Intelligent Design

You know ID is winning when …

Spread the love

Big Darwin hollers are fronting money all over the world against it:

Templeton Foundation gives almost US$ 2 million to a Brazilian anti-ID group:

Really? Will the group now employ local “Jesus Hollers Against Design” types?

Maybe Pos-Darwinista can tell us.

See also: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Follow UD News at Twitter!

22 Replies to “You know ID is winning when …

  1. 1
    goodusername says:

    Just last month they gave even more money to a Creationist group. Does that mean Darwinism is winning?

    The founder of this blog has received money from them.

    Guillermo Gonzalez also received money from them that helped create the Privileged Planet.
    http://www.theprivilegedplanet.com/scientists.php

    If this is actually the sort of thing being used as evidence of ID “winning”, than it doesn’t sound to me like they’re winning.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Templeton publicly disowned Bill Dembski.

  3. 3

    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Research Professor of New Testament D.A. Carson said: “That heritage must be allowed to speak boldly, graciously, and prophetically, to challenge every cultural stance with a different (and usually much narrower) frame of reference.”

    How different and how much narrower frame of reference is it?

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    I’m not familiar with this use of “holler”. Where I grew up, we used it as a synonym for “shout”, both as a noun and a verb.

  5. 5
    REW says:

    You know ID is winning when….

    ..the majority of papers published in Science, Nature, PNAS, Cell, JMB, JCB explain living systems by reference to a designing intelligence rather than natural processes

  6. 6
    steveh says:

    You know ID is winning when a rich ID-friendly foundation offers a large amount of money to an ID-friendly author to write an ID-friendly book which he promises to deliver but then pockets the money and runs, leaving the ID-friendly foundation approx $99K (+/- $1K) poorer with no ID-friendly book, feeling very very disappointed indeed ?

  7. 7
    News says:

    Enezio at 3: I’m no expert, but I suspect that if the frame of reference is not metaphysical naturalism, it is a far too narrow. If it is, it is the only frame needed. … ?

    Jesus hollering if fine, and legal as long as it never means anything.

    ?

    DaveS at 4: In some usages, “holler” means senseless shouting that conveys no information. As in “They were hollering up a storm.”

    But a senior officer might “shout” at a junior one: Wait for backup! Wait for backup! – But that is not considered “hollering” in the same usage system. Blame Canadian English.

  8. 8
    sean samis says:

    This is a good thing what the Foundation did. Fighting against ignorance is a good thing.

    sean s.

  9. 9
    anthropic says:

    SS 8 “Fighting against ignorance is a good thing.”

    Given that premise, you are correct to say that the donation from the Templeton Foundation was a good thing. After all, they spread more ignorance for IDers to fight.

  10. 10
    daveS says:

    News @ 7, thanks.

  11. 11
    anthropic says:

    Holler is also how country folk pronounce “hollow”, meaning a valley or low spot, usually surrounded by hills. This usage is particularly prevalent among Appalachian folks noted for poverty and low education who are up in the “hills and hollers.”

    Fairly or not, such usage is often associated with ignorance, emotionalism, and a desire to cling to the past.

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    What I’ve got from this is that Big Darwin is run from a valley. I’d always assumed we had been getting our orders from a big castle on the top of Fitness Peak.

  13. 13
    Ted Davis says:

    Denyse,

    The YEC view, or else the young biosphere view (with no life before a few thousand years ago), has grown by leaps and bounds in South America with the mass exodus of Catholics to pentecostal Christian groups. At the same time, followers of Richard Dawkins are also increasing in number. That double whammy is the driving concern behind the formation of this new group. Given the number of ID leaders who obviously reject the YEC view as inconsistent with the scientific evidence and not a viable option, perhaps you should be glad that this group has gotten funding.

  14. 14
    Ted Davis says:

    I wrote my previous comment before seeing this, from someone far more knowledgeable about the situation in Latin America: http://biologos.org/blog/evolu.....-challenge

    My comment is based on my own knowledge of the specific project Denyse trashes here, rather than on any general knowledge of LA. It goes without saying that my comments are fully consistent with what Dr Morales says in his overview.

  15. 15
    Ted Davis says:

    Finally, I add my view that you know that ID is winning when the biology texts in the US discuss aspects of it in non-negative ways. For about a generation, some prominent ID proponents have said that ID will transform the teaching of biology in this generation–vaguely specific language that I think we can now say didn’t happen. Jon Wells owes me lunch, one of these days, based on a long-ago conversation along these lines.

    Many factors have prevented this from happening, but a major one (IMO) was the alliance that certain ID leaders made with certain YECs, relative to the revised edition of the book, “Of Pandas and People,” that was published in the wake of the Supreme Court decision outlawing “creationism” (which in context meant YEC) in public school science classes. (That was the right decision, IMO, regardless of the court’s reasons.) I won’t identify those ID leaders here, but they are identified in the book itself.

    This is the issue that just won’t go away: is ID “creationism,” or not? If not, then there should be no further efforts to confuse, many of which are found here at UD.

