Via Pharyngula and Thoughts From Kansas I learn of the next re-branding iteration of creationism.
Remember how creationism became “Creation Science”, which then became “Intelligent Design”? (Except that Intelligent Design has now been ruled religion in disguise by a judge.) Apparently William Dembski is proposing creationism’s next iteration – Intelligent Evolution.
It’s also crystal clear from Dembski’s post that all these name changes are just politics and PR:
I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution. Nor would it be committed to Darwin’s idea of descent with modification. But, hey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools.
(My bold.)
You’ll note he admits it’s nothing more than a name change to squeak his religiously inspired pseudoscience into school science classes. Remember that when we have the inevitable court cases in a couple of years to teach “IE” in school science classes. Note to Dembski – it takes more than changing one word in a name to make something science. Or as Thoughts From Kansas concludes:
…what IDC … really needs isn't motivational speeches and infomercials … but peer-reviewed research consistently showing promise in IDC.
Well duh! But hilariously, Dembski even has this point covered by this wonderful piece of rationalization:
Don’t be distracted by the “thousands” of articles being published in the research journals that purport to support evolutionary theory — this is an artifact of overfunding an underachieving theory.
Yes, all those “thousands of articles” (note the sneer quotes around “thousands”), are merely evidence of over funding of an “underachieving theory”. Obviously. Presumably the total lack of scientific articles supporting ID is evidence of its strength. Or something
So, Creationism has "mutated" again - "evolving" under the selective pressure of rising secularism and scientific competition. Now, in a development strikingly similar to the Batesian mimicry their "theory" denies, the Creationists have tried to make their dogma even more similar to science, in order to sneak it into the classroom and infect unsuspecting children.
You've gotta love their gall!
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | January 16, 2006 at 08:17 AM
Of course, in his criticism of the thousands (Probably more like hundreds of thousands. Wouldn't surprise me at all if it passed the million mark, but as always, I digress) of papers, he neglects to mention that the peer review process would demolish any badly performed studies... Like they do with ID. If not... why isn't he spending some time tearing those articles apart?
Sorry, ID nutbars, evolution has both quantity and quality on its side. Creationism/ID/IE is still in the same gutter it's been in since prehistory. Why don't you spend less money on your PR department for covering up the grime and more time on actual science so you can get out of that gutter?
Posted by: BronzeDog | January 16, 2006 at 08:51 AM
I believe similar logic is being used by the Bush administration in the occupation of Iraq: the more attacks there are by insurgents, the more evidence it gives us of the insurgency's "desperation" and therefore our impending victory.
Posted by: Lee | January 16, 2006 at 10:59 PM
Dembski is such a small step to Dumbski. There you are, Intelligent Evolution in action!
And as for teaching IE in schools,I believe many already do – it's called Internet Explorer...
Posted by: pvandck | January 18, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Shorter William Demski:
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Hahaha.
Posted by: Svlad Jelly | January 26, 2006 at 06:10 AM
Hmm. I wonder. Is the ever changing name of this movement a response to its continually being naturally selected for extinction?
Posted by: LaPopessa | February 05, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Probably. Camouflage is good for creatures with no other natural defenses.
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 05, 2006 at 12:56 PM