Beyond the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Beyond the

Description:

Beyond the Wedge : Intelligent Design, Science, and Culture Wesley R. Elsberry Texas A&M University – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:123
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 36
Provided by: OrthancP8
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Beyond the


1
Beyond the WedgeIntelligent Design, Science,
and Culture
  • Wesley R. Elsberry
  • Texas AM 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 isnt 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 Behes Darwins 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 Behes 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 Havent 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

34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com