Science or Myth?
A Documentation History of Events
The Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education
Defeating the Discovery Institute
On May 8, 1998 we heard that Roger DeHart, a science teacher employed in our high school, was teaching creationism. We later discovered that he was a fundamentalist and was working in concert with fundamentalist foundations worth millions of dollars who make it their business to generate questionable evidence and fund local anti-science initiatives.
Specifically, DeHart is supported by The Discovery Institute and the Rutherford Institute, two very active organizations who decry the separation of church and state.
We first received news of Roger DeHart and his work with the Discovery Institute (DI) when one of our members attended a class on creationism sponsored at a local church. Mr. DeHart spoke at one of the classes. Knowing that DeHart was employed by our high school, we were immediately concerned that DeHart may have been lecturing in his classes that which he was lecturing that morning.
At that time, most of us in the BECSE, (Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education), had never heard of the Discovery Institute. As time went by - and soon will be clear - the DI was providing DeHart with his materials, and educating him on how to subvert science in subtle ways that appeared to be legitimate biology.
Instead of combating DeHart alone, it became clear that our task was to defeat the DI. Over the past 3 years, our knowledge of evolution and creationism has grown. It is now clear to us that our best efforts to combat local creationism will be to assist others to fight local creationism as well. In short, BECSE seeks to combat national creationism. Our goal with this website is to reach out to other communities who are facing anti-science pressure and assist them in their efforts to defend quality science.
The DI has many members, most of whom hold advanced degrees in fields from law and literature to science and mathematics. The one thing they seem to have in common is the desire to move our world back into the dark ages where scientific observations were allowed to be explained by supernatural miracles. A document entitled The Wedge, was published. It lays out a twenty year plan for achieving their goals, which is to have religion control not only science, but also everyday life, laws, and education.
We are a small town community in a rural county. The members of the BECSE come from many walks of life and many spiritual points of view. To be confronted with the DI - and their reconstructionist agenda - was frightening. The DI has a budget of millions of dollars. They have a lot of education and titles that impress people which they use for political clout. But, in order for them to win, their teacher here in Burlington must be allowed to teach their materials. At this point in time, Mr. DeHart is not allowed to teach creationism or Intelligent Design in any form. The DI is being defeated in our town, and they can be defeated in yours as well.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and the ACLU have been invaluable to us. Contact your local ACLU, the NCSE and us. (Here is the ACLU press release on our fight.)
Don't be afraid of the big bad Discovery Institute. They can be defeated.
Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education
The Rutherford Institute - John W. Whitehead
John W. Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, has gone to great lengths to conceal the ideological leanings of his Christian Right legal center in statements to the mass media. He told the New York Times that "Oh, gosh, no," he had no political agenda in representing Paula Jones, and that he had founded the Rutherford Institute by himself. The New York Times reporter described The Rutherford Institute as "a kind of evangelical Christian civil liberties union."118
Whitehead's claims misrepresent the group. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is blunt, "Our files on the Institute go back 10 years. After examining the material, we can safely say Whitehead is not being honest in his description of his organization."119
From its founding, the Rutherford Institute has pursued a highly-politicized ultra-conservative agenda. A review of Rutherford Institute newsletters, reports, and direct mail appeals going back seven years shows a long pattern of attacks on liberals in government and President Clinton in particular. Whitehead consistently puts forward an apocalyptic conspiracist vision of devout Christian activists under concerted attack by corrupt and repressive government officials in the service of godless and immoral secular humanism.
