Beyond the “Wedge”: Intelligent Design, Science, and Culture Wesley R. Elsberry Texas A&M University.
Download
Report
Transcript Beyond the “Wedge”: Intelligent Design, Science, and Culture Wesley R. Elsberry Texas A&M University.
Beyond the “Wedge”:
Intelligent Design, Science,
and Culture
Wesley R. Elsberry
Texas A&M University
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
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
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)
What about “intelligent
design”?
Anti-evolution
Anti-science
“wedging”
Primarily religious motivation
Primary ID organization: Discovery
Institute Center for Renewal of Science
and Culture
Socio-political
“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
Order is important
Research
first
Politics later
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
Wedge image
“Wedge” goals (quoted)
GOALS
Governing
To
Goals
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
To
Year Goals
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
To
Year Goals
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 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
“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 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
“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
Statement
added to Joint Explanatory
“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
“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)
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)
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
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 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
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
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
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