A Post-Wedge World
by MikeGeneOver on Panda's Thumb, Ed Brayton gives us an update on the Dover ID trial, noting that William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell have all been withdrawn as expert witnesses in the case.
Brayton sees things through the prism of the conspiracy theory, but that doesn't really matter here. What's more significant are the following comments from Brayton:
The DI has been in a bind from the moment this case started. For the past few years, both sides in this dispute have been waiting for the case - the legal test case that would determine once and for all whether ID can be taught in public school science classrooms or whether the previous precedents against teaching "creation science" will be applied to ID in a similar manner.
On the other hand, they know that if the school board loses this case - particularly if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and loses there - it's pretty much the end for ID in public schools. That would set a nationwide precedent that would ban ID from public school science classrooms.
Of course, this can only be good news for our side. There is no more eloquent a defender of ID than Stephen Meyer and no more credible a scholar in favor of ID than William Dembski.
I'm going to upset many ID proponents, but I have to tell you that I personally hope that some Court will eventually rule against inserting ID into a public school curriculum. Let me explain.
If the Courts prevent ID from being taught in the schools, such that "it's pretty much the end for ID in public schools," the anti-Wedge forces will have won the day and no longer have reason to exist. Having taken away the only real "threat" that ID poses, they should be expected to retire their attack machine and return to what it is that they would have been doing had the socio-political expression of ID never existed.
If there is any truth to the design inference, this bodes well for it. Because of the socio-political element to ID, the concept of ID is drowned out by the shouting and politicking. Consider how the terrain might change once ID can no longer be rationally considered a threat to the public education system.
Critics of ID make a big issue out of the motivations of ID advocates. Clear-thinking people understand this to be intellectually irresponsible, as one's motivation behind a hypothesis or explanation is not relevant. But because of the socio-political dynamic, critics have convinced themselves and others that motivations are relevant. They believe that ID is a TrojanHorse to get religion taught in schools, thus they seek to impose the religious connection in any way they can. They are afraid that a perceived disconnect between religious motivation and ID will make it easier for ID to get into the schools.
Now, if we take away the realistic chance of ID getting into the schools, the connection is no longer relevant. The logic of the ID position has never entailed a dependence on religious motivation nor does it entail a religious conclusion. That an ID advocate may be religious becomes as significant as Dawkins' atheism. In fact, if the critic at this point still insists on making religious motivation an issue, it becomes anything from a cheap rhetorical point that tries to cloud the issues to an expression of anti-religious bigotry. Strip away the socio-political element and perhaps a calm, core group of people from both sides can finally begin to proceed from the logic of ID instead of people's socio-political extrapolations.
A major court ruling against ID can also put an end to the Wedge conspiracy theories. Consider an expanded excerpt from Brayton:
The DI has been in a bind from the moment this case started. For the past few years, both sides in this dispute have been waiting for the case - the legal test case that would determine once and for all whether ID can be taught in public school science classrooms or whether the previous precedents against teaching "creation science" will be applied to ID in a similar manner. That's what all of the activity in this area for the last decade has been building toward. Everything that ID advocates have done during that time has been designed (yes, intelligently) to put legal distance between ID and the type of creation science that was banned from public school science classrooms in the Edwards decision. It's not by accident that the Wedge strategy was worked out by an attorney, Phillip Johnson. Johnson knew that the courts would not allow an explicitly religious idea be taught in public schools, so it was necessary to distance ID as much as possible from religion and make it appear to be religion-neutral.
Note the theme of the conspiracy theory "“ "all of the activity" and "everything that ID advocates" is supposed to come down to getting it in schools. If the Courts prohibit this from happening, then by the logic of Wedge-centrism, the Wedge is dead. We reached the end point, party's over, so turn out the lights.
The myriad of critics who have depended on the Wedge to make sense of everything about ID will no longer have any grounding. The Wedge would be dead, the threat would be gone, so how shall they then think about ID?
I am cynical enough to expect most will still cling to Wedge-centrism, and invent exotic and convoluted reasons as to why ID still must be viewed as a threat to our way of life and why our adrenalin levels need to remain high (after all, some have built quasi-careers around fighting the wedge). But at that point, they would no longer be defending science or defending the public school system, as those things would no longer be in need of protection. Instead, the new conspiracies and attacks would mean the defenders had evolved into attackers, people who look like they are trying to censor the mere idea of ID from the public square, as if the mere idea somehow threatened them. If the critics choose to cling to Wedge-centrism when the Wedge is dead, they will look more and more like fringe extremists.
On the other hand, many critics are also probably quite sincere in their efforts to defend science and education. Once they are assured the storm is over, and there is no rational reason for thinking science and education are at risk, some may begin to shy away from the attitude that refuses to "provide ammunition" to the Wedge. In the post-Wedge world, they may actually be willing to publicly acknowledge a weakness in their own position, an ID-related question that is deemed interesting, or even come to the place where they can admit that someone like Behe or Dembski makes a good point on some particular issue. As it stands now, critics refuse to partake in this normal give-and-take and I get the distinct impression that those stray scientists who unknowingly do so are often reprimanded via a flurry of e-mails warning them about their sin. In other words, if the Courts put a barrier between ID and schools, it becomes safe for an ID critic to publicly agree with Dembski about something.
I've been arguing about ID for years. What I have found is that most of the time, my arguments and questions are drowned out by the conspiracy theories and stereotypes that obtain their sustenance from Wedge-centrism. If those in power take away the Wedge, Wedge-centrism becomes kookiness. Maybe a new day will arise where instead of hearing "theocracy" when told ID, more critics will simply hear "ID." And for those sincerely interested in whether there is any validity to ID, that can only be a good thing.
