Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Let's face it; the god thing is nothing new, and existed way before the bible god was created. That it still exists only says that man seeks to find anything that's superior to man. After ID and the bible god is refuted as a consequence of science, man will seek to find another god that reconciles science with some diety yet to be created.

This is a bit long, but I highlighted for those who don't want to read it all. It's relevance makes it worth it, I think. I wish the author hadn't resorted to his "IDiocy" joke. It hurts his cause. But I can understand the frustration well enough to forgive him. Still his points would have been stronger had he resisted.

link here

Quote:

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-strategizing 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.[/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 . . .

What is Reconstructionism?
Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely "social" or "moral" issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a "Biblical world view" and "Biblical principles" by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."

More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God's covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are "in submission" to him. In turn, the husband "submits" to Jesus and to God's laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God's laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called "theonomy."

A Covert Kingdom
Much has been made of the "stealth tactics" practiced by the Christian Right. Whereas the Moral Majority, led by Jerry Falwell, was overt about its Christian agenda, many contemporary Christian Rightists have lowered their religious profile or gone under cover. In fact, these tactics have been refined for years by the Reconstructionist movement, as Robert Thoburn's education strategy suggests. Gary North proposed stealth tactics more than a decade ago in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (1981), urging "infiltration" of government to help "smooth the transition to Christian political leadership. . . .Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure, and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order." Similar stealth tactics have epitomized the resurgence of the Christian Right, as groups like Citizens for Excellence in Education and the Christian Coalition have quietly backed candidates who generally avoided running as overtly "Christian" candidates. The Christian Coalition actually proposed something similar to Gary North's notion of "infiltration" when its 1992 "County Action Plan" for Pennsylvania advised that "You should never mention the name Christian Coalition in Republican circles." The goal, apparently, is to facilitate becoming "directly involved in the local Republican Central Committee so that you are an insider. This way," continues the manual, "you can get a copy of the local committee rules and a feel for who is in the current Republican Committee." The next step is to recruit conservative Christians to occupy vacant party posts or to run against moderates who "put the Republican Party ahead of principle."

Antonio Rivera, a New York Christian Coalition political advisor, suggested similar ideas at a 1992 Christian Coalition meeting. While urging that Coalition members seek to place themselves in influential positions, he advised that[/B] "You keep your personal views to yourself until the Christian community is ready to rise up, and then wow! They're gonna be devastated!" Some leaders have now publicly renounced "stealth" tactics.

Central to the Christian Right's strategy is to exploit the national pattern of low voter participation by turning out their constituents in a strategically disciplined fashion and in greater proportion than the rest of the population. An important vehicle for achieving this goal is the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism or its stripped-down root, dominionism, which at once deepens the political motivation of their constituency and widens that constituency by systematically mobilizing a network of churches, many of which were politically uninvolved until the early 1990s.

Much has been written about the success of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition in accomplishing these goals. But it could be argued that the Christian Coalition would not have been possible without Reconstructionism, and that Operation Rescue would not have been possible without the Reconstructionist-influenced philosoper Francis Schaeffer. In the 1970s, Pat Robertson was an apolitical charismatic televangelist, and Randall Terry a would-be rock n' roll star.

Conclusion
Christian Reconstructionism's ultimate moment may or may not arrive; however it has had tremendous influence as a catalyst for an historic shift in American religion and politics. Christian colleges and bookstores are full of Reconstructionist material. The proliferation of this material and influence is likely to continue. Christian Reconstructionism is largely an underground, underestimated movement of ideas, the rippling surface of which is the political movement known as the Christian Right.

You keep referring to biologists vs ID advocates. They are one and the same.

Secondly, when the discovery of 'junk DNA' came on the scene, many biologists predicted some sort of usage it, just as many predicted that it was left over from some prior evolutionary purpose. A timeline of the emergence of these predictions is irrelevant because obviously nothing had been proven at the point of their discovery. If ID advocates came out with predictions after the use of junk DNA had been found, then yes, they would not be predictions. However, function for biological structures has always been a prediction of intelligent design, not one that surfaced only after 'junk DNA' came on the scene.

Most scientists do not publish predictions before they have completed experiments to verify them.

History
Originally founded as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the CSC was founded in 1996. The evolution of the center's name reflects the evolution of the center's attempt to present itself as less religiously motivated in the publics eye. The "renewal" in its name referred to its goal of "renewing" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in religion. But since that time the center has publicly disavowed any religious motivations to its social and political agenda and so has dropped "renewal" from its title and moderated its formerly overtly religious language of its public statements. This was done to appeal to a more secular audience to which the center hopes its social and political programs will appeal and make inroads. [2]

Despite these attempts to appeal to a broader, less religious, audience, the CSC still states as a goal a redefinition of science, and the philosophy on which it is based, particularly the exclusion of what it calls the "unscientific principle of materialism", and in particular the acceptance of what it calls "the scientific theory of intelligent design". Critics point out that the principle of naturalism (i.e. materialism) allows falsifiability and that supernaturalism is unfalsifiable, meaning any suggested policies or curicula put forth by the center that rest on supernatural suppositions are by definition pseudoscience, not science.

The Wedge strategy
Main article: Wedge strategy

In 1999 an internal CSC report dating from 1998 was leaked to the public, which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID. This plan become known as the Wedge strategy. The 'wedge document' explained the key aims of CSC as follows.

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.
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.
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.
The paper also stated in part that:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). 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.

Elsie_T wrote:
Most scientists do not publish predictions before they have completed experiments to verify them.

Lola is right. This is pointless. I give up.

LOL.........I apparently don't know how to take my own advice.

Smithsonian Natural History Museum controversy
In May 2005 the Discovery Institute donated $16,000 to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and by museum policy, this minimum donation allowed them to celebrate their donation inside the museum in a gathering. The Discovery Institute decided to screen a film entitled The Privileged Planet, based on the book The Privileged Planet, written by two senior fellows of the Discovery Institute. Notably, the video was also a production of Illustra Media, which has been identified as front for a creationist production company. Upon further review, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History determined that the content of the video was inconsistent with the scientific research of the institution. They therefore refunded the $16,000, clearly denied any endorsement of the content of the video or of the Discovery Institute, and allowed the film to be shown in the museum as per the original agreement. Recent editorials have decried as naïve and negligent the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's failure to identify the Discovery Institute as a creationist organization, exclude the video with its review process in the first place, and identify the entire incident as an example of Wedge Strategy in action.