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

1. Beyond the “Wedge”:Intelligent Design, Science, and Culture Wesley R. Elsberry Texas A&M University

2. The 25 year view • There 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

3. Why care about “intelligent design”? • “Intelligent design” is a movement which affects science education • Science education is critical to dealing with the problems just listed • Must weigh what effect “intelligent design” will have on the public understanding of science

4. The Intelligent Design Movement • Another form of antievolution • Followed setbacks to young-earth creationist legal efforts • The high-profile ID advocates are creationists (sensu Phil Johnson)

5. What about “intelligent design”? • Anti-evolution • Anti-science • Socio-political “wedging” • Primarily religious motivation • Primary ID organization: Discovery Institute Center for Renewal of Science and Culture

6. “Intelligent design” and the next 25 years • Want 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

7. Order is important • Research first • Politics later

8. The “wedge” strategy • Given 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 site • Attack the definition of science • “Naturalism” is the bogeyman

9. Wedge image

10. “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.

11. “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.

12. “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.

13. 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.

14. 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. […]

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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)

18. 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”)

19. 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)

20. Johnson and politics But 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

21. “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.

22. ID & politics highlights • 1998-2001: Burlington-Edison, WA • 2000/05/10: US Congressional briefing • 2000: Kansas intervention • 2001: Arkansas HB2548, Georgia HB391, Michigan HB4382, Michigan HB4705 • 2001: “Santorum” amendment • 2002: Georgia HB1563, Ohio HB481, Ohio Board of Education

23. “Santorum” amendment • Drafted by DI CRSC advisor Phillip Johnson • Proposed 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

24. “Santorum” amendment • Bill signed into law by Pres. Bush • DI CRSC now advising school boards that they should comply with the law • The Johnson/Santorum language is NOT law; it is report language • Expect to see more obfuscation from the DI CRSC on this issue

25. “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.

26. Desperately seeking (premature) validation • Theme of ID activity at 1997 NTSE conference: It could be science • Progressive change in attitude over past several years • Now, ID advocates simply assert that ID has scientific status • Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is so (Gilchrist)

27. Distinguish modes of argument • This isn’t about negative arguments (cf. Koons) • Looking for positive development of “intelligent design” • So far, there seems to be little, if any, progress

28. 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)

29. ID Progress Report • 2002/04/23: AMNH forum with William Dembski • Asked what scientific progress ID has made since 1997 • Answer: Haven’t had funding; work is in progress • Translation: No progress

30. 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

31. 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

32. Summary • DI CRSC is out to make science safe for theism • Goal is to re-define science • Research was supposed to come first • Scientific justification is on the back burner • Political activism is the primary focus • Political action at many levels is evident • Expect more of the same for the future

33. Resources • Skepticism 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