In the late 1990s Whitehead claimed he had changed his earlier views, giving a detailed interview on the subject to Christianity Today in December of 1998.120 Yet Whitehead's shift is more tactical rather than a shift in basic ideology, and reflects the trend in the Christian Right toward re-applying the principle of "hating the sin, but loving the sinner," even when the goal is still theocratic and monocultural.121
From time to time Rutherford's periodical carries broad-based articles to buttress the organization's claim that it is just like an American Civil Liberties Union for people of faith. In the September 1996 issue, which carries a cover story on "Politics & Religion: A Recipe for Disaster," there are interviews with centrist political commentators such as E. J. Dionne, Jr. and Larry Sabato-as well as a column by Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, rounds out the issue of Rutherford magazine with a litany of all the reasons he hates government under Clinton and his liberal allies. Claiming that "Liberals have dominated politics in this country for more than sixty years," Weyrich paints a paranoid picture of life in the US where "God-fearing, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens" live under a statist globalist tyranny. He then concludes that a nation with a government that is in opposition to his hard right view of Constitutional and godly laws, "will deserve the hatred of God and its people."122
In Facing the Wrath: Confronting the Right in Dangerous Times, sociologist Sara Diamond describes the political activism of the Rutherford Institute:
"Active since 1982, the Rutherford Institute represents a variety of Christian `civil liberties' litigants, anti-abortion demonstrators, students asked not to read Bibles at public schools, parents whose home school facilities fail to meet government regulations. No doubt, Christians deserve as much legal protection as anyone else. But with much of the ACLJ and Rutherford case load, there's a fine line between defending the interests of clients and stepping on the rights of other people.
In a...commentary sent to Christian radio stations, Rutherford Institute president John Whitehead argues that workplace seminars on gay rights are a form of `religious discrimination' against employees who are `told to rid themselves of stereotypes about gays and to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice.'
In an odd assertion of victim status, Whitehead claims Christian military personnel may jeopardize their careers if they `speak out against homosexuality....The immediate remedy is for the military to exempt religious people from compelled personal acceptance of homosexuality.'123
The politics of the Rutherford Institute, at least until recently, represented a form of theocratic Christianity that characterizes the hard right of the evangelical world. There is little reason to believe that a change in tone means a change in the underlying philosophy.
118 Neil A. Lewis, "Group Behind Paula Jones Gains Critics as Well as Fame," New York Times, 1/18/98, p. 18.
119 Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "Rutherford Institute, Other Religious Right Groups Have Long Track Record Of Vicious Attacks On Bill And Hillary Clinton, Says Church-State Watchdog Group," News Media Backgrounder, January 1988.
120 Ted Olsen, "The Dragon Slayer," Christianity Today, Dec. 7, 1998, pp. 36-42.
121 John Whitehead, "Point of View" column, Action, Rutherford Institute newsletter, August 1996.
122 Paul Weyrich, "Fear & Oppression: American Birthright?" perspective, Rutherford magazine, August 1995, p. 16.
123 Sara Diamond, Facing the Wrath: Confronting the Right in Dangerous Times, (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1996), pp. 110-111.
The Rutherford Institute, a "resource center," was formed in 1982 by attorney John W. Whitehead to provide legal aid to right-wing causes. It has ties to the radical fringes of Christian fundamentalism,He named the institute after Samuel Rutherford, a 17th century Scottish theologian who argued, in a 1644 pamphlet cleverly titled Lex, Rex, that kings must be subordinate to the law, because the rule of kings is derived from men, whereas the rule of law is derived from God. Rutherford's arguments about the authority of kings were quite influential in the development of the concept of the "social contract" by later philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau.
Early members of the Rutherford Foundation's board of directors included California millionaire Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr., as well as prominent fundamentalist activists such as Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony of The Chalcedon Foundation, a West Coast Christian think tank in which the Christian Reconstructionist Movement was born forty years ago. The early activities of the Rutherford Institute reflected this, and tended to focus on cases involving public primary and secondary education. They were especially active and often successful in trying to stop condom distribution in public schools, as well as sex education, AIDS prevention programs, and programs that teach tolerance.
Within a few years, Whitehead had begun to move away from the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, disassociating himself from some organizations, such as the Coalition on Revival, and broadening the scope of the Rutherford Foundation's interests.
The Rutherford Foundation became widely known to the public at large with the Paula Jones lawsuit agaist Bill Clinton, which the foundation backed, with Whitehead acting as co-counsel. In recent years, however, the Rutherford Foundation has continued to move towards being a mainstream constitutional legal advocacy organization, often seeming to disagree with the likes of the ACLU on little more than the precise boundaries of the Establishment Clause. In addition to their aforementioned brief in the José Padilla case, they have taken a strong stand in opposition to the Patriot Act, argued that Yaser Hamdi deserved due process, opposed student drug testing, and represented Lt. Col Martha McSally in her suit challenging the military policy which required servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the body-covering abaya when travelling in the country. Perhaps most surprisingly, to those who are primarily familiar with the early years of the Foundation, editorials on their web site were generally in favor of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
Defund the left is a term used in America to describe efforts by conservative activists to eliminate government financial support for non-profit groups deemed to be 'liberal'.
