Dembski 2002: Objective Measures of Progress in ID

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

Is intelligent design’s appeal international? Does it cross religious boundaries?

On this, I think ID has been successful.

@swamidass

Are we trying to get our ideas into the scientific mainstream? Are we continuing to plug away at getting our work published in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature (despite the deck being stacked against us)? Or are we seeking safe havens where we can publish our work easily, yet mainly for the benefit of each other?

At the moment, I think they have given up on this. It appears like this was a failure. Though, they are not even publishing much in safe-havens.

@swamidass

Are we holding ourselves to high intellectual standards? Are we in the least self-critical about our work? Are we sober or immodest about our work? Do we demand precision and rigor from our each other? Do we examine each other’s work with intense critical scrutiny and speak our minds freely in assessing it? Or do we try to keep all our interactions civil, gentlemanly, and diplomatic (perhaps so as not to give the appearance of dissension in our ranks)?

This has been disappointing. More than once, ID proponents have confided that they think specific ID arguments are really bad. Very rarely, if ever, do any of them come out publicly against ID arguments. Why not? @pnelson and @Agauger, why is this? How are you working to fix this problem?

@swamidass

Does the mood of our movement alternate between the smug and the indignant – smug when we hold the upper hand, indignant when we are criticized? Do we react to adverse criticism like first-time novelists who are dismayed to discover that their masterpiece has been trashed by the critics? Or do we take adverse criticism as an occasion for tightening and improving our work?

Here it seems mixed. To their credit, this is not what I see from @Agauger and @pnelson. From others, however, that is exactly how the movement is described. How are you guys working to fix this problem?

@swamidass

Have we become boring? Have we run out of things to say? Is the fount of fresh ideas drying up? Are we constantly repeating ourselves? Are people who once were excited about what we’re doing no longer excited?

For the most part, it seems that ID is rehashing the same arguments, as @Art noted here: Examining "Darwin's Doubt" - #66 by Art. However, I think it is important that some of @Agauger’s work brought forward important questions that ended up increasing our knowledge. Her work, however, did not have anything to do with design.

@swamidass

Are we continually attracting new talent to intelligent design’s scientific research program? Does that talent include intellects of the highest caliber?

@swamidass

Do the same names associated with intelligent design keep coming up in print or are we constantly adding new names?

Generally speaking, “no”. However, Gunter Bechly is an interesting case, and so is Anthony Flew, and maybe (if he is associated) Richard Buggs. These are all real talent. However, they are also very much the exception, not the rule

@swamidass

What about talent that’s been with the movement in the past? Is it staying with the movement or becoming disillusioned and aligning itself elsewhere?

There seems to be major hemorrhaging here. Dembski himself is no longer with ID. A whole generation of Christians in science grew up in ID, and most of us left ID when we encountered science. I am an example of that trend. I suppose someone could argue that I am not “talented”, but I hope not.

---

My overall verdict? Negative with some bright spots. It would be encouraging if ID actually remembered these goals and returned to them. Perhaps they might build credibility by putting to death their bad ideas, and engaging more deeply with their scientific critics.