Comment #2344

Posted by Jim Anderson on May 17, 2004 02:09 PM (e) (s)

Okay, so it’s not *directly* related, but it’s funny.  Check out http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TheRule.PDF… —”The Rule,” a one-act play that dramatizes ID’s plight in the world—in the form of a smart, innocent high school biology teacher wedged between evolutionists and ACLU lawyers.  “Treason!  Blasphemy!”  And that’s from the scientitians.

Comment #2345

Posted by Tom Curtis on May 17, 2004 02:44 PM (e) (s)

Well I looked for the author’s name on “The Rule” and to my surprise it wasn’t Jack Chick.  Wasn’t funny neither.

Tom Curtis

Comment #2347

Posted by Henry Ibsen on May 17, 2004 02:51 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, I agree with Tom.  It’s not funny.

I might take a stab at a little rewrite which touches upon the essential examination of the “who” and “why” behind these ID shenanigans.

That is fertile ground for humor, indeed.

Comment #2352

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 17, 2004 03:58 PM (e) (s)

There’s a three-act play based upon “The Rule” too…

And I have a review of it on Antievolution.org.

Comment #2364

Posted by Ben on May 17, 2004 11:08 PM (e) (s)

I can’t believe I just sat here and read that. I want back 3 minutes of my life.

Comment #2365

Posted by Wes Pearsall on May 18, 2004 01:00 AM (e) (s)

It’s just like The Crucible!

Only… really, really awful. And not at all analogous to anything actually happening today.

But at least now we know what it would look like if Arthur Miller had cast the three girls screaming “Witch!” as the heroes of the piece.

Comment #2366

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 18, 2004 04:18 AM (e) (s)

The Discovery Institute claims victory.  No mention of their puppet, Yecke, being dismissed.

Comment #2370

Posted by Jim Anderson on May 18, 2004 08:45 AM (e) (s)

Okay, so it’s only funny to the twisted, and for wasting your time, mea culpa—but it *is* similar, if not directly analogous.  The lawyer for the school district is wary of a “Pandora’s Box” being opened if biology teachers are allowed to mention (scary music here) The Rule (methodological naturalism).  Similarly, the DI claims “triumph” for allowing mere criticism of Darwinism (although I don’t see them advocating panspermia or Lamarckianism).  It’s all there in The Wedge Document.  http://www.discovery.org/csc/TopQuestions/wedgeresp.pdf…

Comment #2428

Posted by Tom Curtis on May 19, 2004 03:58 AM (e) (s)

Not directly related, but a recent minor event throws light on what ID mean by teaching the controversy.  Steve Jones, a minor player in the ID movement, has resigned from that movement at the suggestion of Philip Johnson.  Jones was a friend a Johnson, and his host when Johnson went to Perth, Western Australia.  He has also been twice acknowledged as providing help by Dembski in different books.  He was the fact checker for Denyse O’Leary’s recent book.  http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b088.htm…

In addition, his discussion list includes as members several leaders of minor ID organisations, including (I believe) Casey Luskin of the IDEA Centers, not to mention Phil Skell, probably the only member of the NAS who is friendly to the ID movement. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/754…

In a recent post, Jones wrote:

I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having
become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry
within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.

While the ID movement’s *official* position is that “intelligent design is
compatible with … God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one
great tree of life”:
…
in fact ID’s *real* position is that of the later Phil Johnson (see tagline),
which is still heavily influenced by Biblical literalism, the earlier Phil
Johnson himself in 1993 claiming that “The `evolution of human beings from
apes’ is not an unacceptable hypothesis for me”:
…
but by 2002, common ancestry for Johnson had become (or maybe always
was) “a fantastic proposition” (see tagline).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/messag…

We should treat this summary with caution.  Jones is notorious for misrepresenting, and misquoting the opinions of others.  But it does appear that in Johnson’s opinion, while believing in common descent is acceptable, actually presenting the evidence for common descent is incompatible with being a member of the ID movement.

I believe this casts an illuminating light on the ID strategy of “teaching the controversy”.

Tom Curtis

Comment #2885

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 26, 2004 05:02 AM (e) (s)

I guess accepting common descent and saying so is just too much like theistic evolution to be accommodated in ID’s “big tent”.

Comment #2930

Posted by Frank J on May 26, 2004 05:05 PM (e) (s)

Wesley,

If it were just that, Michael Behe would have “resigned” long ago. My guess is that an occasional admission of acceptance of common descent is OK at the Discovery Institute, as long as one spins enough vague arguments that the public can infer as denying it.