The Discovery Institute — or perhaps their generous patrons — may be getting impatient to see some progress in persuading the scientific community to adopt their peculiar “theory” of intelligent design. Their Wedge strategy, drafted at their inception as both a manifesto and as a fund-raising document, predicted that they would have made considerable headway by now, but their grandiose promises have all failed to materialize. See: What is the “Wedge Document”?
In what we assume is an attempt to reassure their generous patrons, Casey Luskin — our favorite creationist — has posted this at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: In the Darwin Debate, How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design? That’s a good question! Casey says, with bold font added by us:
A student emails me to ask how long it will be before the “tide turns from Darwinism to ID.” He follows the debate over intelligent design and is aware that the Darwin lobby’s rhetoric typically fails to address ID’s actual arguments (which are scientific in nature), instead focusing on personal attacks or trying to claim ID is religion. This student feels it is obvious that ID has the upper hand in the argument, but wonders when the majority opinion will also recognize this.
We strongly suspect it’s not a “student” who asked that question. It’s probably a major contributor who is wondering when he’ll see some results from all the millions he’s poured into the Discovery Institute. This is Casey’s response:
I agree that in the long-term, the position of the anti-ID lobby is simply not sustainable. You can’t keep claiming forever that ID is just “religion” or “politics” when the ID camp is producing legitimate science, and even non-ID scientists keep making discoveries that confirm the predictions of ID. Or I suppose you can keep claiming whatever you want, but it will become increasingly difficult to get people to believe you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:
What are my reasons for optimism? One of the strongest signs is that in head-to-head debates over ID and Darwinism, the ID proponent generally wins hands down.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:
In that respect, we’ve had many key intellectual victories in recent years, including:
What follows is a list of non-existent “victories.” You can click over there to see them. They include the “peer-reviewed” papers they’ve published (in their own captive journal), the cutting-edge research they’ve done (in their own captive lab), Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt, and the alleged attempts by “the Darwin lobby” to stifle criticism of “the orthodox evolutionary paradigm.” Then we’re told:
I could list many more successes, as well as ways that we could be hoping for more and doing more, but the point is this: ID has had plenty of intellectual “wins” of late, and the future is bright. The problem is that much of the public isn’t hearing about these wins for ID.
Ah, that’s the problem. They’re winning, but except for them, no one knows it. Casey explains why:
For the time being, ID critics control the microphone. They generally determine what students hear in the classroom, what the public reads in the media, and what scientists read in the journals. They can often prevent the public, students, and scientists from hearing the facts about ID. This has a major impact on the way many people perceive this debate because they can’t make a fair evaluation when they are only hearing one side of the issue, dominated by spin and caricature. This is one of the biggest obstacles facing ID.
Yes, it’s all about “control of the microphone.” But how difficult was it for special relativity to overturn Newtonian mechanics? How difficult was it for the cosmic microwave background to defeat the Steady State theory? How difficult was it for the accelerating expansion of the universe to defeat the theory that the Big Bang would eventually start slowing down and contracting because of gravity? In each case, the only thing necessary was evidence. Ah, well, moving along:
Don’t expect a revolution overnight. We are in this for the long haul, recognizing that it can take time for the truth to slip past the checkpoints that the Darwin lobby sets up to keep the public uninformed. In the end, though, I’m optimistic because the fundamentals of ID — the science underlying the inference to design in nature — are sound.
Yes, no one can deny the soundness of the Discoveroids’ methodology, which consists of pointing to something and saying: Look, look! Oooooooh, oooooooh! Design, design! And now we come to the end:
The truth will win out, though it may tarry in doing so. Or to put it another way, the tide of ID is already well on its way in. We need to focus on telling people about it.
To summarize Casey’s message: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We’re winning, really we are. Keep the money coming!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.