Pseudo-Historian Michael Flannery is in charge of 'Re-baptisms'

With the departure of little casey luskin, it seems that Michael Flannery, the Discovery Institutes's idea of a Historian, is now the Chief Re-Baptismal Officer.  He's the one who writes up which safely dead figure from history should now be treated as an Intelligent Design Advocate.  You might remember Flannery, he's the one pushing, among other things, how Darwin is responsible for Hitler and how ID is a much older line of  . . . thought . . . than even current members of the DI realize.  

Sounds weird, but we've written about this before.  How the DI has taken the Mormon technique of re-baptizing someone into the Mormon faith well after they are safely departed, regardless of whether or not they were a believer in that particular faith or not.  The way it was explained to me . . . and yes, I know this is hearsay . . . but there are certain levels within the Mormon Church you cannot reach if you are not descended from someone of the faith.  The way around that is to pick a dead relative and be a proxy for them and have them re-baptized.  Lo-and-behold, you are now descended from someone of the faith and I guess get taught the secret handshake that admits you to the 'special' mysteries.

The DI does it for less  . . . honest . . . reasons.  It's part of the Marketing plan.  I mean if Thomas Jefferson, Alfred Russel Wallace (DI's next cruel trick -- re-baptizing Alfred Russel Wallace), and even Superman were all re-baptized as ID proponents, whether they knew it or not, then it must be a valid and viable scientific theory.  Of course, the fact that the people in question, which also include James Clerk Maxwell, Abe Lincoln, and Charles Darwin himself, are all either safely dead or completely fictional, doesn't seem to matter much.  They cannot defend themselves, so obviously they are great candidates for membership in the DI.

Flannery's been playing this tune for a while and other than allowing him access the Evolution 'News' and Views for posting, even the DI doesn't seem to take him overly seriously.  This time, in "Intelligent Design Is Older Than You Think -- A Lot Older", he's playing that old standard and trying to convince us that Anaxagoras, pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, is really an ID proponent.

What we do know is that what we call the modern Intelligent Design Movement, spearheaded by those less than sharp pointy-ends of the spear, the DI, has it's history in about 1991 when Phillip E. Johnson published "Darwin on Trial". Johnson organized a few meetings, helped raise some funds and is one of the founding fathers of the DI.  No one has ever claimed the concept of ID started there, Johnson and the rest have simply dressed up the old, discredited idea in a new lab coat and started marketing like mad. Drafting Anaxagoras does nothing to establish any credibility for ID. Or maybe I should say that drafting the ancient Greek does exactly the same thing for ID's credibility as the DI's inability to defend ID in court, the lack of any scientific support, and the failure to achieve any of their 5 or 20 year goals.

I think I will add a codicil to my will, starting that under no circumstances are any of my descendants allowed to have me re-baptized into any faith, including the Mormons and the DI.  Yes, remember I like many others, do not see the DI as a scientific organization but as a religious ministry.  So I want to make sure that even when I am safely dead, the DI cannot get their clutches into me if they even still exist by then.

So far luskin and dembski have left, who's busy polishing their resume?  I bet ICR is hiring, or do they have enough lawyers and philosophers? Flannery is an adjunct professor University of Alabama at Birmingham, so he might not be in the market just yet.  But you never know,  I mean doesn't 'adjunct' basically mean it's a part-time gig and not tenured?  Ah, yes, here it is, right from the school website itself, Non-Tenure Earning Faculty Appointments:

"Adjunct should be used to designate individuals who are not full-time employees of UAB but who are appointed to the faculty of a school to perform instructional, research, and/or service functions. "

So he might be available, let's help him out . . . do you know anyone who might need a pseudo-historian?

I think the Discovery Institute has been enjoying Washington's new Marijuana Laws

That's about the only explanation I can come with to explain this 'gem' "For Your Labor Day Weekend Consideration: Alfred Wallace Russel, Scientist and Working Man".  We all know that the DI likes to re-baptize folks as some sort of Intelligent Design proponents, of course well after they are safely dead so they can't possibly defend themselves.

If you want to learn more about Alfred Wallace Russel, I certainly do not recommend anything from the DI, especially their self-published bio by Michael Flannery.  An interesting blog post was done back in 2008 by Olivia Judson:  "Wallace Should Hang".  There are many great references for the contributions, a little Googling brings up tons.  I would suggest starting with a site that I am pretty much the DI dislikes, which is always a positive reference:  "Natural Selection:  Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace Russel".

OK, why do I always seem to stall before reading DI stuff.  I guess experience would be the best reason.  It's nice and late, just a few minutes before Labor Day, so I think a good belly laugh is a great way to end the day and get a little sleep, so here goes.  For some reason they open with "impact of labor on the development of evolutionary theory" . . . which has me scratching my head.  Russel spent years collecting samples and documenting his results, as did Darwin.  What does 'labor' have to do with it?  They both worked incredibly hard.  But let me guess, will to DI try and portray Russel as working harder than Darwin?  Maybe, since they tend to canonize one while vilifying the other.

Oh for pities sake, they are claiming that since Wallace came from the middle class and Darwin had family money, OBVIOUSLY that makes Wallace better for some stupid reason.  They have a video, but is it really worth watching?  They quote their in-house 'historian' Flannery, so this looks like nothing special, just stuff they have been saying before.  One of the many negative reviews about Flannery's book was:

"If you're looking for a creationist take on evolution and Wallace, this is the book for you. This is not an in-depth biography of a complicated, wonderful person but a short treatise on why evolution must have had an intelligent designer behind it."

Under the Alfred Wallace Russel website, Flannery's book is listed not under the biographies, or scholarly work, but under the heading of 'other'.  Plus Flannery is identified as an ID proponent on the site, which would certainly be a red flag to anyone who wants to know more about Wallace.

At the end they take a swipe at a Disney movie coming out that features a young Charles Darwin.  I have to assume the movie will present Darwin in a positive light, which would annoy the DI to no end.  Since I don't expect historical accuracy from Disney movies, my expectations for such a movie would normally be pretty low, but if the DI wants to start whining about it months/years before it's released, I have to raise my expectations.  I mean anything that makes the DI act as if someone pissed in their cornflakes has got to have many redeeming features!