While initially coined in response to Reagan government proposals to curtail funding of non-profits, it has subsequently been more loosely used to describe a range of other administrative measures aimed at silencing advocacy groups.
Conservative concern grows
The rise of public interest groups campaigning on a broad range of issues in the 1960's antagonized conservative groups. While little could be done to restrict informal action groups, the larger non-profit groups relied on the benefits of their tax-exempt status to attract tax-deductible donations from individuals and foundations. In some cases, they also gained grants directly from government.
The funding of voter registration drives as part of the civil rights movement by some foundations in the 1960's so enraged conservatives that in 1969 they convened congressional hearings in an attempt to regulate the activities of non-profit groups and foundations. These hearings resulted in the 1969 Tax Reform Act, which created the architecture of the current regulatory framework. In 1976 the legislation was further refined to allow non-profit groups with 501 c 3 tax-deductible status to engage in some lobbying as long as it didn't exceed 20 percent of an organization's budget.
Through the 1970s traditional foundations, supplemented by new foundations, broadened the scope of what they were willing to fund to include more 'liberal' projects.
[edit]The Reagan administration moves to muzzle non-profits
In 1981, the Heritage Foundation, the dominant conservative think-tank at the time, published Mandate for Leadership, a comprehensive conservative agenda with over two thousand policy recommendations for the incoming Reagan administration.
One challenge, as Heritage saw it, was to counter the rise of its ideological opponents by whittling away their status as 'public interest' organisations and eliminating federal financial support for 'liberal' groups. "Unless conservatives can break the moral monopoly still enjoyed by persons indifferent to the well-being of the American private sector and by proponents of expanded government power, any effort to reform federal domestic policies is likely to be reduced to the level of tinkering," they wrote.
According to OMB Watch, a non-profit group that has tracked attempts to constrain non-profit groups, the Heritage Foundation's 1981 proposals comprised three key changes. (OMB is the acronym for the Office of Management and Budget). Firstly they wanted to "impose some sort of lobbying and advocacy restrictions on any organization receiving federal funds", even if any lobbying was funded by funds raised independently by the organisation itself. Secondly was to "specify the type of such 'informational' activity that can be done with federal grants". Thirdly Heritage sought to "limit the circumstances under which grants and contracts can go to groups organized primarily for lobbying and advocacy." [1] (http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1424/1/169/)
The Heritage Foundation's proposal was quickly translated into a proposed Presidential Executive Order, named A-122 Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, by the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, Michael Horowitz. The draft order defined the freshly minted term "political advocacy" as comprising any action "attempting to influence a government decision." Any organization engaging in political advocacy would not be eligible for federal grants irrespective of whether the advocacy was paid for by other sources of fundraising revenue or federal funds.
The proposals prompted a massive backlash with a three year campaign, led by the National A-122 Coalition comprising non-profit, religious, and other charitable organizations, defeating the proposals. Horowitz recounted over a decade later being rebuked by Reagan's Chief of Staff James A. Baker III. "The leader of the free world has come to me and said that all he has been hearing is this business about A-122," he said. (After working for the Reagan administration Horowitz went on to become a senior fellow at the Washington office of the conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute).
While the A-122 proposals were defeated, they still had the effect of chilling both non-profits and some foundations. Nor had the conservative movement given up on the notion of 'defunding the left'.
In 1984, the Capital Research Center (CRC) was founded by former Heritage Foundation senior Vice-President and Reagan administration staffer Willa Johnson. CRC was established with seed funding from Richard Mellon Scaife, Adolph Coors and John Olin foundations. The role of CRC was to erode the standing of those it viewed as 'liberal' non-profit advocacy groups and foundations.
[edit]Non-profits and the Gingrich revolution
The rise of the anti-environmental Wise Use Movement also adopted the calls to 'defund the left'. 'Wise Use' leaders such as Ron Arnold - who more recently has been a regular contributor to CRC publications - routinely made eliminating financial support for environmental groups one of his key messages. "We want to destroy the environmentalists by taking away their money and their members" Arnold told the New York Times.
