Professor Ken Miller, who is famous for being the lead expert witness against Intelligent Design at the Dover Trial, has recently proposed that scientists reclaim the word “Design” from the ID movement (ie., the Creationists).

You can listen yourself to his argument for semantic reclamation here in a short discussion he had with James Randerson. I’ve also transcribed a couple of the most relevant quotes here:

ID proponents argue that we can see the hint of design in nature and they use that as evidence against evolution. And that puts scientists in a position of arguing that there is no design in nature — that nature is somehow capricious, arbitrary, random, pointless. Well there is design in nature and we should take that word away from the ID movement and define it in a scientific sense….

Yes design is real but that design emerges from the evolutionary process and the laws of physics and chemistry.

Personally, I couldn’t agree more. I really like the sound of Emergent Design. Others in comments on PZ Myer’s post have suggested Natural Design or Evolutionary Design or the longer Evolutionary Emergent Design which may work too. However, I prefer the term Emergent Design because I think it sounds better and it can contain more meaning: Emergent Design can also cover such emergent patterns such as evolutionary programming, fractals, Mandelbrot, etc.

PZ Myers, of the ScienceBlog Pharyngula, doesn’t agree with Ken Miller on this:

Look at all the flailings about over the word “theory”; lay people will hear that word being used by scientists and conclude that the creationists must have been right all along long before they get around to remapping their mental connections to design.

Another problem is of even greater concern. The word “design” carries other implications: purpose, planning, calculation. These are not present in evolution!

PZ Myer’s first argument is that it will just give creationists another means to twist our words. And his second argument is that this new use of design differs from current usage. Neither of these arguments are really valid when discussing the pros and cons of semantic reclamation.

Every time a word is reclaimed it is always the dirty word that everyone shies away from. The words are purposefully being twisted from their traditional meanings. Of course, some terms are not so much reclaimed as empowered such as Black and Gay; however, there are several examples of successful semantic reclamations:

• Punk, something or someone worthless or unimportant; a young hoodlum, becomes the proud Punk rock; and now gets transformed further to a suffix that means a style or movement characterized by the adoption of aggressively unconventional and often bizarre or shocking in both fashion and attitude.
• Queer, disparaging term for homosexuals in the sense of effeminate or unmanly, becomes the proud Queer embracing all who deviate from sexual/gender stereotypes; to now transform and mainstream even further with “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
• Dyke, used disparagingly by many, but like Punk and Queer it is now used proudly by the many of the same people it meant to insult.

Of course, one could point out that the hip hop cultural use of nigger, bitch, and ho haven’t really been all that successfully reclaimed. However, those terms are still also used negatively within the hip hop culture, which makes it hard for these terms to ever take on a new positive meaning.

What does this all have to do with Intelligent Design you might say? Well in this instance, Design isn’t used exactly as an insult, but it is being used as a means of attack. As a result, it has become the dirty word that scientists must shy away from. By being afraid to use the word Design, we are reinforcing the meaning that ID proponents want it to mean. We are empowering it for them not us.

Ken Miller is right. Anyone who looks at nature can plainly see pattern and design. By allowing the ID camp a monopoly on the word Design we are allowing all perceived design to be a win for the creationists. By instead reclaiming Design as Emergent Design we are reclaiming it and empowering it for ourselves.

Ben Stein is flashing some skin for the new Intelligent Design propaganda documentary film “Expelled.”

He’s the film’s mascot and showman as evidenced by the movie’s slick hyperbole filled website. With his bare knees, grotesquely enlarged head, and sour expression, Stein manages to permanently ruin the school uniform fetish for anyone who isn’t a 60 year old Nixon speech writer.

Oh, gotta love the Big Science logo they created (see it waving on the flag on the website) with the globe, book, and the lock, and the slogan “No Intelligence Allowed.” Their marketers and designers are really good! (and they’ve probably played too much of the game Bully)

There’s obviously a decent bit of cash behind this film. The website is slick as is the trailer, and it’s being promoted by Motive, the people behind Gibson’s Passion of the Christ marketing blitz. This isn’t another nutjob with a movie camera, we’re looking at a full out well-crafted propaganda film that stands to revitalize the ID movement left bruised after the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case.

This time they’re coming at it with the free speech angle so beloved by the right wing crowd as of late — as evidenced by Ben Stein’s megaphone and the graffiti font. As The Bad Idea Blog states, “Considering the audience and marketing, the focus of the film is savvy: almost entirely on the meta-issue of the alleged intellectual suppression of ideas, complete with folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as the bogeymen getting ready to man the gulags.”

The movie will probably be full of hyperbole, re-edited hidden-agenda interviews, and outright lies. PZ Myers of Pharyngula will be probably be seen in the movie as he was interviewed earlier this year by Mark Mathis, the associate producer of Expelled, who lied about the title and nature of the film. What we’re looking at is Ben Stein as a conservative Michael Moore, but probably with even less fact-checking.

Sadly, the movie is probably going to go over well with it’s target audience, and it’ll probably sway over a bunch of people who could have cared less before. This renewed push will probably result in more stupid ID legislation and more IDiots being elected to local school boards. Intelligent Design is bankrupt without anything to hold it up scientifically, but the facts didn’t stand in the way of our President’s case for war.

The fight with ID obviously isn’t over yet. One day, it may finally fizzle out as public opinion grows tried of it — I’ll rejoice when that day comes — but in the mean time our bedraggled academic system continues to have to waste it’s time and resources battling ID’s incessant PR machine.