The state of ID/YECism here at EvC

ID is bigger than the Discovery Institute. I first heard the term Intelligent Design back in 1988, to give you a clue, long before Behe published his book. It has gathered steam, and the guys you mentioned have been in the forefront, but by no means are the only people out there.The truth is there is a lot more going on than is readily available on the web, and since IDers and creationists are very suspicious, and rightly so, of publishing in evo journals (I think peer-review when it comes to evolution is total crap), there is a lot you don't hear, and may not hear about until someone publishes a book or some articles and studies.That doesn't mean I think the Discovery Institute is wrong or anything. I think they are doing great work, but they are not the whole of the intellectual and scientific movement, as you will see in the coming years.

ID preceded those guys and will be around long after they are gone. It's funny because you guys insist I have been influenced by Wells when, in fact, I have very little of Wells, except maybe his peppered moth articles.I first heard about ID in 1988. It's been around longer than you guys realize, and will be around for a long time, and will eventually supplant some evo ideas.

It's been around longer than you realize, too. I first read about ID in the 1960's when I read an account of Paley's famous watch analogy, composed back in 1802. The recent trial in Dover traced ID's origins back even further, to Saint Augustine, I believe.--Percy

Most evos here:1. Were unaware of the influence of Haeckel's forgeries and the significance of his data for evolutionary theory. They just accepted bogus claims. According to Richardson's 1997 study, it appears most evolutionist scientists working in the field accepted Haeckel's data as well. Basically, evos accepted uncritically the claims of a phylotypic stage.2. Evos don't appear to even realize that had the claims of a phylotypic stage been true (they are not), it would have been evidence against evolution, not for it. The reason is the hourglass model of a conserved stage, not at the beginning nor end, but in the middle conflicts with the concept of evolution. The fact species differ widely at the earliest stages makes claims of homology based on temporary "vestigal" appearances at later stages false, but most evos never seem to get that.3. Evos often don't understand that creationism and ID embrace speciation and microevolution.4. Evos have never substantiated their claims of fossil rarity in respect with species as a whole, but merely assert the claim.It's probably off-topic, but there are whole threads on this stuff. Look around and you can get all the evidence you need to show evos don't understand a lot of what they are claiming.

Well OK. So the idea that whatever Behe and some guys leading the way now are doing is the totality of ID is incorrect.

Percy, I refer to your comment as buffonery to be nice, and assume it is a mental lapse rather than an intentional lie, considering you have no reason to refer to me as a YECer.That doesn't mean I think badly of YECers, as I do of mainstream evolutionism, but the simple point of the matter is I am not a YECer, and I think you know that.

Every conversation, every thread the same tired old arguments

If you'd like to give a clear statement of what you believe, then go ahead. So far you've been closed and secretive. All I have to go on so far is your claim that the real world is consistent with the Biblical accounts of creation. This is a YEC position, so if you don't want people to assume you're a YEC then it is encumbent upon you to be more forthcoming about your views.--Percy

It's not how far back ID goes, it is the fact that Behe and Dembski are intellectual leaders in the ID movement. If you aren't familiar with their work, you aren't that familiar with ID.Your posts often resemble Wells both in content and in the tactics.And I certainly hope that ID is not around for much longer. The ID movement is dedicated to using political power to misrepresent and distort science. I would think that any person who is genuinely concerned with honesty - rather than in smearing opponents - would agree with me.o

So who are the leaders in the ID movement?Or is that a secret?You claim these men dont fully represent ID, but you dont give us a clue who does. Other than some crytic thing about they keep all their work to themselves. Seems pretty bogus to me.

Percy, I've gone on record ad nauseum here. You just don't like it because your position is weak, and mine is not. Uh wrong. I have stated my position previously to you that as far as I am concerned the biblical account is consistent with YEC, ID, and evolution because the biblical account is not specific enough to discount any of these models on it's own, except for the random and atheist conclusions of ToE, but you say evolution can be true without atheism. So assuming that, I don't see the biblical record as inconsistent with any of these basic models.My position is that the scientific data, however, is inconsistent with evolutionary models, and so I think an ID model would best explain the evidence. I am not dogmatic about any one particular model. I think that an answer of we don't know yet is preferable to giving a blatantly false answer. Unlike evos it seems, I don't have a psychological need for an explanation, but prefer to go over the data in detail and see what it does and does not state before drawing any conclusions.I don't see the fossil data as supportive of evolutionary models, and for that reason, I think evo models need to be abandoned or seriously revised.There is no secretive aspect to me here at all. The beliefs above have been repeated over and over by me. You are merely slandering me, and imo, for no good reason.

They may be "leaders" at present, but just like there are lots of evos besides, say, Dawkins, that are not as militantly atheist, etc,...in their views, there is a wider range of ID scientists as well.I suspect, just as in evolutionism, newer "leaders" will emerge based on their work, and I think some ID scientists have published in journals concerning adaptive mutations being governed by quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics. If those claims turn out to be true, some of those scientists and others may then be considered "leaders."But there is a difference between spokespersons for a movement and advocates for a movement and scientists developing specific theories within a movement. I think you will see a great many of the latter regardless of who occupies the former.

That'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Pose yourself as an expert on anything you wish, as long as it is not an expert on me, okay?I didn't hear of ID until around 2001. I discovered it from two different angles, one of which was preparations for a documentary. At that point I began reading literature, lots of literature. Most of it was offline. It was from many many other writers than Behe and Dembski and Wells.I most often refer to those three as they are the leading published proponents of organized ID theory. If you want to debate that, you provide refs which suggest otherwise. But you know and I know that these guys were the lead authors for the ID movement. The reason was that Dembski was a professional mathematician and Behe a biologist, who were working on and closest to a positive theory or methodology rather than just critiques... which have been going on forever.This gave them credibility and the proposed "theory" an apparent weight beyond mere assertion. Others have been riding on their coattails with greater emphasis on design in physics and astronomy. Unfortunately none of those are as concrete or as important if one wants to challenge and replace evolutionary theory. Its true, they are not. However they are the ones which spearheaded this revival and was one of the better shots creos had. How will I see anything in coming years if THIS is the prevailing attitude of IDers and Creos? You know I've never known an actual scientist who was "suspicious" of publishers to the point that they didn't actually try and submit something if they felt it had merit.Pasteur was against the establishment and he was oppressed, but he managed to keep working and develop bodies of evidence that were incontrovertible. Why is this a problem for creos and IDers?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes it is. THat ID should rely so heavily on spin and personal attacks while trying to pretend that that is what their opponents do would be funny if it wasn't sad.But the facts are that part of the point of ID is to try tpo get their ideas into science classes in the u.s> And to do that their ideas have to qualify as science.. But the ID movement is opposed to actually being scientific. So what else can they do ? Doishonesty and politics have to be their major weapons because they can't get what they want any other way.u