The tobacco industry too spotted the attraction in constraining the advocacy of public interest health groups. An internal Philip Morris strategy document prepared in late 1993 proposed to run a campaign in California to "regulate" charitable health organisations by capping advocacy spending and diverting funding into research activities. "Reporting requirements for percent of funds used for research vs salaries: cap administrative costs, salaries, lobbying expenditures; establish minimum percentage of funds for research," the strategy stated. [2] (http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/34296.html)
With the success of the Republicans winning control of the House of Representatives in 1994, the targeting of non-profit groups was once more elevated on the political agenda. The Republicans success was captured in Newt Gingrich's Contract with America which aimed to slasf federal funding on a range of 'liberal' programs.
Conservative activists though needed to tread carefully because what they wanted was to strip federal funding from 'liberal' organisations without affecting corporate lobbying or funding for conservative groups. By targeting only federal grants but excluding contracts, corporate contractors - such as the defense industry - would remain free to lobby and most conservative groups would be unaffected.
In 1995, the environmental watchdog CLEAR "obtained documentation that details evidence of a right-wing legislative effort to 'defund the left' being coordinated by an alliance of conservative advocacy groups and Members of Congress. Their target: federal funding of non-profit advocacy organizations." [3] (http://www.clearproject.org/reports_defund.html)
Amongst those supporting the campaign were the Christian Coalition, Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute the Institute for Justice, the Eagle Forum and the American Conservative Union.
The documents revealed that a bill - Stop Taxpayer Funded Political Advocacy - would be introduced by Oklahoma Republican Representative, Ernest Istook, that would have prohibited any 501 (c) 4 and 501 (c) 5 organizations from receiving any federal funds.
In American Prospect, Karen Paget reported that it would have given private citizens legal standing to challenge the activity of any non-profit in court, with the burden of proof falling on the NGO to clear its name and would have prohibited any organisation that received federal funds from engaging in any "advocacy" activity. [4] (http://www.prospect.org/print/V10/44/paget-k.html)
CLEAR described the strategy as being aimed as being for a quick, clean hit. "The strategists behind this bill hope it will be dropped in about two weeks and go straight to the floor with no committee hearings. They are also very concerned that they 'spin' this campaign to make it look like a 'good government' campaign rather than a 'defund our enemies list' effort."
In early 1995, Jeff Shear wrote in the National Journal and subsequently the Baltimore Sun of a Republican project - later to be dubbed the K Street project - being co-ordinated out of the office of House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Heading the project was Virginia Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas), which also involved Scott Hodges the Heritage Foundation's budget director. One of those involved in the project, conservative activists Grover Norquist, told Shear "we will hunt liberal groups down one by one and extinguish their funding sources".
"With control over Congress and the White House, it's all over. We will go back and sue people who broke the law, who were ripping off taxpayers to do political work. If Planned Parenthood is lobbying, taxpayers need to be reimbursed," he said.
Kate O'Beirne, the Heritage Foundation's vice president for government relations, told Shear that "publicly funded political advocates rarely find themselves debating anyone who's privately funded They are all supported by tax dollars. If their ideas are so compelling, let them go out in the marketplace, as Heritage does, and see if the public agrees with them."
The momentum was gathering on other fronts too. In 1996 the CRC launched its new monthly newsletter, Foundation Watch, to target the philanthropic activities of foundations it considered were funding groups too liberal for their tastes.
The Istook bill too provoked an uproar. Once more a coalition of non-profit groups, Let America Speak - co-chaired by the Alliance for Justice, Independent Sector, and OMB Watch - was created to counter the proposals. The Istook amendments were eventually defeated in 1997. However, according to OMB Watch, around the same time "the Senate worked out an agreement to restrict eligibility of 501(c)(4) (social welfare) organizations that lobby from receiving federal grants."
[edit]'Truth in Testimony'
After the two major full frontal attacks by conservative groups to constrain non-profit groups were rebuffed, the focus switched to procedural changes. In 1997 the House of Representatives passed a rule called "Truth in Testimony" that required all non-governmental groups testifying to disclose how much money in grants and contracts they have received from the government during the previous three years. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch described the rule as a "naked attempt to intimidate mainly nonprofit, liberal advocacy groups from testifying".