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ted Davis @ 14

    From the link:

    Many Western Christian critics of evolution fear that social Darwinism is a necessary consequence of accepting evolution and/or bringing evolutionary concepts to the field of social relations. In this essay I mentioned two historical examples of social Darwinism, in Mexico and Brazil, in which the survival mechanism to produce the “progress” of society—extending the notion of natural selection applied to human societies—was identified with oppressive, selfish and reprehensible practices such as slavery and eugenics. But when we focus on the origins of Indigenous Pentecostalism, the situation is very different, because the survival mechanism which contribute to the evolutionary emergence of these Christian movements can be identified with the Indigenous communities’ own conscious decision of blending their spirituality with Pentecostal Christianity. In this sense, this will is taken as a way to avoid the total extinction of their original Indigenous spiritual beliefs, driven in some extent by globalization. So here we can observe that the survival process is relational, creative and virtuous, because it gives believers a new meaning of life by mixing things such as religious symbols, liturgical aspects, and spiritual beliefs.

    I find that quite difficult to understand, although it seems his making some unusual and interesting points.

    First, he openly links evolution with “oppressive, selfish and reprehensible practices such as slavery and eugenics”. He’s on good ground here and would get a lot of ID support for that. At the same time, he wants to show the benefits of a pro-evolution education and cultural program. That’s where it gets fuzzy.

    I think he’s saying that evolution will help society because the survival benefit of Pentacostal Christianity relies somehow in the integration of indigenous (pre-Christian) spiritual beliefs and therefore evolution will make that possible, versus the extinction of the latter.

    I don’t read Biologos for a number of reasons but if that’s the kind of Christian-evolutionary thinking that it provides I don’t really know how to comment. It’s like a fantasy world mixed with some pseudo-science, all in the hopes of making sure Darwin doesn’t get excluded from society. (I do somewhat admire it though for sheer uniqueness and for being non-politically correct).

    The reality is that the Latin American Pentacostals will pay no attention to this and will continue moving across the continent with various forms of creationism, and being quite successful at that.

    Even big investments in anti-creationism efforts won’t change that, at least until religion itself starts to fall apart as it has in North America.

  17. 17
    groovamos says:

    anthropic: Fairly or not, such usage is often associated with ignorance, emotionalism, and a desire to cling to the past.

    Thanks for including the “not” which really does apply. Mountain folk have been clinging to past virtues such as self reliance which leftists in control of the welfare state cannot abide. Self reliance degrades the ability to control and keep the votes coming to the correct party. See: http://www.americanthinker.com.....state.html

  18. 18
    anthropic says:

    groov 17

    Yep. As the guy who is now President once remarked, these are the kind of people who bitterly cling to their Bibles and guns. That’s a problem for those who wish to replace God with the state.

  19. 19
    anthropic says:

    TD 15
    “This is the issue that just won’t go away: is ID “creationism,” or not? ”

    ————————————————————-

    Not.

    Actually, this issue has been addressed many, many times by leaders of the ID movement, such as Stephen Meyer.

    Creationism is a religious doctrine which comes from a particular interpretation of scripture that demands a young Earth. ID is the scientific hypothesis that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by a designing, purposeful intelligence rather than unguided natural processes.

    Note that ID does not reference God, religion, scriptures, nor the age of the Earth. In fact, the vast majority of ID advocates believe in a 13.7 billion year old universe and 4.6 billion year Earth.

    Creationists can and do use ID arguments sometimes to claim that life is designed. However, they tend to be critical of the fact that ID does not cite scripture, nor claims to identify the designer as God, nor claims the Earth is young.

    The only reason the issue won’t go away is that materialists wish to conflate YEC with ID for the sake of polemics.

  20. 20
    harry says:

    Who would insist that a huge, automated factory consisting of software controlled robotic equipment could come about accidentally? No one, unless such a phenomenon consisted of nanotechnology which miniaturized all that programmable functional complexity to a microscopic size, making it even less likely to have come about accidentally. In that case, those who simply do not like the implications of the fact that there is no way digital information based, self-replicating nanotechnology can come about mindlessly and accidentally — in other words, those who don’t want to admit that we should know there is a God from the things He has made — insist that life came about mindlessly and accidentally, yet provide no plausible explanation as to how that might have happened. ID will never “win” among such people.

  21. 21
    Ted Davis says:

    Relative to science & religion Latin America, BioLogos rarely talks about it. Our emphasis is the United States, even though we have many readers in other parts of the world. That post was informational. I did not fully understand it, either, but that (IMO) says more about what I don’t know about LA than anything else.

    As for social Darwinism, it’s called that (obviously) because the links with evolution are so evident. At the same time, however, it would be easy to produce numerous examples of creationism serving the interests of social injustice. In other words, ideologies of injustice enlist whatever tools they can to advance their agendas–including both science and religion, depending on which seems to fit best at that time and place.

  22. 22
    Ted Davis says:

    anthropic 19:

    i fully agree that Steve Meyer has clearly distanced his work from the YE variety of creationism (he’s an OE creatonist). So has Bill Dembski (in his book, The End of Christianity), though I sense with considerable reluctance in his case.

    In the 1980s, however, that wasn’t happening–hence the situation leading to the Pandas book, which led to the Dover court decision.

    This web site makes no apparent effort to separate YEC from ID, judging from the list of contributors. This isn’t really surprising, since the social and political agendas of ID and YEC are very similar. Both are heavily involved in “culture wars,” both project almost the same attitude toward evolution, and both want to effect major changes in public education.

Leave a Reply