Behe’s ideas have been rejected by his colleagues; it seems those ideas were also the subject of a public forum at his university, with essays on the issue available online.

During the fall semester, a Chaplain’s Forum held on campus to offer differing perspectives on the contentious issue drew a standing-room-only crowd. The six faculty members who participated addressed the implications of intelligent design for science and for religion. This series of essays, which grew out of the Lehigh forum, is intended to shed light on an issue that all too often engenders only heat.

Behe’s essay is the only one that defends ID, and it’s more of the usual nonsense from the Church of the Butt Propellor^*, an argument from incredulity in which he brings up both Paley’s watch and the bacterial “outboard motor”. (Does he think if he calls the flagellum an “outboard motor” enough, he’ll fool everyone into thinking it was manufactured by Evinrude?)

The other five all dismiss it, even the one from the university’s chaplain.

(via A Concerned Scientist)

^*“Church of the Butt Propellor” is my new favorite name for the Discovery Institute and their minions (here’s the source).

Here’s a fascinating glimpse of history for those involved in the creation wars: the Seattle Weekly has published scans of the original Wedge document from the Discovery Institute. Now you too can see it in it’s original cheap-ass photocopied glory, and also learn who leaked the documents…two people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

The paper also has an account of how the Wedge was revealed. I didn’t know this part of it at all, and I have to thank Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes for casually breaking the rules of their firm (I presume!) and exposing this remarkably pompous, dishonest, contemptible document to the world.

The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings “TOP SECRET” and “NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.” Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge.

Curious, Duss rifled through the 10 or so pages, eyebrows rising ever higher, then proceeded to execute his commission while reserving a copy of the treatise for himself. Within a week, he had shared his find with a friend who shared his interest in questions of evolution, ideology, and the propagation of ideas. Unlike Duss, the friend, Tim Rhodes, was technically savvy, and it took him little time to scan the document and post it to the World Wide Web, where it first appeared on Feb. 5, 1999.

The unnamed author of the document wasted no time getting down to his subject. “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Yet little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science.” Such thinkers as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and, above all, Charles Darwin promulgated a “materialistic conception of reality” that “eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and music.”

Not content with bewailing the intelligentsia’s falling away from faith, the author proposed to do something about it. “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies,” he wrote. He went on to detail a 20-year plan to replace “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God,” and to replace materialist science with a new scientific paradigm “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

Also, Pim van Meurs dug up Tim Rhodes’ original announcement, and Matt Duss has a weblog.

---

I much prefer reading these things as pdfs, so I’ve converted it. Here you go, download your very own copy of the Wedge document (540KB pdf).

We’re getting signs that the Discovery Institute is going to be shifting their strategy a little bit.

Thoughts from Kansas has an excellent discussion of the subject. Basically, they’re going to embrace more of the actual science, and focus their dispute on finer and finer points. What does this mean? Common descent is now in.

DaveScot on Bill Dembski’s blog (TfK has the link) has a bit of a rant on it—he’s going to kick out anyone who questions the idea of common descent, and goes on and on about how denying common ancestry is a religious idea that goes against all of the scientific evidence, and therefore must be purged if ID is to achieve any status as an actual scientific idea.

As Josh documents, though, they’ve got a long list of ID advocates on the record at the Kansas hearings denying common descent: Angus Menuge, Nancy Bryson, Ed Peltzer, Russell Carlson, Warren Nord, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Charles Thaxton, and Stephen Meyer are all quoted as rejecting it to various degrees, and ironically, Dembski’s blog is titled “Uncommon Descent”. The commenters at that blog are also frantically tossing up quotes from their heroes, such as Dembski’s own “Intelligent design therefore throws common descent itself into question…”—obviously, common descent has been an obstacle to them in the past.

If you’re familiar with DaveScot, though, you’re probably thinking, “DaveScot is a deranged lunatic—he shouldn’t be regarded as a bellwether for the ID movement!” I agree, and given that so many notables in the movement have rejected common descent, he does seem to be an outlier.

Except…

Stephen Meyer has an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News today. This is the Stephen Meyer who claims to be one of the “architects of Intelligent Design”, Stephen Meyer the Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, the Stephen Meyer who, when asked whether he accepted the principle of common descent, said:

I won’t answer that question as a yes or no. I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak.

Today, though, Meyer declares that ID has no complaint with common ancestry.

The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

That does sound a little bit like we have a new party line emerging. They are going to accept all of the science except that they are going to insist that there is also an additional guiding force than selection. In order to do that, though, they’re also going to have to find some evidence for this mysterious force, and since they’re still calling it an intelligent directing force, they’re going to have to try harder to back up this specific claim, if they actually plan to carry through and focus on this one point.

Meyer’s op-ed, though, shows no sign of that. Instead, as usual, he falls back on the old argument from incredulity, making the same old analogies and comparing cells to cars and computer programs.

Over the last 25 years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells – complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

He repeatedly claims that ID is based on scientific evidence, but fails to provide any—saying it “looks like” something designed is not evidence, especially when the basis for that appearance is nothing but overwrought and fallacious metaphors. Sorry, Stephen, you are confusing the computer-generated illustrations of the flagellum, which are all shiny smooth flat and curved surfaces with pseudocolor and ray-traced reflections, with the reality, which consists of coarse-grained polymers and stochastic chemical processes. Mazda may use CAD, but cells do not.

My bold prediction: this strategy can only further marginalize ID. The grassroots that support ID now are largely the same people who supported old-school creationism, who don’t like being told their ancestors were apes, and they’re going to be explicitly cut off by this policy. Bye-bye, base. At the same time, they aren’t going to acquire any new supporters among scientists: focusing on a narrower, more precise set of ideas is usually a good idea, but it will also focus attention on the dearth of evidence supporting it.

I suspect this is a poorly thought-out trial balloon that’s going to thud right into the ground. Expect further backtracking and denials soon.

---

“Soon” means within a day. The post by DaveScot has been “disappeared” already, and I expect he will be erased from all of the Official Party Photographs soon.

John Lynch catches Dembski getting all breathless about a class in Switzerland that includes a lecture on ID. Big whoop, John says, he teaches it, too.

So do I. Why wasn’t Dembski announcing this glorious victory last semester, when I mentioned it on Pharyngula?

Maybe it’s because when ID is discussed in a science class, it’s to rip it apart.

I was not alone in receiving a silly survey from an ID creationist: Tara, Mike, John, and Wesley all got it, and all rejected its premise. I’m joining in the universal dismissal. If you’re curious, I’ve put the “survey” below the fold, but here’s my answer.

1. A. Insert thumbs in ears.
2. B. Flap hands.
3. C. Cross eyes.
4. D. Make loud raspberry sound.

P.S. Now the guy is whining that the “defenders of science” refuse to participate in his “scientific” survey, failing to note that our complaint is that it is not scientific in any way…and as expected, he’s turning any response into an excuse to berate his pro-science sample.

[Read more…]

I guess I’m not the only fan of the weirdness that is Jim Pinkoski—another collection of Pinkoskisms has been unearthed at Ooblog.

Darksyde’s “Know your creationists” series on Daily Kos has become a “Know your friends” edition today, with a profile of Wesley Elsberry of the NCSE.