DI is celebrating 20 years of Intelligent Design . . . Why?

Here are the stated 20-year goals of the Discovery Institute (DI):

It's a little blurry, but I think you can make them out.  The reason I bring this up is because of this post from the DI: "Intelligent Design -- The Future! Join Us on August 12 to Celebrate 20 Years of Advancing Science and Culture".  I have to ask, what do they have to celebrate?

Look at the goals again, and it certainly leads to these questions:

• Is Intelligent Design the dominant perspective in science?
• Is design 'theory' being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences?
• Does design 'theory' permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life?

Can anyone honestly answer 'yes' to any of these?  I know the DI will be placing some spin about how incredible the last 20 years have been, but have they achieved any of their goals?  That answer is not just no, a resounding No!

So one more question, what are they celebrating?  Twenty years of soliciting money from other people while continually failing?  Twenty years of refusing to perform any actual science?  Twenty years of publishing pseudo-scientific books and articles while failing to understand why no one in science takes them seriously? That might sounds kinda mean, but come on . . . what have they achieved?

Let's take a look at another set of goals, these are their five-year goals:

So now I have to ask:

• Is Intelligent Design an accepted alternative and is there any actual scientific research being done form the perspective of 'design' theory?
• Is design theory influencing any spheres other than natural sciences?  For that matter, is it actually influencing natural sciences?
• Are there major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda?

Of these three, the only one you might be able to rationalize a 'yes' to is the second one.  But it would be a stretch.  Because the way 'design theory' is influencing natural science, or any other 'sphere', is in a negative way.  Has 'design theory' been used to develop any new scientific theories?  Has it been used to develop new medicines?  Has it been used in anything other than a continuation of the cultural debate that keeps springing up periodically when theists' religious beliefs feel threatened?  No, not at all!  So what does an organization who failed to reach any of their five-year goals in 20 years have to celebrate?

Here is the future, as I see it.  Since ID has been a failure in everything but raising funds for the DI, it's got to be time to replace it with something else.  Something that sounds even more 'science-y' and might have less of a close and personal relationship with Creationism.  

After all wasn't Creationism replaced by 'Creation Science' in an effort to convince some people that there was some rational basis for their religious beliefs?  Creation Science came around after Creationists started losing court cases (1968 Epperson v. Arkansas being the first big one).  And after 'Creation Science' lost it's big court challenge (1982  McLean v. Arkansas) it gave way to the more modern version of Creationism, Intelligent Design. Now if you look at a calendar, we find that losing a court case in 1982, it was 14 years before the establishment of the DI and the heavy marketing of ID. It's now been 11 years since ID lost it's big court case (2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), so shouldn't the DI be planning for their next pseudo-scientific idea?

I mean that ill-fitting lab coat has got to be wearing a bit thin, so I would suggest keeping the celebrating to a minimum, you might rip it and expose the priestly garments you try and hide.

More desertions from the DI

Aww, the Discovery Institute is losing one of their most . . . hmmm, well I can't say 'effective' . . . so what word best describes little casey luskin?  How about 'prolific', yea, that's the ticket.  The DI is losing one of their most prolific members.  Here is little casey's announcement on Evolution 'news' and Views:

"It is with a mixture of sadness and excitement that I write this to announce that, as the year 2015 closes, I am leaving Discovery Institute. I am doing so in order to fulfill a lifelong goal of furthering my studies. My colleagues, who entirely support this decision, are people of the utmost integrity and they have been incredibly generous and welcoming to me and my family. I know we will miss each other. Working here over the past ten years has been a wonderful experience for which I am extremely grateful. It has taught me an immense amount"(Big Announcement, and Reflections on a Great Decade")

One of the lines that left me practically speechless was the line after that opening paragraph:

"One of the biggest things I've learned is that the truth doesn't always win out in the short term, but it does in the longer term."

I am a little surprised that casey could get this out with a straight face.  But then the DI has said many things  that should never be taken at face value, and this is one of them.  In my opinion, casey hasn't learned much, or he would have disassociated himself from the DI long ago.  It does, however, explain the abject failure of the DI to achieve any of it's goals.  Check out the goals from their Wedge Document and see how many they have achieved? 

Governing Goals:

• Have they replaced "Materialism"?  
• Have they replaces materialistic explanations with theistically friendly ones?

Five-Year Goals:

• Is Intelligent Design an accepted alternative and are there any actual scientific research being done form the perspective on 'design' theory?
• If design theory influences any spheres other than natural sciences?
• Are there major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda?

Twenty-Year Goals:

• Is Intelligent Design the dominant perspective in science?
• Is design 'theory' being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences?
• Does design 'theory' permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life?

While little casey hasn't been there since the beginning, his contributions over the last decade certainly didn't help achieve any of their goals.  It's easy to say because they have yet to achieve any of them, and that have been at this for 20 years.

While they might have considered getting invited to Texas to 'help' Creationist Don McLeroy fight off the influence of scientists on science, or helping draft the poorly names 'Louisiana Science Education Act' as wins.  Can anyone really look back at the last decade since the Dover decision as anything but a win for the truth?  Only the most delusional, or the ones with the biggest axe to grind for their religious beliefs.

Well, I for one will miss little casey luskin.  I mean he could always be counted on for a little levity, especially when he tried so often to deny the religious basis of the Discovery Institute and their pet version of Creationism, Intelligent Design.  He's come a long way since handing out press releases no one wanted at the Dover trials to helping set-up Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) centers are several colleges -- which seems to have fallen by the wayside since their last press release was June of 2014 -- to his constant ENV posts.  But alas, he's moving on.  Hopefully he will leave his Biblically-colored glasses back with the DI and actually learn something. 

Good luck little casey!  For some reason I am sure we haven't heard the last of you.  Besides, once you get a PhD, maybe Answers in Genesis will be hiring!  You can call yourself a 'Creation Scientist' and be one of kennie ham's Hamians, and provide us years of humor.