Anyway, I would like to invite discussion of the pros and cons of the post-Wedge World (a world in which the Courts rule against ID). However, keep in mind that I will moderate the comments section aggressively.
June 26th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Hi Mike,
A court ruling against ID can have various meanings. For example the stickers in Cobb county had no mention of ID whatsoever, yet it was treated like an ID case. The same can be said of Kansas and Ohio where there is no explicit mention of ID. There is agruably no constitutional barrier in teaching "the controversy". So even if the courts rule against explicit teaching of ID, such as say in Dover, the political fights will not die down.
I would hope that a court case does not traspire, but given that it likely will, especially in Dover, I don't think it would be good for official court documents to be saying ID is religious. That would be a bad thing, and it would give critics of ID the ammunition they want. When ID is discussed at the university, even in a religion class as I advocate, such a ruling would only reinforce the view that ID is theological. That is the last thing I would want to see, even though I advocate ID being taught in religion classes. ID has value in religion classes for the very fact it's deductive methods do not appeal to religious doctrine, and thus the objective witness of ID from a scientific perspective enables it to speak to metaphysical issues more potently. Witness the case of Antony Flew.
A court ruling that ID is religion is the kind of press IDists don't want. However, you may be right that ID's association with the Wedge has slowed down it's acceptance by the critics.
However, for what it's worth, the cost/benefit trade off of reaching out to the critics does not compare to cost benefit trade off of reaching out to those naturally friendly to ID: the creationists and the open-minded middle ground. They constitute perhaps as much as 75% of the college age population, and if that majority is persuaded and eventually overtake the scientific circles, the critics will find themselves in the minority. Thus a court ruling against ID will impact negatively on reaching that 75% who would be friendly to ID versus, the 1 or 2% of the critics who would be willing to jump ship after such a ruling.
That is my current view. I could be wrong.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 26, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
June 26th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Hi Salvador,
I agree with Mike on this, and although I can't speak for him, I'll give you my take on your points.
"There is agruably no constitutional barrier in teaching "the controversy". So even if the courts rule against explicit teaching of ID, such as say in Dover, the political fights will not die down."
No, people on both sides of the issue will always be able to find some other battle to fight. But ID would then be out of the crossfire. For example, an editor considering whether to publish an ID-friendly paper will not have to worry about it ending up on some reading list about "problems with Darwinism" for schoolchildren, as the topic of ID will simply not be allowed in school.
"I would hope that a court case does not traspire, but given that it likely will, especially in Dover, I don't think it would be good for official court documents to be saying ID is religious."
I agree; it would be sad for a US court to make a ruling based on bad arguments. However, it wouldn't be first time, as US courts have made bad decisions before (slavery and forced sterilizations of "morons" spring to mind). My hope is that they'll rule that since ID isn't embraced by the majority of the scientific community, it shouldn't be taught in science class at the present time.
"However, for what it's worth, the cost/benefit trade off of reaching out to the critics does not compare to cost benefit trade off of reaching out to those naturally friendly to ID: the creationists and the open-minded middle ground."
What's a good cost/benefit trade to you might not be a good cost/benefit trade for others. ID could very well turn out to be wrong, and although not a US citizen myself, I can understand the sentiment behind not wanting my tax dollars spent teaching my kids something they'll never benefit from.
Besides, you often speak about the positive interest in ID you meet among college students. How much of that interest do you think is the product of those students being taught about ID in schools?
Comment by Krauze — June 26, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
June 27th, 2005 at 6:29 am
An end to ID in schools before it begins to be there. Hmmm"¦well, it already is there, in a behind-the-scenes way, in the form of teachers who have been taken in by the IDM(ovement)'s social-political "˜argument.' Mike Gene is well-versed, probably among the most well-versed of anyone, on this factor in the "˜case' for ID and telic thoughts. That is why this short article by him is quite interesting, imo.
This demonstrates again why MG is not "˜in' the IDM "“ neither am I and I don't think that's a bad thing. I agree with Mike that ID should be denied entry to public schools, imo unless: 1. it is discussed in a philosophy class, of which apparently there are not in American schools, or 2. it is not presented as "˜science,' but rather tacked on as a possible alternative to "˜evolutionary (or materialistic) origins' at the end of a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary and/or neo-Darwinian theory and the role evolution plays in society.
Whether or not it should take a (C) court of law to decide ID's educational fate is another story. It seems to me that Mike Gene has been influenced by "˜legalism,' present in the USA to a greater degree than in any other nation in the world, which is less so in his native Canada. Court cases should not decide the fate of any supposed "˜scientific revolution,' though I think Mike and I would agree that a (potential) "˜scientific revolution' ID theory is not. Telic thoughts do not require appeals to intelligent design, though they find support in such conceptual rhetoric too.
Yes, we are thankfully agreed on this issue. Logic (of ID) does not equal "˜religious.' Although, admitting the (divine) presence of a Designer or Creator does equal "˜religious,' once one joins the structure of worship and liturgy according to whichever religion is speaking about, singing and praying to the Designer or Creator, it becomes religious.
As an avid critic of ID and as a potential successor to evolution theory, my opinion may be surprising to those who would try to silence a non-natural scientist who is concerned with origins, when speaking about ID and the Discovery Institute; I am not anti-Wedge. However, it has become evident that the Wedge cannot succeed given its unrealistic targets. We're already past the first Five Year "˜Plan' of DI's social-cultural-political and sometimes even scientific strategy. In socialist settings, this would likely lead to some form of punishment when the targets are not reached.