A spokesman for the Free Congress Foundation, Bradley Keena, welcomed the rule as "a first step toward levelling the playing field" and "part of a much larger plan to defund the left." Heritage foundation director of Congressional affairs, Marshall Whitmann, described the rule as an opportunity to highlight federal funding of non-profit groups. "For 40 years, we saw the growth of a spending complex that involved nonprofit organizations and governmental organizations that worked in tandem to grow Government. This rule is an opportunity to shed some light on this phenomenon and educate the taxpayer," he told the New Work Times.
[edit]More recent skirmishes
In February 2001, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference featured a "Defunding the left" panel of speakers with Terrence Scanlon from the Capital Research Center, Stefan Gleason from the National Right to Work Foundation, Paul Beckner from the Citizens for a Sound Economy and Morton Blackwell from the The Leadership Institute. [5] (http://www.cpac.org/CPACschedule2001.htm)
Conservative News Service reported that Scanlon complained of 'liberal' groups opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft to Attorney General and told the conference that left-wing non-profits could be stopped.
"For the first time since 1952, we have a Republican Congress, House and Senate, we have a Republican President, so the agency heads will be hopefully mostly conservatives. So for the very first time we have an opportunity to go after these groups and take away their federal money. Let's do it," Scanlon said. [6] (http://www.geocities.com/collective_int/archive3224_3352.htm)
In March 2003, a bill from Republican Representative, Michael Castle, to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, revived elements of both the Istook amendments and the Reagan era A-122 proposals. Once more a storm of protest erupted. The following month the proposed restrictions were dropped.
However, OMB Watch notes that with omnibus proposals repeatedly defeated, the conservative emphasis has switched to piecemeal changes that add up over time.
In July 2003 OMB Watch, released a report, An Attack on Nonprofit Speech: Death By a Thousand Cuts - chronicling a myriad of minor attacks on the ability of NGO groups to speak out. The report authors noted that "when there were attacks on non-profit advocacy in 1983 and 1995, the sector organized galvanizing responses to fend them off. Unfortunately, it appears that such attacks are again surfacing, but in ways that are broader yet much harder to fight back." [7] (http://www.ombwatch.org/filemanager/download/42/ANSjul03.pdf/)
[edit]Using 'eco-terrorism' smears to mask funding attacks
The environmental movement in particular has been singled out for attention by think tanks and PR companies to be marginalised by being portrayed as 'ecoterrorists'. In 2002, the Competitive Enterprise Institute co-sponsored a conference with the aggressive anti-green PR company Nichols-Dezenhall. (The company has since been renamed Dezenhall Resources after Nick Nichols, who spoke at the conference, retired). The conference was titled "Stopping Eco-Extremism: A Conference On Legislative, Legal And Communications Strategies To Protect Free Enterprise". [8] (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/clear_release.html) When CLEAR, the watchdog organisation on the anti-environmental movement, tried to gain access to the conference it was denied. [9] (http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2409)
The week before the conference an article had appeared on TechCentralStation, written by Nick Nichols. Nichols argued 'eco-terrorism' was being funded by legitimate non-profit groups. "Like many foreign-based terrorist groups, many eco- and animal rights terrorist groups receive encouragement, support and funding from groups that are perceived to be legitimate charities. In the United States, charitable organizations classified as 501 (c)(3) groups under the tax code benefit from taxpayer subsidies, government grants and foundation philanthropy. This classification can bring enormous financial benefit to extremist groups," he wrote. [10] (http://www.techcentralstation.com/022802C.html)
According to a report of the meeting by David Case, the executive editor of TomPaine.com: ."Nichols painted with the broadest of brushes, deftly segueing among references to September 11th, eco-terrorists and the mainstream environmental movement. One minute, he (rightly) condemns the $43 million-plus in property damage caused by ELF since 1996. Next, he reproaches the green crisis, a powerful "$22 billion per year" global conspiracy."
The firm's strategy, said the article "depends on routine, if hard-hitting, PR warfare: attacking a group's tax exempt status, its credibility and its funders. To eco-terrorists, these tactics are irrelevant. To media-dependent mainstream groups that that have rent and salaries to pay, they could be lethal". [11] (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5246)
While the term 'defund the left' is American, the strategy of seeking to curtail the voice of non-profit groups has spread beyond, largely through the fusion of aggrieved corporations working with conservative think tanks.
