Beyond the “Wedge”:Intelligent Design, Science, and Culture

Wesley R. Elsberry

Texas A&M University

The 25 year viewThere are real problems to be faced

Habitat loss and subsequent biodiversity reduction

Global climate change Biotechnology in medicine Use of GM crops in agriculture Resource assessment and management Socio-political restraints on science

Why care about “intelligent design”? “Intelligent design” is a movement which

affects science educationScience education is critical to dealing with

the problems just listedMust weigh what effect “intelligent design”

will have on the public understanding of science

The Intelligent Design MovementAnother form of antievolutionFollowed setbacks to young-earth

creationist legal effortsThe high-profile ID advocates are

creationists (sensu Phil Johnson)

What about “intelligent design”?Anti-evolutionAnti-scienceSocio-political “wedging”Primarily religious motivationPrimary ID organization: Discovery

Institute Center for Renewal of Science and Culture

“Intelligent design” and the next 25 yearsWant to know what “ID” will look like over

the next 25 years? Examine their plans

The “wedge” document Essays by DI CRSC Fellows

Watch their actions Political involvement Choice of venues for discussion

Order is importantResearch firstPolitics later

The “wedge” strategyGiven shape in the “wedge” document

Surfaced in 1999 Described as promotional material Outlines goals of the DI CRSC at 5, 10, and 20

years Same language also seen on the DI CRSC

web siteAttack the definition of science

“Naturalism” is the bogeyman

Wedge image

“Wedge” goals (quoted)GOALS

Governing Goals To defeat scientific materialism and its

destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

“Wedge” goals (quoted)Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

“Wedge” goals (quoted)Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

More “wedge” (quoted) Phase I is the essential component of everything that

comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital writing and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

More “wedge” (quoted) Phase II. The primary purpose of Phase II is to

prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. […]

More “wedge” (quoted) Other activities include production of a PBS

documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

More “wedge” (quoted) Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to

mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

Rob Koons & research

“If theistic science or intelligent design theory is to become a progressive research program, it must do more than poke holes in the evidence for Darwinism: it must acquire auxiliary hypotheses about the intentions and preferences of the designer from which we can generate specific, testable predictions and informative explanations.” (NTSE conf. Summary, 1997)

Dembski, research, & politics “Though design theorists believe Darwinism is dead wrong,

unlike the creationist movement of the 1980's, they do not try to win a place for their views by taking to the courts. Instead of pressing their case by lobbying for fair treatment acts in state legislatures (i.e., acts that oblige public schools in a given state to teach both creation and evolution in their science curricula), design theorists are much more concerned with bringing about an intellectual revolution starting from the top down. Their method is debate and persuasion. They aim to convince the intellectual elite and let the school curricula take care of themselves. By adopting this approach design theorists have enjoyed far more success in getting across their views than their creationist counterparts.” (from “What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design”)

ID and politics "The whole politicization of ID research

associated with the "Wedge“ is something from which we want to distance ourselves.“ Michael Polanyi Center, Baylor U. (from a post to

MetaViews by Robert Baldridge)

Johnson and politicsBut Johnson argues that forcing intelligent design theory into public schools is not his goal. "We definitely aren't looking for some legislation to support our views, or anything like that," he says. "I want to be very cautious about anything I say about the public interest, because obviously what our adversaries would like to say is, "These people want to impose their views through the law.' No. That's what they do. We're against that in principle, and we don't need that.“

- SF Weekly, 2001/06/20

“Intelligent design” & Politics

Since about 1998, “intelligent design” advocates, including Fellows of the DI CRSC, have aggressively pursued the political goals outlined in the Wedge document.

ID & politics highlights1998-2001: Burlington-Edison, WA2000/05/10: US Congressional briefing2000: Kansas intervention2001: Arkansas HB2548, Georgia HB391,

Michigan HB4382, Michigan HB47052001: “Santorum” amendment2002: Georgia HB1563, Ohio HB481, Ohio

Board of Education

“Santorum” amendmentDrafted by DI CRSC advisor Phillip JohnsonProposed by PA Sen. Rick Santorum

(2001/06/18)Amended SB 1, “No Child Left Behind”Amendment removed in joint committee

According to legal texts, language considered and removed can only be said to be “rejected”

Language added to Joint Explanatory Statement

“Santorum” amendmentBill signed into law by Pres. BushDI CRSC now advising school boards that

they should comply with the lawThe Johnson/Santorum language is NOT

law; it is report languageExpect to see more obfuscation from the DI

CRSC on this issue

“Intelligent design” & Science

“Intelligent design” advocates have not fulfilled the “writing and research” portion of what the Wedge document and various advocates originally stated was the first priority of the movement.

Desperately seeking (premature) validationTheme of ID activity at 1997 NTSE

conference: It could be scienceProgressive change in attitude over past

several yearsNow, ID advocates simply assert that ID

has scientific statusUnfortunately, there is no evidence that this

is so (Gilchrist)

Distinguish modes of argumentThis isn’t about negative arguments (cf.

Koons)Looking for positive development of

“intelligent design”So far, there seems to be little, if any,

progress

ID Progress Report?1996: Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”

published (“irreducible complexity”)1997: Naturalism, Theism, and Scientific

Enterprise (NTSE) conference (Jonathan Wells in attendance)

2002/01/28: Jonathan Wells lecture Question: Progress report on scientific

advances within ID paradigm since NTSE? A: Behe’s “irreducible complexity” (translation:

No progress)

ID Progress Report2002/04/23: AMNH forum with William

DembskiAsked what scientific progress ID has

made since 1997Answer: Haven’t had funding; work is in

progressTranslation: No progress

Who decides? ID approach

Bypass generally skeptical scientists and the scientific community

Push the issue at various levels US Congress State legislatures School boards Individual teachers

The Borrowers “Intelligent design” is parasitic upon both

scientists & the young-earth community Borrows critiques from evolutionary biologists

for negative argumentation Borrows blocks of votes from the young-earth

creationist (YEC) movement to get political muscle

Recycles YEC negative arguments

SummaryDI CRSC is out to make science safe for

theismGoal is to re-define scienceResearch was supposed to come firstScientific justification is on the back burnerPolitical activism is the primary focusPolitical action at many levels is evidentExpect more of the same for the future

ResourcesSkepticism of Intelligent Design

http://www.ncseweb.org http://www.talkreason.org http://www.talkdesign.org

General critiques of antievolution http://www.talkorigins.org http://www.antievolution.org

Intelligent Design advocacy http://www.discovery.org/crsc http://www.arn.org http://www.iscid.org