This is the old "˜creationist' (sounding pejorative, but not meaning to be) language. The dichotomy is materialistic/theistic. This approach, however, pits evolutionary creationists against creationistic non-evolutionists and/or IDists, which really means ID is involved in promoting a theistic understanding of nature and human life. Surely Mike Gene knows this as does anyone who knows the history of the DI and has visited its premises in Seattle, Washington, America. It is hard to escape this paradox when certain ID promoters persistently claim ID is not "˜religious' in origin or intention. When the famous "˜Wedge' document makes it clear that the DI is deeply concerned about the theistic dimension we should take it at face value. The Wedge document supports religion and Creation or divine design, but the DI itself is not the whole of ID theory.
This has clearly not happened, except perhaps in theology, where people like G. Murphy, A. Peococke, J. Polkinghorne, D. Lamoureux and many Catholic theologians are faring well against it, or rather just ignoring it. In fact, the leaders of the IDM entirely confuse the difference between human-made things and non-human-made things (purposely in my opinion), as we see when M. Behe speaks about Mt. Rushmore being obviously "˜designed.' Such a topic is neither biological nor theological, but rather an appeal to social history, something Dr. Behe can generally appeal to, but which he is untrained for specifically. This is why Behe's statement that ID applies to "˜all humane studies' entirely overreaches the reality of ID theory today and why ID does not consist in being "˜the bridge' that it claims to be. The "˜Wedge' has incontrovertibly not lived up to its suggestions for social science and humanities.
(I'm still waiting for my fellowship; they wouldn't even give a membership to ISCID after I won a contest there! :-"Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences" "“ Wedge document prediction
Arago's Prediction: Design theory will not influence Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, Cultural Studies (except as a phenomenon of "˜public controversy'), Literary Criticism, etc. because it is focussed primarily on Natural Science. ID promoters are interested in debating Darwinism and dissenting from neo-Darwinism and think this is the way to upset contemporary naturalism, secularism and materialism. Whether or not the Wedge World becomes post-prefixed, these goals will still drive the hearts and minds of IDists, whether agnostics or theists support it. Another theory or concept(s) is more 'fit' for social sciences.
One must appreciate the sincerity of those who ponder the effects of ID thinking. Mike Gene wonders if there is "any truth to the design inference," though he is not necessarily or entirely on W. Dembski's bandwagon. As for my curiosity, I don't see how one can question the "˜truth of design' while being agnostic about the existence of a "˜designer.' It's sort of like requiring that I not care or wonder about the person behind the thoughts that were written by Mike Gene himself!
Mike, you and I differ drastically on this issue, probably based on our educational or cultural backgrounds and the disciplinary perspectives we invoke in our arguments. By this period in history, and in the societies in which both you and I live, we have made a hermeneutic turn; interpretation involves an interpreter. The author is not dead, after all the speculation. Even in the realm of so-called "˜objective' natural science; science is no longer what it once was in the modern world-view. We are post-prefixed now, in many ways, as is demonstrated by the ability of one or another scientist, theorist or scholar to participate in academic discussions without being openly seen, i.e. under pseudonymous electronic posting. Hypotheses and explanations are tested, considered and even reproduced by individuals or groups who evaluate them in different places and spaces than their original conception or perception.
It is not intellectually irresponsible to make issue out of motivations, especially if one accepts that ID is well-sponsored by the DI, which revealed its intentions in the Wedge document. If one does not make issue, for example, out of K. Marx's motivations one cannot really understand his theories beyond the surface, as most in western countries take him for. It seems to me that you discount motivations and intentions because you want to seem "˜objective' in your approach to ID and telic thoughts. Whereas every person has their own individual teleology, there is also a collective teleology to human life. This is not and cannot be captured by natural(istic) scientific thinking. Perhaps if we could cooperate rather than feuding we could get somewhere more worthwhile.
A Post-Wedge-World would also logistically mean a Post-DI-World, the primary promoter of ID theory. This is because the DI funds and distributes ID material and encourages its fellows with things like the Wedge Document; 20 year goals, cultural confrontation and renewal, etc. ID theory is not even post-Johnsonian yet (though Dembski perhaps in some ways wishes it to be), since it springs forth from the cultural legacy that P. Johnson brought forth in his book "Darwin on Trial." This is also an important reason why the "˜debate' is framed as a legal battle rather than as a truly revolutionary scientific struggle for survival. Conservative American Christians and other legalistic supporters of ID theory want it that way.
A Post-Wedge-World requires that ID promoters refuse to 'wedgify' (try telling that to Salvador Cordova!) and that ID critics refuse to use it as ammunition against those who would endorse ID theory for religiously apologetic purposes. I don't think either of these conclusions is realistic. Though, fwiw, I like the thought of a PWW as much as the next person, and will do my best at least to contribute to this cause, if not to ID theories them-selves.
Thanks to Mike for a thought-provoking proposal once again.
In cognito,
g. arago
Comment by g arago — June 27, 2005 @ 6:29 am
June 27th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
And thanks for the thought-provoking reply, g. arago.
Our one main issue of disagreement appears to revolve around motivations. You write:
Can we also say? - "If one does not make issue, for example, out of C. Darwin's motivations one cannot really understand his theories beyond the surface, as most in western countries take him for."
You also write:
Well, that's part of it. I do indeed try to be as objective as possible. And one can survey all my positions and arguments to reach their own conclusions about my level of success.