A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org (http://www.yellowtimes.org/) columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue~propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate". [1] (http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1442&mode=thread&order=0)
Of course, some think tanks are more legitimate than that. Private funding does not necessarily make a researcher a shill, and some think-tanks produce worthwhile public policy research. In general, however, research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders.
"We've got think tanks the way other towns have firehouses," Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach says. "This is a thoughtful town. A friend of mine worked at a think tank temporarily and the director told him when he entered, 'We are white men between the ages of 50 and 55, and we have no place else to go.'"
"In 1970, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s." --George Lakoff [2] (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml)
Think tanks are funded primarily by large businesses and major foundations. They devise and promote policies that shape the lives of everyday Americans: Social Security privatization, tax and investment laws, regulation of everything from oil to the Internet. They supply experts to testify on Capitol Hill, write articles for the op-ed pages of newspapers, and appear as TV commentators. They advise presidential aspirants and lead orientation seminars to train incoming members of Congress.
Think tanks have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. This is no accident, as one of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a backdoor way for wealthy business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. Conservative think tanks also offer donors an opportunity to support conservative policies outside academia, which during the 1960s and 1970s was accused of having a strong "collectivist" bias.
"Modern think tanks are nonprofit, tax-exempt, political idea factories where donations can be as big as the donor's checkbook and are seldom publicized," notes Tom Brazaitis, writing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Technology companies give to think tanks that promote open access to the internet. Wall Street firms donate to think tanks that espouse private investment of retirement funds." So much money now flows in, that the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican party.
A think tank's resident experts carry titles such as "senior fellow" or "adjunct scholar," but this does not necessarily mean that they even possess an academic degree in their area of claimed expertise. Outside funding can corrupt the integrity of academic institutions. The same corrupting influences affect think tanks, only more so.
Think tanks are like universities minus the students and minus the systems of peer review and other mechanisms that academia uses to promote diversity of thought. Real academics are expected to conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second, but this process is often reversed at most policy-driven think tanks. As writer Jonathan Rowe has observed, the term "think" tanks is a misnomer. His comment was directed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but it applies equally well to many other think tanks, regardless of ideology: "They don't think; they justify."
A Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) is a special category of think tank. As described by the National Science Foundation [3] (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf02321/secta.htm), FFRDCs are "R&D-performing organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the Federal Government and are supported by the Federal Government either to meet a particular R&D objective or, in some instances, to provide major facilities at universities for research and associated training purposes. Each center is administered either by an industrial firm, a university, or another nonprofit institution."
The Department of Defense (DOD) sponsors ten FFRDCs, which are listed below with other North American think tanks. Many of these DOD FFRDCs, and the institutions that operate them, have used their privileged status, and tax dollars, to venture beyond their charters. Such ventures have incurred the wrath of the Professional Services Council (PSC), an association of for-profit consulting firms, which has fought the aggrandizement of FFRDCs since the early 1970s. PSC's task force on FFRDCs "is charged with the challenging task of containing [FFRDCs] and similar quasi-governmental entities that benefit from sole-source contracting or otherwise are subsidized unfairly by the federal government..." [4] (http://www.pscouncil.org/committees/ffrdctf.asp). The efforts have paid off, to some extent, in tighter controls on the funding of FFRDCs and the types of research they are allowed to undertake.
The New Blacklist
By Doug Ireland, LA Weekly. Posted June 13, 2005.
The Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America -- and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities they don't like.
Spurred on by a biblical injunction evangelicals call "The Great Commission," and emboldened by George W. Bush's re-election, which is perceived as a "mandate from God," the Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America -- and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities they don't like.
And it's working. Just three weeks ago, the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA) announced it was ending its boycott of corporate giant Procter & Gamble -- maker of household staples like Tide and Crest -- for being pro-gay. Why? Because the AFA's boycott (which the organization says enlisted 400,000 families) had succeeded in getting P&G to pull its millions of dollars in advertising from TV shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
P&G also ended its advertising in gay magazines and on gay Web sites. And a P&G executive who had been given a leave of absence to work on a successful Cincinnati, Ohio, referendum that repealed a ban on any measures protecting gays from discrimination was shown the door.
