A few years ago I worked as tech support for an internet provider. After being there for a year and a half's worth of steady paychecks, I was suddenly informed by HR that they could no longer write my checks out to the name on my bank account because my SS card had a different name first.

I argued that the middle name on that SS card is the name on my bank account as well as the name on my birth certificate and I can use any of the names I've got if I so choose. They told me I'd have to take time off work - unpaid - to go sit at the SS office all day to get the names switched around to suit their new policy, supposedly imposed by Homeland Security. Being not very tolerant of pointless corporate/governmental stupidity, I told 'em to shove their silly policy on which of my legal names I can choose to have on my paycheck - they didn't pay me enough for that sort of garbage.

What does name-changing have to do with these debates? Well, we've seen quite a few critics recently who want to know why it is that TTers who aren't part of the DI and aren't 'Creo-bots' would still call what they're talking about "Intelligent Design." And their questions have been repeatedly answered by pointing out that it wouldn't do us any good to change the name of the approach to biology and evolution, because these very same critics - as well as hoards of others - would still claim we're part of the DI, support "The Wedge" and *are* Creo-bots. What would be the point?
Read the rest of this entry »

After watching as a number of threads descended into chaos from interesting starts, an underlying oddity seems to beg attention from the fisticuffs over word usage that has become so prevalent of late. In the Post-Wedge World the perennial dueling metaphysics hasn't waned one bit, but something new has come to the fore.

We've been mixing it up with a commenter who calls himself "aiguy" to identify with the field of computer science called "Artificial Intelligence." It would appear that he has a problem with ID's use of the word "Intelligent" to describe its focus. Aiguy tells us that we have no definition of intelligence for either AI or ID, but he wants ID to drop the term anyway, perhaps so he can feel better about the use of it in his own discipline of science. Who knows?

If it were just this one critic who was bent by the terminology it would just be a single critic with a single issue about terminology. Instead, aiguy is just the latest in a string of critics who have lodged complaints in recent months about ID's use of the word "Intelligent" and insisted that it be dropped from the lexicon.

It strikes me that with such universal focus on the word - whether the complaint is that it's a metaphysical concept or an ill-defined term - the 'other' word has slipped under the radar into mainstream usage. Is it now okay to speak of biological systems in terms of "Design" so long as "Intelligent" isn't attached?

Even though we live in the post-wedge world, some people remain confused about this. They think a truly post-wedge world is one where we would all be non-teleologists and there would be no creationists trying to influence the public school curriculum. But the post-wedge world is not someone's fantasy; it exists as a consequence of a court ruling. Even Wesley Elsberry helps us to appreciate the true essence of the post-wedge world:

Some people thought the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case put paid to antievolution. What it did, and did well, was to blunt the "intelligent design" label, such that it could no longer be the leading edge of the "wedge". But antievolution goes on, seeking to stuff as many of its old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments as possible into science classrooms. (emphasis added)

Indeed. Thanks to the Dover decision, ID has been cut away from "the wedge" and this explains the essence of the post-wedge world. From the perspective of those focused on ID, we are indeed in the post-wedge world. ID was not some peripheral component of the wedge nor was the Dover decision a trivial event. As Elsberry explains, ID can no longer be the leading edge of the "wedge." Thus, objective and reasonable people can no longer view those of us who are interested in ID, and how it relates to biology and evolution, as being part of "the wedge." In fact, if you will recall, many of the contributors to this blog applauded the outcome of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, as it constitutes an important step in considering the concept of ID divorced from the socio-political activity.

Wikipedia has an entry on the "Wedge strategy" that makes it clear ID is no longer part of "the wedge":

Moreover, wedge advocates are now disavowing their own terminology because the term "intelligent design" has become a liability for them since the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Because of the success of the Discovery Institute's public relations campaign to make "intelligent design" a household phrase, and the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that ID is essentially religious in nature more people recognize it as the religious concept of creationism. Having come closest to accomplishing getting ID into public school science classes in Kansas and Ohio where they succeeded in getting the State Board of Education to adopt ID lesson plans, intelligent design proponents advocated "teach the controversy" as a legally defensible alternative to teaching intelligent design. (emphasis added)

But we do not disavow the term "intelligent design," now do we? In fact, several times, critics, who have nothing but our best interests in mind (wink, wink), have encouraged us to disavow the term "intelligent design." Well, this Wikipedia entry should help the reader see the substance of point #4 from one of my earlier blogs.