But I also discount motivations and intentions largely because I discount them among my critics. I question their open-mindedness as a function of what they have said, and I point out when they are relying on stereotypes, but this is not the same of pyschologizing them. This is because I am willing to accept that many of them truly view ID as a threat to science (although the evidence supporting this belief is weak) and high school science education (the evidence is stronger here) and derive their motivations from this. In the PWW, none of this will apply, so perhaps the double-edge of the motivation-sword will be wielded. In the PWW, why would someone waste time reading and trying to debunk something I said? Perhaps they are intellectually stimulated by something I wrote, but want to explain why they find them unconvincing. That's would be fine with me. Perhaps something I said threatens their sense of being in some way and they need to work that out publicly? Perhaps they are a stalker who hates me for something I said? In the PWW, those who want to make an issue out of my motivations should be willing to accept the anal probe that is reflected back their way, as their motivations can no longer be about defending science (given that I don't present my views as science) and science education (given the courts will have taken care of this).
Of course, I have already spoken of my motivations on the ARN board. In the future, I shall once again walk the extra mile and try to spell out the details of my motivations and past. Critics who find the material relevant will be invited to follow in my footsteps and explain where they come from and what motivates them. We'll even provide a special section for them to do this here on this blog.
Comment by MikeGene — June 27, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
I think the real problem for the hopes for an idyllic "post-wedge world" is that the lunatic fringe — the straight-out creationists and "wedgies" — will latch onto anything mildly dissident from the evolutionary view, in a desperate attempt to gain credibility. If you don't actively define yourself and distinguish yourself from the lunatic fringe, then you get defined by them. You can see how Cordova reacted right here in this very thread — and he's the guy that recently got prime-time treatment in Nature (!!!).
For Exhibit 2, see Dembski's new posts on his blog.
Comment by hebenz — June 28, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Hello Hebenz,
I said nothing about an idyllic post-wedge world, as the "lunatic fringe" on both sides will continue. It's simply that the fear that is associated with the concept of ID is now transferred to the "lunatic fringe," as it can no longer be rationally maintained.
Comment by MikeGene — June 28, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Speaking of the post-wedge world, does anyone think that the Intelligent Design Network will stop doing what they are doing in Kansas, assuming ID loses the lawsuit in Pennsylvania?
Comment by hebenz — June 28, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
What are they doing?
Comment by MikeGene — June 28, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
BTW, for those interested, I started a discussion on the ARN forum about this. The reaction from several critics is noteworthy.
Comment by MikeGene — June 28, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Yes, the same can be said of C. Darwin! Motivations and intentions are crucial for understanding Marx and Darwin also. And there is indeed an important difference between how those in western countries (especially the USA and England) interpret Darwin's ideas/theories/conceptions and how those in other countries interpret them, though I shall not divert the thread topic to discuss it.
When one notes that Darwin's daughter died at a young age and this affected his views about a merciful Creator, we see the influence of a non-scientific thing on his scientific views. It may not have had a great or deep influence on the "˜technical' conclusions of his science, but undoubtedly it touches on his views of purpose, meaning and teleology, which is the focus of this blog and also relates to the IDM. Likewise, the fact that Darwin's wife/cousin was a Christian influenced when he published his book as well as how he approached those religious folks who were upset by his thesis on mutable species and "˜descent of man' and/or common ancestry.
This has a huge impact on general misunderstandings of Darwin's theology, to the present day! (cf. Lamoureux 2004 for insight) To deny such non-scientific influences would be like claiming that Stephen Hawking's Christian wife has had no influence on his science or on his beliefs about the universe in recent years. Only a narrowly focused specialist scientist, unconcerned with environmental or other social-historical influences, would want to make such an argument. The context surrounding Darwin's scientific studies is just as interesting as his very real contribution to science.
Maybe you've found a right person to pose your question to, Mr. Gene. I have Darwin's autobiography and letters on my shelf, which some natural scientists have probably read. But I don't have his "Origin(s)" manifesto, which many who visit this blog have likely read at least in part. I'm more interested in Darwin's contribution to social thought and the network of collaborators and adherents to his theories than I am concerned with his biology, botany, taxonomy, zoology or geology itself. How evolution affects/affected people's world-view(s) is important too!
The main influences on Darwin were Lyell, Malthus, Paley and also von Humboldt's book Personal Narrative, which if memory serves correctly, he read on the Beagle journey. Other commentators note the deep influence Adam Smith had on Darwin's views. Insights from economic theory are rare in the specialization we see in natural sciences today (with exceptions tending once again toward interdisciplinarity) and also means to highlight his focus on English and German authors. Goethe's (meta)-morphology should not be overlooked as predating Darwin's adaptations and variations. Kant had already suggested that Mankind came forth from monkeys. The IDM is weaving together its own list of influences for rhetorical advantage.
K. Marx, on the other hand, could not have come up with such an evolutionary view of natural or social history. Why, first because he was an economist, not a biologist, geologist or "˜natural' scientist. Likewise, without knowing Marx's background, personal history and even the fact that he lived more years in England than in Germany are all important factors in "˜scientifically' analyzing his contribution to knowledge and the reality that something like a third of the world's population at one time were some form or another of self-proclaimed Marxists. Natural science provides different answers to these questions than social science does, especially if one simply tries to "˜objectively' assess what Marx wrote and not who he was and what he wanted to accomplish at the same time. Here I am not advocating isolation, but collaboration of natural and social views. "˜Workers of the world unite' is as powerful for sloganeering as "˜survival of the fittest,' both more so than "˜it looks designed because it is.'