"We cannot say they are 100 percent clean, and we ask our supporters to let us know if they discover P&G again being involved in pushing the homosexual lifestyle," growls the AFA's statement of victory over the corporate behemoth, "but judging by all that we found in our research, it appears that our concerns have been addressed." The Wall Street Journal reported on May 11 that "P&G officials won't talk publicly about the boycott. But privately, they acknowledge the [Christer] groups turned out to be larger, better funded, better organized, and more sophisticated than the company had imagined."
"The Christian right is incredibly mobilized," says Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, a 30-year-old alliance of 50 nonprofit groups. Bertin says, "There's been an explosion of local book and arts censorship -- a lot of activity by an emboldened grassroots, who think they won the last election on moral grounds. They barely need to threaten a boycott to get those they target to back down -- hey, nobody had to threaten to boycott PBS to get them to back off Postcards From Buster." Bertin affirms that "This new threat from below as well as above has already achieved a widespread chill" on creative and entertainment arts throughout the country.
The Wedge
A book published nearly a year ago is, I think, essential reading for anyone interested in the details of how a modern day cultural crusade gets successfully conducted. The book is Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and its obstensible subject is, of course, the religious right's extensive efforts to get "Intelligent Design" (which I call IDiocy) a respected place in the public discourse. As important as this subject is by itself, what makes this book a must read is that it provides useful insight into how the right carefully picks an issue, defines its parameters, and then methodically constructs a public relations blitzkrieg in which no detail is too small, no angle missed, and no quarter taken.
The strategy used by the IDiots is nearly identical to that used by the right with other causes. What is unique, however, and what makes Creationism's Trojan Horse so valuable for anyone interested in confronting the right, is that it provides useful insight into how the right carefully picks an issue, defines its parameters, and then methodically constructs a public relations blitzkrieg in which no detail is too small, no angle missed, and no quarter taken.
Typically, the rightwing micro-stranearly all the planning and implementation of the marketing of IDiocy was openly publishedtegizing is secret; the public only sees the final result, for example in the fine-tuned rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement, or the marketing of the Bush/Iraq war ("Well, would you rather have Saddam still in power?"). However, as the "Intelligent Design" effort was developed, the prime movers were either unable, or didn't bother, to cover their tracks. The meticulousness of the assault is simply astounding.
And let's not forget that the cause of the IDiots is intellectual, abstruse, abstract. The care and attention paid to the advocacy of an idea as opposed to a concrete action is impressive. As is the passion they've managed to generate over something as obscure as speciation development.
In summary, Creationism's Trojan Horse informs us that:
1. There is no science - none - behind the assertions of "Intelligent Design" advocates. Nor have the main proponents of IDiocy published any scientific research in support of their positions in any peer-reviewed journals.*
2. "Intelligent Design" advocates are simply "creationists in cheap tuxedos," who say one thing when they need to appear "scientific," and another when they are addressing religious groups.
3. The "Intelligent Design" movement is extremely well-funded by, among others, wealthy "christian reconstructionists" who are openly working for the establishment of an American theocratic state.
4. The hub of IDiocy is the CRSC, the self-styled "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" within the Discovery Institute, a right wing think tank at which, among others, Dick Cheney has spoken.
5. About 6 years ago, the CRSC created a document called The Wedge Strategy which outlined a comprehensive 5 year strategy to advance the cause of IDiocy. "Scientific," educational, legislative, legal, cultural, and marketing goals were laid out in detail.
6. To date, there is no well-funded, well-organized counter-strategy to confront IDiocy.
7. The efforts to advance the implement The Wedge Strategy and advance the cause of "Intelligent Design" have been phenomenally successful (except in actual science), far more than those who should be concerned about it realize.
The Wedge Strategy describes 3 phases -
Phase I. Scientific Research [sic], Writing & Publicity
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
But they only really care about Phases II and III; ie, the marketing of "Intelligent Design." And in the service of that marketing, the authors of the book cite numerous documents which attest to the indefatigable enthusiasm and obsessive attention to detail the IDiots possess.
The first step was rhetorical. They eliminated all the normal frames and definitions of science and created new ones that gave them an argumentative advantage.** For example, IDiots redefined science to include two different possible approaches - "methodological naturalism" and "theistic realism." And so, evolution can be recast as "Darwinism," a "naturalist" theory while "Intelligent Design" is an example of "realist" theory.
With evolution now defined as "non-realist," it becomes easy to assert that "Intelligent Design" deserves at least equal status. And so they have.