In the post-wedge world, ID is no longer useful to those seeking to influence public school curricula and is now primarily a concept that can be used to think about biology, evolution, and origins. Since the essence of ID has always been older and deeper than any activist agenda du jour, it currently exists, and will continue to exist, just fine after having been released from "the wedge."

I finally watched the movie, Flock of Dodos. I thought it was actually quite good and filmmaker Randy Olson did a nice job of putting a human face on the sociological aspects of this whole debate. Olson, like all filmmakers, provides his own angle to the story, but it is clear to me that he makes a sincere effort to understand what is driving the cultural debate and wants to share this with his viewers.

So what is the main message that comes out of this film?

Read the rest of this entry »

We here at Telic Thoughts have applauded the "Post-Wedge World" ever since the religious motivations of school board members in Dover, Pennsylvania caused defeat of the infamous 'Wedge' strategy. Yet we are still bombarded by the wedge-centric scare mongering tactics of critics, as if Dover never happened, as if we supported teaching ID in public schools, as if we reject evolution, as if individual's metaphysical beliefs must automatically determine what is or is not science.

In the wake of their victory at Dover, the so-called 'New Atheists' have dropped all pretenses that their concerns are truly about science. They've proudly embraced the role of up-front Evangelical Atheists, thus revealing that their motivations were metaphysical all along. I applaud their new-found honesty, as this evens the public playing field significantly. And the public is certainly paying attention now that it's not just science vs. creationists arguing about educational policies in a country where religion cannot be taught as 'truth' (scientific or metaphysical) in public schools.

Read the rest of this entry »

First, it became unconstitutional to teach "creation science" in public school. Then it became unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as well. And not so long ago, even the attempt to just teach criticism of traditional evolutionary biology failed. But surely, a 16-year-old student in Russia who wanted to be exempt from being taught Darwin's theory would mark the onset of the theocracy that ID critics have been fretting about for years? No, apparently not:

A Russian court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit brought by a 16-year-old student who said that being taught the theory of evolution in school violated her rights and insulted her religious beliefs.

It's been a bad week for threatiness. First, the Kansas State Board of Education overturned previous standards written in part by advocates of intelligent design. Second, it turns out the despite all the heated misinformation from the critics, the USA leads the world in science literacy.

And now this?

Read the rest of this entry »

Thanks to the news in Kansas, it's getting harder and harder for extremist ID critics to hide their extremism.

Remember all that hysteria about armies of creationists using ID as a Trojan Horse to install a theocracy? I think its time to put that threatiness to bed:

In a landmark vote Tuesday, the Kansas State Board of Education once again adopted science standards regarding instruction in evolution.

The new guidelines reflect an overturn of previous standards, written in part by advocates of "intelligent design," that earned Kansas international ridicule in 2005.

As we move deeper and deeper into the post-wedge world, it gets harder and harder not to ridicule the threatiness that is associated with ID. I'm trying to be respectful here, as I know some people are really sincere in their fear. But at some point, I'm not sure I'll be able to control myself.

Anyway, there is something even better below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Bellon reviews Michael Ruse's book, Darwinism and its Discontents for American Scientist:

We see that evolution works worst when elevated to the status of a secular religion or otherwise subordinated to the service of extrascientific commitments. "Beware of anything that answers everything," Ruse cautions. "It usually ends by answering nothing. And that is certainly not true of Darwinism." We see that evolution works best when deployed to address tightly defined questions about the living world.

Indeed. Evolution is a compelling and well-supported way of looking at the world, which shouldn't be conflated with philosophical or political worldview that tries to piggy-back on its success. And the same goes for intelligent design. There are plenty of people interested in associating intelligent design with certain philosophical or political movements - either because they are themselves part of such movements and want to use intelligent design to support them, or because they are opposed to intelligent design and want to see it in unflattering company. But like evolution, intelligent design is an idea that isn't bound to whichever ideological cart various people are trying to chain it to.

Here's Michael Shermer writing in Science Magazine:

The data have spoken. The God Delusion is a runaway bestseller, a market testimony to the hunger many people"”far more, I now think, than polls reveal"”have for someone in a position of prestige and power to speak for them in such an eloquent voice. Dawkins's latest book deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature. (emphasis added)

The God Delusion is "an important work of science?" Isn't it odd how a popular anti-religious book, which reports no new experiments or data, and was not peer-reviewed, has become an Important Work of Science?

Have you begun to notice as we continue our transition into the post-wedge world, that the arguments used against the ID Movement are slowly being taken off the table to conveniently make room for the Anti-Religion Movement?

Read the rest of this entry »