No German scholar could have come up with "˜evolution,' or at least "˜natural selection' and "˜descent by modification,' because it wasn't in their national mindset to think such things. This speculation is verified by the fact that Alfred Wallace co-discovered "˜natural selection' with Darwin, or at least pressed Darwin by his own observations to finally publish the lengthy manuscript that he had been working on. Wallace's English-ness, and the fact that he was exploring the Southern hemisphere on another British vessel, lends support to the idea that inventions carry the trademarks of nations where they originate from, or whose minds those nations have produced. This is not merely some pseudo claim to scientific universality as some French ideologue might claim.
I don't know much of anything about Mike Gene and the "˜science' he is pursuing on the topic of ID and/or telic thoughts. I have read several of the articles on his website and gather that he believes in a kind of "˜front-loaded' universe, with inspired/in-spirited human beings living in it. But that tells me nothing of the context around his character and why he has chosen a pseudonym to protect whatever "˜scientific' project he is actually working on in real-time that may someday overcome neo-Darwin's theories. He could be in an underground nuclear reactor, heavenly observatory or in a garden or farm in the mountains hatching new animals or counting peas and crickets. My suspicion is there's more psychology and sociology or anthropology than natural science in his repertoire and that is why we see much talk of motivations, intentions and agency to stand up against threats and fears than we do typical scientific models, methods and solutions to problems raised by ateleological evolutionary theories.
I do know that I was banned from participation at the internet home of ID discussion, ARN, for calling him an "˜internet big mouth,' when he had called himself that very same thing at least twice in our dealings there. So by repeating his words to him about himself, I was unapologetically shunned from a discourse on "˜origins' upon which I have been intently focussed for several years, academically and otherwise speaking. Of course, the reverse psychology seemed to work in favour of those Salvadorians who wanted me disqualified anyway from repeatedly poking holes in their outright ID extremism, merely an excuse. Mike, on the other hand, is much more level-headed than some ARN promoters of "˜theistic science.' But this is another tangential topic too.
Then don't count me as one of your critics! :-> If the story of "˜Mike Gene' finally does come to light I'm sure it will be altogether interesting and worth the electronic pages it's printed on. Even just the mix of national views is quite intriguing, as there could be a brain drain factor added in. I'm wondering Mr. Gene, are you trying to get your piece of American pie?
Even if the story does one day go to print, that would not make us post-Mike Gene. If the protective, provocative name is discarded, even then "˜he is still who he is' with his knowledge and expertise and motivations to overcome non-teleological perspectives, including but not excluded to neo-Darwinism or Darwinian Orthodoxy. Mike Gene is part of history and cannot be post-prefixed except by personal choice or memory loss.
This is where we can return once again to the thread topic. I agree with Rock at ARN, that the Wedge document cannot be erased as if it never happened. This document was a real attempt at marketing within the ID Movement that ended up finding its way to those not in the IDM. It cannot logically be post-prefixed unless it is done by the Discovery Institute itself, i.e. the individual(s) or committee that composed the Wedge document in the first place. And all they wrote was (a profound) "˜So What?'
(Droopy the cartoon was the ID mascot of that piece.)
If they wanted to make a Wedge II, this would be more feasible than a post-Wedge World effort. Note that I'm not speaking about fears or threats here, as I feel neither from ID posturing and claims to philo-theo-science for the 21st century. On the other hand, if a COURT case that rules against ID as non-scientific is what is sought and achieved, this would deeply damage the work and the intentional project that the DI, ARN, ISCID, Design Inference, ID Network, IDEA, and others have been focused upon for almost a decade, some longer and some shorter involved. Specification and pattern recognition would still find their niches, information theories by scientific theists would still be entertained, origins of life would still remain mysterious, irreducibility, complexity studies and simplicity theories would still be hot-button topics in our contemporary world"¦but ID, as we know it within the IDM, would cease to exist or fade away into marginalization and ultimately, into scientific and sociological obscurity.
Besides, the fact remains that the mainstay of the IDM really is trying to upset or "˜revise' the way science is done, that is, as we know it up to the present time. This is not a hidden agenda, but an openly spoken fact of what the ID movement is about in their own words. Why try to deny it?
Meyer is a key figure in the Discovery Institute, out of which originated the Wedge Document I. No doubt Meyer has learned some things since that document was leaked. No doubt he and others at Discovery are more careful about who they show things to these days (other than giving me a copy of "Unlocking the Mystery" and ID: THE BRIDGE when I walked as an unknown inquirer into their offices!) and with whom they discuss broad strategies. There is a TON of politics going into ID, in tune with the highly political "˜nature' of the United States at this tumultuous time in American history. But I digress from such themes for now as irrelevant to this thread.
It would at least be helpful if Mike would elaborate on what a PWW actually means and how it could happen realistically without changing entirely the future of the IDM. Surely he doesn't want to try to "˜revise' the past? If he is not ready or yet willing to disclose how his and/or/plus Steve's, Krauze's or Gut's versions of ID theory could contribute to, distinguish from or surpass the theories currently presented by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Nelson, Wells, Thaxton, Bradley, Berlinski, Campbell, Calvert, Hartwig, Pearcey, Richards, Minnich, Gonzales, Luskin, Crowther, O'Leary, and others, then perhaps we'll just have to evaluate the Wedge, likely dreamed up originally by P. Johnson, and theories of design, intelligence, and "˜intelligent design' or ID, from what they have provided, listening patiently to the comments of critics and other counter-theorists too. Post-post-pre-fabricated repatriation of ancient ways "“ the IDM is still in its Wedge World glory days.
