ID and the DI boys fall back, regroup for another attack

[Savonarola]

Proponents of Intelligent Design were quite proud of themselves for managing to come up with what they called a "big tent" theory. The concept of intelligent design encompasses a wide variety of creationist denominations, ranging from rabid YEC to theistic evolution. It was thought that this ability to pander to the vast majority of anti-evolutionists would help the ID movement wedge itself into modern science.

Thanks to Dover, the IDM seems to have hit a snag. Now, in an effort to distance themselves from religion, the Discovery Institute has declared that ID positively supports common descent. "DaveScot," William Dembski's right hand man, has emphasized that "nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor." [emphasis original!]
This in itself is yet another victory for science. DI's acceptance of common descent has resulted in a smaller tent, with a huge amount of their following left out in the cold rain of scientific reality. And thanks to the asinine censorship practiced by Dembski and pals, many of the objections won't be heard. (This is incredibly ironic, considering a staple argument of creationism of any sort is that science quashes and censors dissent or disagreement regarding evolution.)

However, more serious analysis shows that DI is now simply trying to beat the rap already directed at it. Stephen Meyer, a self-proclaimed co-architect of ID, when asked about common descent in May 2005 at the Kansas Kangaroo Court hearings, said

I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak.

Yet, now only half a year later, Meyer and his goons have done a complete one-eighty:

The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected. [emphasis added]

So DI has taken yet another step "backward," abandoning an ideal that was supposed to help them. As Meyer's quote suggests, their view is getting closer and closer to that of the "God of the Gaps" argument, which is the basic underlying principle anyway.

Sure, scientists are free to amend their views when presented with convincing evidence, but this midstream course change had nothing to do with scientific evidence and everything to do with an attempt at scientific acceptance.

Although Meyer's article intends to show that ID does accept and always has accepted common descent, the evidence is quite to the contrary. (But of course, since when do creationists care about evidence?) In fact, to see how completely full of crap these guys are, one need look no further than the title and domain name of Dembski's blog in which the announcement appeared:
http://www.UncommonDescent.com/index.php/archives/744

More info:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... a_lea.html
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=152887

[Savonarola]

The entry has disappeared from Dembski's blog!

Apparently shooting half of the ID crowd in the back hasn't gone over well.

Next they'll claim it never happened.

I'm currently looking for someone with a cached version. Further bulletins as events warrant...

[Savonarola]

A crude but accurate copy can be found here.

It is hard to follow the comments (which were interspersed with (presumably) DaveScot's replies), but the original post says all you need to know.

[Doug]

DaveScot," William Dembski's right hand man, has emphasized that "nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor." [emphasis original!]
This in itself is yet another victory for science.

DOUG
Even if they later take the "limited common descent" route, this is a major departure from standard creationism.

Up to this point, ID was pretty much compatible with standard creationism, but if this splits the creationist camp, this could be a major blow to their side by simply dividing their numbers, in addition to the clear concessions to evolution.

[Savonarola]

It would appear that Dembski has jumped into Damage Control mode. Here's the post where he tries to salvage whatever he can:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747

[Doug]

DOUG
The creationists are going to go after Dembski big time, I predict. I suspect that he's going to really catch some heat for attempting (perhaps successfully?) to take the ID movement in the direction of conceding common descent.

Start looking for "Dembski = Satan" sermons, coming soon.

[Savonarola]

I disagree, Doug. You have to remember, these people don't think rationally. Rather than blast Dembski for being soft, they're loving him for being soft (i.e. backpedaling) enough to open the flaps to the big tent again. It's DaveScot who is getting the thrashing.

If you read the "follow-up" blog entry linked above as well as the Panda's Thumb article referenced in the OP, you'll be able to see the calculated, intended ambiguity in Dembski's and Meyer's statements.

Translation: "Screw science, let's pander to the crowd."

[Doug]

DOUG says:
You have a point, Sav. But there will always be the hardliners that will resist even the smallest semblance of sanity in a theory, even in ID.

======================
From a Muslim website:
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/ ... design.php

"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions

In rejecting one false claim such as evolution, one must be very careful not to fall prey to another of Satan's snares. One of Satan's main objectives is to prevent the recognition of Allah by any means possible, and to cause people to ignore His remembrance.

There are those whom Satan has not been able to deceive with the concept of evolution. But if he can divert them in another direction, such as that of "intelligent design" he will again have achieved his end, in turning people away from remembering Allah.

How Satan manages to appear in the name of truth and causes people to deviate by obstructing truth is revealed in the Qur'an:

He [Satan] said: "By Your misguidance of me, I will lie in ambush for them on your straight path. Then I will come at them, from in front of them and behind them, from their right and from their left. You will not find most of them thankful." (Qur'an, 7:16-17)

It should be known that overturning the theory of evolution and revealing the "chance" mindset as invalid both demonstrate the existence of Allah, by Whom everything was created, and not of "intelligent design."

To say, "If there is no evolution, then there is intelligent design" is nothing less than adopting yet another false idol to replace the one of evolution.

========

[Savonarola]

For anyone who's interested, here's the infidels thread on this Harun Yahya bit.

[Doug]

DOUG
I followed Sav's link to the IIDB on the Islamic guy who hates ID. He's a dishonest one himself. One poster, MrDarwin, had this to say:

===========
Quote from Harun Yahya:
Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a ?primitive whale,? even though they actually only found a skull.

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.

MrDarwin writes:
Unfortunately for Harun Yahya, he's the one living in a fantasy world--or maybe he's just dishonest. Or possibly incredibly stupid. Maybe even all of the above! When I checked the original publication I found that the fossils of Pakicetus, which Harun Yahya asserts over and over was "clearly a land dweller", were found in alluvial sediments, in association with fossils of aquatic (not terrestrial) snails, turtles, and crocodiles. Note that to support his claims he conveniently leaves out any mention of alluvial sediments, changes "turtles" to "tortoises" and asserts that snails and crocodiles are terrestrial animals!
===========