paper a year in their in-house journal, Dembski thought “Darwinism” would be dead by now (link), instead is seems he’s retired from biology game. None of the ideas put forward by IDers are reflected in mainstream attempts to “extend the synthesis”.

    As for the UD — it does seem pretty stale doesn’t it. BA and Dionissio compete to out-spam each other, KF talks alot of about fishing reels and produces these ASCII-salads of posts while complaining others can’t understand (or indeed parse) them. News and PaV copy the bits of press releases they think are helpful to their cause, Barry continues to be incapable of admitting an error or considering it’s possible others act in good faith. Mapou and Joe compete to say the stupidest things in the nastiest fashion.

    Doesn’t seem like there is a great deal of vitality in the movement or the community here.

  7. 7
    Petrushka says:

    Amusement isn’t quite the same thing as obsession. This website is pretty much the only ID game in town. It was once the home of Dembski and Behe. So yes, it has lurkers.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    I post on TSZ and had a great discussion about flood dynamics.
    I find its a well managed and excellent forum for ideas.
    Always a creationist should desire the success of origin subject forums. We are censored/banned and denied public access.
    These forums are attended by the more intelligent, more educated people but that can add up to good numbers.
    I wish origin forums reached thousands people every day.
    The more attention the more the right side will prevail.
    long life to evolutionist forums etc.
    We need more such forums and more creationist ones.
    Its too few, small, right now.
    The revolution and invasion will speed up as more of north America gets into the fray.
    People at UD should come and rumble at TSZ. ID/YEC/evolutionists etc.
    One can’t have a intellectual scientific revolution unless one gets into the conversation that is done by the more interested and educated people.
    I need help. I think I almost got them persuaded but…

  9. 9
    Mark Frank says:

    The site was used mostly by people banned from UD who wanted to oppose some of things said here. When Barry lifted the ban they moved here. If/when he starts banning people again then I expect it will come back to life. I don’t think it has very much to do with the decline of ID.

  10. 10
    Me_Think says:

    TSZ people come to UD as TSZ people are confident of answering questions raised here. UD people are not at all confident of answering questions raised at TSZ, so they stay away – atleast that’s my theory.

  11. 11
    News says:

    Thanks to wd400 for providing the evening’s entertainment.

    He sounds like the sort of guy who tells you his wife is a stupid, ugly witch. And so HE, the handsome genius of immaculate character, chose to spend so much time with her because … ?

    We interrupted our regular programming to bring readers news from the “skeptical zone.” Now back to the day job.

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    I don’t think Dembski works at a South Carolina Bible college (he lives in another state), which could be a reason that one doesn’t hear about him in SC.

    The poster may have got their Carolinas mixed up: Dr. Dembski was “the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary“: the SES is (apparently) in North Carolina.

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    wd400

    As long as acceptance of evolutionary biology is a shibboleth in the American culture war there will be interest in ID.

    I think ID is a lot stronger now then it was 10 years ago. Darwin’s Doubt might be the most successful ID book ever. There are more serious scientists working on ID projects now — admittedly, it’s still a small number. The kind of unhinged hatred and ridicule of ID that we saw when it first emerged has died off quite a lot. Some might claim because ID is not taken seriously at all, but I think it’s because ID made a pretty good case and has been able to survive that hostility.

    All that said, the growth of ID has not been explosive — but it just quitely gains new recruits within the world of science and in the culture. ID cannot be ridiculed as a form of Biblical Creationism any more and there are really no knock-down arguments against it. Darwinism is not dead yet but it’s in disarray. More scientists are distancing themselves from neo-Darwinism and inching closer to an ID proposal.

    ID will become more independent of a single organization (the DI) or identified with a single blog (UD) and stupid arguments like Kitzmiller v Dover fade into history so it should retain strong support.

    I think the Dissent from Darwin list is growing also.

  14. 14
    wd400 says:

    As ever News, I’m left wondering what you are going on about.

    I spend a little bit time here, principally because I’m interesting in how anti-(mainstream)science positions arise and are supported. But isn’t it striking that very few scientists bother with ID now? There seems, in fact, to be very little bother with.

    If you can point to signs of vitality in the ID movement then please do.

    SA,

    Is there any evidence for “Darwinism”, by which I presume you mean evolutionary biology, being in disarray? People have being saying this for >100 years but evolutionary biology seems to survive

  15. 15
    Moose Dr says:

    news, “So they don’t think anything much has happened so far this year?”

    As far as “case” goes, I would agree with them that it has been a slow year. I can find a few notes of ID progress, however, such as:
    > The paper published by Ann Gauger.
    > The discovery of a surprising number of de novo genes in individual species.
    > There has also been some good discussion about how mathematics is independent of both time and the bounds of the universe.
    > There might be more, but none come to mind.

    That said, none of the planks of the general case for ID have wavered in the least. Irreducible Complexity is as strong as ever. CSI is as strong as ever. Behe’s “edge of evolution” case that two mutations where either alone is deleterious is too great a barrier for NS is as strong as ever.

  16. 16
    Moose Dr says:

    Actually, something else does come to mind. I am having trouble remembering what it is called, but organisms in location A can mate with those in location B. B can mate with C, but A can’t mate with C. If I recall the case examples of this defined phenomenon have all been falsified. If I recall there are now no such examples. This is a well established icon of evolution, an icon that has become antiquated.

  17. 17
    DesignDetectiveDave says:

    Ring Species?

  18. 18
    beau says:

    WD400 take some time and learn some different languages. There are other ID sites in other countries you can evaluate. I was researching that tonight after a Larry Moron post at Sandwalk and was surprised by the results.

  19. 19
    wd400 says:

    Hi Beau,

    I’m probably not going to learn Portuguese to keep track of developments in Brazil 🙂

    The near-zero profile of ID in anglophone countries outside of the US means I’d be suprised if ID had a big sway elsewhere, but I guess it’s possible.

    For others, The sandwalk post Beau refers to is here. It makes pretty stark reading for the disco ‘tute, and is something to keep in mind when you here these bold claims about the fall of “Darwinism” in 5/10/20 years time

  20. 20
    Mung says:

    They aren’t dying. They are only resting.

  21. 21
    PaV says:

    wd400:

    I used to keep up on most things biological. Much harder to do so these days. But, personally, I can’t justify the time either since every day brings more scientific news pointing to Darwin’s demise. It’s just a matter of time.

    In the interim, I’m left dealing with arguments that have, by this time, become so predictable, repeatable, and stale.

    Yet, the idea of ID is actually catching on. And a new breed of scientists is being educated. And little bit by little bit, the ID argument will become center stage.

    The advent of WGA allows only one side to win; and, so far, that side is ID. Unless, of course, they beat up so much on the ENCODE team that they decide to give up their task (or, the keys to their labs are taken away and they’re “expelled”).

    The only “anti-science” I see happening is from the field of evolutionary biologists. When will they ever learn?

    But, actually, science itself is falling apart. When objective truth is supplanted by ideology, then science will begin to fall apart. How sad that so many of the leaders in their field fall prey to political correctness, and so, end up turning away from the truth.

  22. 22
    wd400 says:

    Lol.

    Every time you actually try and make a case about one of these studies that tears about the fabric of evolutoinary biology you end up looking more foolish than last time. It’s obvious your opinion on the validity of evolutionary biology has nothing to do with evidence, and everything to do with your wishful thinking.

Leave a Reply