Well, then again, Salvador apparently hasn't published anything on the topic yet, so we have nothing official to let him "˜weigh in' on for this topic than internet chat and an article in Nature magazine about starting student clubs in his evangelical stomping grounds. The rest of the civilized world, I'm sure, will hold it's breath until that time or for when the next Einstein, Pavlov or Newton shows us post-evolution how.
Rambling on again for now,
g. arago
Notable quotables:
p.s. sorry for the long double post, had to correct a print error, please erase the 4:24pm version
Comment by g arago — June 28, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
June 28th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
You don't know what they're doing in Kansas? Did you miss the three-day, 20-some witnesses, paid for by Kansas taxpayers ID promotion event the Kansas Board of Education held last month? Behe, Dembski, Meyer, the whole lot.
Comment by hebenz — June 28, 2005 @ 11:43 pm
June 29th, 2005 at 12:38 am
But if one makes the mistake of thinking Annie's death influenced his conclusions in Origin of Species which had already gone to press, then one accuses Darwin of having invented time travel.
Darwin never repudiated the church or Christianity. He remained a member his entire life, tithing, raising his children as Christians, participating in parish affairs, and giving generously in addition to his tithe.
What are the motivations of those who impugn the motives of Darwin? If they had science to contradict Darwin's, wouldn't they tout that instead?
Comment by edarrell — June 29, 2005 @ 12:38 am
June 29th, 2005 at 9:16 am
G arago,
I'm sorry that you got banned from ARN, as I had nothing to do with it. I'm also quite surprised that you got banned for calling me an "internet big mouth," as this internet big mouth has been called much worse. On ARN, I always considered you an intriguing critic, definitely not the dime-a-dozen version.
The issue of motivations doesn't really fit well in this thread, so I won't comment on that. You could, however, transplant that discussion into Steve's blog above, as it focuses on this very question.
"As we know it within the IDM." But ID itself has been with us for 2500 years and has expressed it in many ways. It will survive just fine in the PWW, because Nature Herself continues to whisper it. At least I hear her whispering.
We'll see what it means when we get there. All we can say now is that while you are wise enough not to feel threatened by ID, this has not been true for the majority of its critics. I never had to invent the idea that fear existed out there. It was placed in front of our faces.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 9:16 am
June 29th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Hebenz:
So what's their point? What's supposed to happen? Where would something like this go in the PWW?
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 9:19 am
June 29th, 2005 at 9:21 am
ED:
The motivation issue is off topic, so further discussion goes down the Hole. Please discuss the pros and cons of the PWW.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 9:21 am
June 29th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Sorry Mike, for diversions (though, Steve's blog came after you questioned me)…and thanks, I didn't figure you wanted me banned from ARN since we'd had some healthy exchanges. It was likely Wagner, Nelson, Pearcey and Salvador behind-the-scenes who really pulled the strings and clicked 'delete.' Mod 6 on ARN is as pro-ID biased as a bean-pole is against strawberry growers. How the heck has JDB not managed dq status yet in his multiple doggish remarks? And yet they try to silence a neo-IDist, neo-evolutionist, oh well, go figure.
To repeat on topic of PWW:
[T]he Wedge document cannot be erased as if it never happened. This document was a real attempt at marketing within the ID Movement that ended up finding its way to those not in the IDM. It cannot logically be post-prefixed unless it is done by the Discovery Institute itself, i.e. the individual(s) or committee that composed the Wedge document in the first place. And all they wrote was (a profound) "˜So What?'
If they wanted to make a Wedge II, this would be more feasible than a Post-Wedge World effort. Note that I'm not speaking about fears or threats here, as I feel neither from ID posturing and claims to philo-theo-science for the 21st century. On the other hand, if a COURT case that rules against ID as non-scientific is what is sought and achieved, this would deeply damage the work and the intentional project that the DI, ARN, ISCID, Design Inference, ID Network, IDEA, and others have been focused upon for almost a decade, some longer and some shorter involved.
Besides, the fact remains that the mainstay of the IDM really is trying to upset or "˜revise' the way science is done, that is, as we know it up to the present time. This is not a hidden agenda, but an openly spoken fact of what the ID movement is about in their own words. Why try to deny it?
Don't these types of quotations give concerned (natural) scientists cause to protect and defend against unfounded, ungrounded claims of IDists, especially from those who support ID-POOF!? Is it really a potential REVOlution according to Mike Gene's version of ID?
This may have nothing to do with telic thoughts after all, and then you need not even consider operation in a PWW because you were never in a WW to begin with. Why not define yourself and TT in comparison to the IDM as some have suggested and distance yourself from the fear-mongering and threat-to-science false insinuators? This may help us all to clarify what ID is and what it is not.
Thanks for sharing this on your blog!
Arago
Comment by g arago — June 29, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
June 29th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
First we have from Cordoba:
Now we have from Dembski:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Clearly, and as any ID critic could have told you, the wedge will just keep on rolling in the face of court decisions against it. That is utterly unsurprising. The wedge was concieved as a way around various decisions prohibiting the teaching of Creation "Science" in schools. By first focussing on mere creation, then dropping the "C" term, it was hoped to slide past constitutional barriers against teaching religion as science in public schools.
The motivations of Wedgies will not be changed by any court decision. Nor, as Dembski makes plane, will their commitment to side stepping constitutional barriers by creative relabelling.