The IDiots' assault on the discourse of science has been thorough, even encylopedic. We encounter notions like "Irreducible Complexity" or "Complex Specified Information" and the impressive acronyms they spawn. it's all nonsense, but they don't give a hoot because, in the words of the inventor of "methodological naturalism: "My goal is not so much to win the argument as to legitimate it as part of the dialogue.And increasingly in the public's eye, it seems that they have.
To "legitimate" IDiocy, they have polished their sophistries to a fine sheen and used them not only to undermine the public discourse on science but also everywhere else in their strategy. Here's one example:
One day before the senate was to vote on the "Better Education For Students and Teachers Act," Senator Rick Santorum, he of "man on dog" fame, introduced an amendment conducive to IDiocy. He said it addressed "the subject of intellectual freedom." The language was so perfectly crafted that it bamboozled even the streetwise Ted Kennedy, who spoke in favor of it as did Robert Byrd. The amendment passed 91-8. And the IDiots pounced immediately, writing schoolboards requesting (ie demanding) that "Intelligent Design" get equal time in science classrooms. Once Santorum's snotty little ruse was exposed for what it was, it was deleted and the language inserted into some less prominent "Joint Explanatory Statement" but it was too late. The IDiots still refer to the Santorum Amendment when advancing their case.
A few words on the phrase "intellectual freedom." Just as leftover duck's feet get sold as Dim Sum, nothing is ever wasted in "Intelligent Design" advocacy. Having invented the concept that the teaching of IDiocy is about "intellectual freedom," IDiot lawyers have been trained to sue school boards, claiming First Amendment infringement if IDiocy is excluded from science classes.
Creationism's Trojan Horse has numerous other examples and many references to the planning documents of the IDiots. In addition to the rhetorical examples, you can also trace the development of the "victimization" theme so prevalent on the right ("They won't let us teach alternate scientific theories" is all of a piece with "What about white people's rights?" Or little Ben's book title, "It's my country, too"). But with "Intelligent Design," the rightwing had to explain so much about how they were going to wreck science that we can see all the cogs and wheels come into place and start to spin.
While the story is a grim one (terrifying for those of us who care passionately about our children and good science), there is reason for hope. A careful reader can treat the marketing documents of the IDiots as an instruction manual: s/hewill learn how to successfully market, publicize, and proslyetize a complex, abstract idea. Two can play at this game given enough money, effort, and the conviction that the game is worth playing.[/[/i]B]
IDiocy can be beaten back to the margins of American culture, where it belongs. Besides, what's the alternative? In The Wedge Strategy , the IDiots make it perfectly clear what they're doing and what their ultimate goal is:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism [they mean "empirical science"] and its cultural legacies...Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. And they are well along the way.
*Readers who are familiar with the issues regarding evolution only through the shamefully biased mainstream reporting of IDiocy may be surprised to learn that there is not only no science at all behind the "Intelligent Design" movement, but not even any relevant scientific research that's been published by the movement. Even though there are a few trained scientists among the advocates of IDiocy, their scientific research has not been relevant to "Intelligent Design" issues. At best, they have merely theorized and hypothesized and tried to poke holes in modern day evolution science. More often than not, they simply refer to popular books or articles published in "Intelligent Design" or "Christian" magazines, which have have never been peer reviewed (and would never stand up to scrutiny).
The IDiot who appears to be the most difficult to dismiss on the scientific substance is one William Dembski, who has written book after book chockablock with abstruse "mathematics." There are very few people qualified to slog through his work, but those who have report that Dembski resorts more than not to mathematisms - that is, pretentious and vacuous symbology that looks like real math - rather than the real thing. Dembski's real work, the book makes clear, is in christian apologetics and evangelization. As Dembski says, "Indeed, intelligent design [sic] is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
In other words, in spite of the fact that there is no science behind it at all - nor much interest, as the book makes clear, in doing any real science - the advocates of "Intelligent Design" want equal time in science classes.
This very deliberate technique - a calculated disinterest in the facts combined with a breathtakingly aggressive assertion of lies - has also been deployed very effectively in the service of other causes, for example the statements by Bush and others that entirely misrepresent the conclusions of the 9/11 report, the Duelfer report and so on.
Link the Sinner to the Sin
