Mike Dunford posted Entry 1658 on November 8, 2005 05:20 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1653

Jonathan Wells just reposted an article over at ID: The Future that he wrote about a year ago. The article is a fictional account looking at the history of the ID movement from now until 2025. Here’s what Wells thinks will lead (or will have lead - I never can keep track of the right tense in these future history pieces) to the downfall of Darwinism:

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #55828

Posted by Steve S on November 8, 2005 6:34 PM (e)

Wells looks back 20 years from now. But the ID movement is almost 20 already. Let’s look back at 20 years of Real ID history.

*Dembski announces our Waterloo, then gets fired
*Behe publishes a book that was fake-peer-reviewed
*Paul Nelson laments the lack of any actual theory
*George Gilder says there isn’t any content to ID at all
*Ray Mummert sums it up: “We’ve been attacked by the educated, intelligent segment of the culture.”
*Charlie Wagner announces Nelson’s Law: Evolution can’t happen because things like evolution can’t happen.
*ID suffers minor setback when every scientific organization from the NAS to the Kenyan Institute for Advanced Lion Studies calls it a W.A.D. of crap.
*ID clubs require christianity for officership, claim no religious motivation
*ID suffers major setback when some rubes ride it into court in Pennsylvania.

While Mr. Wells daydreams of future glory, I imagine the next 20 years of ID will look more or less like the last 20 years.

Comment #55830

Posted by rb on November 8, 2005 6:43 PM (e)

Interesting that ID even has a blog called ID the future. I have decided that ID really loves to live in the past, I hereby nominate this song as IDs themes song (apologies to Jethro Tull)

Living In The Past
Happy and I’m smiling,
walk a mile to drink your water.
You know I’d love to love you,
and above you there’s no other.
We’ll go walking out
while others shout of war’s disaster.
Oh, we won’t give in,
let’s go living in the past.
Once I used to join in
every boy and girl was my friend.
Now there’s revolution, but they don’t know
what they’re fighting.
Let us close out eyes;
outside their lives go on much faster.
Oh, we won’t give in,
we’ll keep living in the past.

Comment #55835

Posted by Russell on November 8, 2005 7:06 PM (e)

Well, then. I think this is just as timely as ever: “A Look Back at the Demise of Atomic Theory”

Comment #55846

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 8, 2005 7:39 PM (e)

Waterloo !!!! Waterloo !!!! Waterloo !!!!!!

Hey Jonathan, how does “Dover” fit into your plans? (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #55855

Posted by PaulC on November 8, 2005 7:52 PM (e)

IDers have no problem finding rich backers to fund their polemic activity.

I’d love to see Wells go to these same people asking for seed capital for a biotech start-up based on ID principles. I have a feeling their spontaneous laughter would give the lie to his optimistic assessment.

Comment #55874

Posted by Andrew Mead McClure on November 8, 2005 8:12 PM (e)

I am just happy to see that Mr. Wells has finally realized that his ideas belong more in the realm of science fiction than science.

Comment #55877

Posted by bill on November 8, 2005 8:15 PM (e)

Sorry, I can’t get excited about old Wells nonsense.

Wells is less relevant than Garner Ted Armstrong, arch creationist, who at least had a radio program.

Wells who?

Id the Future? Never heard of it.

Comment #55878

Posted by Steve S on November 8, 2005 8:18 PM (e)

Let’s take a moment to look back at the last 20 years of Intelligent Design experiments:

All done.

Comment #55924

Posted by Tiax on November 8, 2005 10:20 PM (e)

Steve S wrote:

Let’s take a moment to look back at the last 20 years of Intelligent Design experiments:

All done.

You forgot the one where Behe disproved the negative claims of ID in one fell swoop!

Comment #55925

Posted by Dave Cerutti on November 8, 2005 10:20 PM (e)

Has anyone noticed that the Meyer brief is still being posted (in pieces, every few days) on the DI blog? The elephant in the room (as was before or just as the original post went up, and was pointed out immediately) is that the Meyer amicus brief was stricken from the record upon the objection of the plaintiffs. It’s like the punkass who didn’t get into Stanford but still wants to show the world what a smart guy he is, how he learned at any early age how to excepasseed in school and what a great essay he wrote about his life-changing experiences at Boy Scouts summer camp. Truly sad.

Comment #55927

Posted by dr.d. on November 8, 2005 10:37 PM (e)

Mike, for future tense of past events not yet having occurred and really not likely to happen in the known universe try Dr. Dan Streetmentioner’s, “Time Traveler’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations”, mentioned, I believe in the Guide, and note that “future perfect has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be” - D. Adams, TRATEOTU.

Comment #55986

Posted by Ron Okimoto on November 9, 2005 7:24 AM (e)

The sad thing is that before the Ohio fiasco where they had to admit that ID wasn’t science the scam artists at the Discovery Institute where pushing Wells’ book, as if it were legitimate. It turned out that they weren’t hawking the other ID junk as teachable because they had already figured out that it was all bunk and had dropped ID as the Wedge back in 1999 (according to West’s admission of a change in direction). After the Ohio rubes tried to use Wells’ bogus book and even got caught repeating some of the bogus lies out of the book in their model lesson plan, open Discovery Institute support for Wells’ book seems to have evaporated. They give all their scam artist fellows lip service, but you don’t see them touting the book anymore as being useful in the science class.

What is the most tragic thing about their fall back to dishonest scholarship like Wells puts out is that it was an admission of defeat. They found out that they didn’t have squat, so they had to go back to the standard creationist obfuscation scam, but they couldn’t tell anyone why they were obfuscating the issue. All that effort and they ended up with the worst aspect of scientific creationism without being able to talk about the creationism. They were forced to run a dishonest scam without a reason that they could admit to.

Ron Okimoto

Comment #56062

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 9, 2005 11:55 AM (e)

IDers have no problem finding rich backers to fund their polemic activity.

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is my first argument in favor of a hefty inheritance tax.

Has anyone noticed that the Meyer brief is still being posted (in pieces, every few days) on the DI blog?

Considering that IDCists are still touting the ‘Santorum amendment’, this should not be surprising.

Comment #56192

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 9, 2005 8:07 PM (e)

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is my first argument in favor of a hefty inheritance tax.

That would be Howie III. DI Sugar Daddy Howie is, IIRC, the “Jr”.

Comment #56210

Posted by Bruce McNeely on November 9, 2005 9:55 PM (e)

Interesting that ID even has a blog called ID the future. I have decided that ID really loves to live in the past, I hereby nominate this song as IDs themes song (apologies to Jethro Tull)

Living In The Past

You had better apologize! Ian Anderson, leader of JTull and songwriter, is a fierce critic of organized religion - i.e. My God - and is also a fish farmer. I doubt very much if he has any time for ID and its acolytes.

Comment #56589

Posted by brewgeek on November 11, 2005 3:29 PM (e)

What is all this ID nonsense anyway? how can a President of this fine country defend and promote such useless garbage? Scientific theory????? What science has gone into this junk? Scientology maybe? why should our educators even have to deal with this issue when they have much more important things to do. Like recess or basketweaving!!

Comment #56777

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 12, 2005 3:07 PM (e)

He HAS to, otherwise he looks like he is rejecting his extremist political base. Remember the reaction from the extreme right when he nominated Miers?

What was his response?

Scalito