Oddly, while Mike is happy to call ID critics who will continue to notice this continued activity of the wedge "extremists" - he has no word of criticism for the wedgies for making it necessary in the first place.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 29, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
June 29th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
g. arago:
Of course not. I've always made it clear that Mike Gene's version of ID is essentially a late-night hobby. There are things in Nature that whisper "ID" into my ear and none of the anti-ID arguments have silenced it. Is this an auditory hallucination or something that is out there? I'm just trying to find out. And in the process of trying, what I have found out is that it has become more interesting (to me) that I had originally imagined.
I have been defining myself for years (see my web page) and making these distinctions all along. Consider what some of my most bitter opponents have told me on the ARN forum:
Now, neither of these guys really liked me. But critics who take the time to consider my views (even for purely debunking purposes) sometimes understand the distinctions.
Consider one glaring distinction "“ for years I have been saying that I do not consider ID to be science. Does it really make any sense to think a member of the IDM would make this public claim (many times over)?
BTW, g. arago, I was intrigued by your earlier claim that Darwin was perceived differently in different countries. If you would consider writing up an essay and e-mailing it to me, I likely host it as a guest blog.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
June 29th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Tom:
This is not true. I do not consider someone an extremist simply because they notice such activity. The extremists are those who notice such activity and then use it to define any and all expressions of ID. These are the people who are unable to distinguish between the concept of ID, along with the possibility that Life was designed, and a socio-political movement.
For example, we just had one critic on this blog assert that anything I post on this blog is part of The Wedge, and that The Wedge and ID are completely synonymous. That is extremism. The notion that some Group or some Agenda pulls my puppet strings is extremism.
Now please, let's stay closer to the topic of a PWW.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 11:21 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 5:40 am
Or what, Mike? Will you delete my post for asking questions you don't want to answer, or have an answer for again? Would that make it 6 or 7 of my posts you have deleted in this purportedly censorship free environment?
As it was, my points were exactly on topic. You asserted in you original blog that if a certain event happened (ID being declared religous, and being banned on constitutional grounds from US public school science classes), we would be in a post wedge world. I have disputed that assertion, on the basis of the immediate reaction of known wedgies to your proposition. I could also have disputed it on the previous experience of Creation "Science". So far as I know, the ICR did not pull up stakes and call it quits when the courts decided against them. There is no reason to think the DI will be any different.
You use your fantasy of a potential post wedge world to launch an attack on ID critics. But that attack has not basis. A post wedge world, defined as a world in which a court has ruled that ID is not science, and may not be taught in schools, will by almost exactly like this world. ID advocates will still lobby for disclaimers in textbooks, and to "teach the controversy". Some new "science" will appear having the same content as ID, but with a few of the technical terms changed to protect it from the immediate decision that shot down ID. It won't come from the DI, or have many DI fellows as its backers; for legal advisers and funders will know that that would criple the new strategy from the start; but it will have the same tired arguments in a rephrased vocabulary. And all its advocates will loudly proclaim that it is science, not religion; and point to a few agnostic fringe dwellers as proof of its non-religous status. In the meantime, the DI will soldier on preaching in churches; publishing books; and lobbying for ways around the court decision.
Am I an extremist for thinking this? Hardly. Already two wedgies have come out and said how they would respond to the situation as you described - and basically it would be business as normal. We should, I think, take Dembski's comments as being tongue in cheek - unless of course, he is prepared to state under oath that Intelligent Evolution is not just Intelligent Design relabelled. But that the strategy he suggests will be pursued is highly probable, given, for example, the history of the Discovery Institute itself.
However, despite the obvious unreality of your claims about the effects of an adverse court decision on the ID movement, are not interested in discussing why exactly your claims are unreal. You took no notice of Cordova's responce, despite the fact that it undercut the entire premise of your discussion. You say I am of topic because I bring the implication of his, and Dembski's responses to your attention. But to me this simply looks like evasion of half of the equation. You want to criticise ID critics for noticing that a large number of creationists want to push creationism under the rubric of ID. You don't want to criticise those creationists for doing so.
You claim you are interested in ID purely because "There are things in Nature that whisper "ID" into my ear and none of the anti-ID arguments have silenced it.", and you want if find out if "… this an auditory hallucination or something that is out there?" If that were my opinion, my anger would not be directed at the ID critics, but at the ID proponents. The proponents that refuse, for religious reasons, to clariffy auxilliary hypotheses about the age of the Earth and common descent. The proponents who for religious reasons keep on insisting that ID be taught as science in science class rooms before they have even developed a research program. The proponents who keep on accusing working scientists of being driven by metaphysical prejudice because they find weak arguments to be weak, and manipulated data to be manipulated.
You said above that:
But it is not a hypothesis critics are discussing when they are talking about motives. It is a movement. It is an organised attempt to reshape the way America thinks about materialism and naturalism. And all the chief ID proponents are part of that movement, whether you like it or not. So it is entirely appropriate to discuss the motives behind this movement. What is, however, intellectually irresponsible it to treat ID as though it were just an idea dispassionately proposed in academia, and to criticise the critics of the movement for noticing the motives of the movement while pretending they are criticising the motives for holding a theory.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 30, 2005 @ 5:40 am
June 30th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Regarding a Post Wedge World:
I think ID will prevail and progess whether a Post Wedge World materializes or not. Given that the Discovery Institute is vigorously advocating that ID not be mandated, it seems their leadership would rather avoid the issue altoghether in public schools.
I don't think they feel that a Post Wedge World would serve the interest of intelligent design as well as the situation that exists today. I'm not saying that your Post Wedge World (PWW) will not have significant benefits to the furtherance of ID. I think the question is not whether ID will ultimately prevail, but rather which scenario will result in the fastest acceptance by the mainstream.
