Read it here now! ID’s MOST dangerous innovation

At Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design, computer guy Tom English pinpoints what, to him is “The most dangerous innovation of ID creationism” (January 11, 2011),

So what is the most dangerous innovation of ID creationism? The movement stopped trying to overturn methodological naturalism, and adopted a new perspective on the nature of nature. The physical Universe is now comprised not just of matter and energy, but also of information. There is conservation of mass-energy, but not of information, which is created (only) by non-material intelligence. Six years ago, the design inference was to non-natural (i.e., supernatural) cause, and mainstream scientists were denigrated as naturalists. Now intelligent design is a non-material, though natural, cause, and mainstream scientists are denigrated as materialists.

The change in ontology makes IDC much more slippery than it was in Kitzmiller. On a verbal level, IDC has stepped entirely within naturalism. It does not obviously appeal to supernatural explanations. Many physicists accept the notion that information is in some sense physical. Thus it is much harder today than it was six years ago to argue that IDC is not science and that teaching of IDC as science does not serve a secular purpose.

Oh, so now you must focus on the issues, Tom? Can Darwinism create information?

Better go back to “It’s all a plot,” I suppose.

English’s understanding seems to be all mixed up but never mind. He got half of one thing right; I keep missing which half.

Thought for the week: Imagine no re-smidgeon ...

No more smidgeons of evidence puffed up and blazoned everywhere, then retakes and this-time-it's-trues, all in the glorious cause of lighting a shining path to the future - endless worship at Darwin's shrine!

This Tiktaalik story, for example, mainly shows how much hasty-wrong-conclusion evolutionary science is simply a Darwin cult (too bad the cult practises human sacrifice too).

Skinny: "Missing link "Tiktaalik was actually Johnny come lately, the new kid in town.

So where are the fish that turned into tetrapods? According to Nature, they must exist in the "'ghost range' — that is, a period of time during which members of the groups should have been present but for which no body fossils have yet been found." Shubin's arguments that these fossils confirm a "specific prediction" of evolution appear to have been wrong. (But don't expect a correction from PBS anytime soon.)

No, because the yuppie public believes, and what else matters?

What if we just "Dimenticare Darwin", as geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti advised (= forget the guy; he's past tense). How much mental energy would be freed from defending the ol' Brit toff from racism and wrong predictions and such, and put toward figuring out what really happened?