I maintain, like Phil Johnson, the real battle ground is in the universities. The issue of a Post Wedge World is a smaller issue than training and preparing the next generation of ID leaning science students in the universities. The issue is not convincing the mainstream scientists, the issue is about replacing the mainstream scientists.
If I had to quantify the effect of PWW, I'd say it would slow down mainstream acceptance by about 5 years. I figure Mike has the opposite view in that he feels it will speed the acceptance.
My hope is ID will well positioned in 5 secular universities in 5 years, meaning it has courses regularly offered on the topic, and that in 10-15 years it will be in every major university, if only in the religion and philosophy departments.
Though I think ID's rightful place is in the science departments, I would not underestimate it's ability to be taught well in the religion and philosophy departments. The influence of these few classes is important.
Imagine a freshman bio student walking the fence on the ID issue as he comes to college . If these ID classes are available, he will more likely lean toward ID when given the chance to see both sides argued well. When I give the IDEA talks and an ID leaning bio senior participates for the first time, I glowing looks on their faces that would enough to inspire any IDist to continue the campaign to get the message out. It's the look of hope and re-assurance of purpose in the universe.
What little contact ID proponents have the young is powerful, and it will only be magnified if it becomes well entrenched in the university. I took 3 IDEA members, 2 recently graduated bio alumn, to the scandalous screening of the Privileged Planet. The effect of that exposure was awesome.
If there is any doubt of this effect, I point to what happened to a 15 year old student at the Kansas hearings:
My leaning is that the public school fights and all the press that it's generating is making it easier for IDists like me to approach administrators with a sales pitch. The sales pitch is more potent when cases like Christine are constantly in the headlines.
I essentially say, "ID is a current hot topic in the media. You'll get more enrollment in ID classes because it is controversial." Thus, from my perspective, continued controversy and attention is a good thing. A court decision would pull all the drama and free publicity. The drama and publicity help make the topic a little more urgent when trying to sell it to university administrators and professors.
For example, when I approached one department head, it was easy to talk to him because he saw Bill Dembski on Nightline the night before. I gave him a copy of Privileged Planet, and within two weeks he was showing it to his classes. That won't happen as easily in a post wedge world. I'm not saying that the PWW will not have merit, I'm only saying that there are benefits to ID from a non-PWW that outweigh the benefits in a PWW.
However, it is reassuring that Mike thinks a PWW will be beneficial to ID. That says to me, regardless of PWW or not, ID has hopeful prospects.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 30, 2005 @ 9:35 am
June 30th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Tom:
I have never deleted any of your posts. The only thing I did to you was move one of your posts to the Hole, because you tried to derail the thread about Lynch by resurrecting the discussion of Watson and eugenics. Y'see, you threw in the towel on the Watson thread and declared you wouldn't talk about it any more. Anyway, you shouldn't think I will be intimidated by some crybaby, victim routine. For the last five years, I have nearly 5000 postings showing a willingness to answer the questions of critics.
No it wasn't. You tried to make me the topic by making an untrue claim about me. The topic is not me. Don't bother replying to this, as I warned that I will aggressively moderate this thread.
In the meantime, I have things to do. But I will get to the rest of your reply as soon as I can. It would be better for you to reply to that.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2005 @ 9:54 am
June 30th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
So what's their point? What's supposed to happen? Where would something like this go in the PWW?
Mr. Gene, if you don't know what's been going on in Kansas, I don't see how you can make any kind of informed statement about the PWW. In Kansas, everyone swears up and down that they aren't promoting ID, but the unelected, unappointed John Calvert of the ID Network is running the whole show, the ID Network got the State Board of Education to bring in 22 or so ID witnesses, at taxpayer expense, to testify for 3 days that evolution was bogus and ID was great, and the Board appears to be adopting into the science standards a whole series of ID talking points equating evolution with atheism, saying that natural selection can't order DNA base pairs, suggesting that animals don't share common ancestry, encouraging teachers to teach both sides, etc. If you listen to the recordings (audible.com) and are familiar with creationist lingo and rhetoric ("origins science" vs. "operation science", conversion stories, evolutionists are evil dogmatic atheists, etc.), it sounds like they had a barely-disguised creationism revival. Court rulings are very narrow, I don't see how you can say that a court ruling against ID will put a legal end to this kind of stuff — change a few words here and there, and suddenly they're back in business. As long as this kind of thing goes on, you will be deprived of your post-wegde world rhetoric that anti-ID people are irrationally concerned about political ID.
Comment by hebenz — June 30, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Tom:
What you dispute is rooted in confusion. I do not argue that people will abandon ID in the PWW. If they did, that would confirm the wedge-centric conspiracy theory, which has been preaching that ID is only a temporary ruse to get creationism in the schools. The point of the essay is that in the PWW, the fear among so many of the critics will no longer have a rational basis. Instead of being afraid of a well-planned, well-funded specifically identified agenda (The Wedge) to get "the designer" taught in the schools (as explained by Ed Brayton), you'll have to be afraid of people who think differently in a pluralistic democracy and whose thinking goes back at least 2500 years. And you are right that the ICR did not pull up stakes. But neither did it invent the DI.
Sure. I do not think people like Dembski and Behe proposed ID because they wanted to sneak God in schools. I think they proposed it because they thought it was valid, and being convinced of this, they thought schools should bring up valid ideas. If they abandon ID in a PWW, that will tell us the wedge-centrics were right, and that Behe and Dembski never thought ID was valid, but did only invent it as a ruse.
What will be different is that the courts will prevent ID from being taught in the schools, thus there is no longer any rational reason to be afraid ID will be taught in the schools.
Didn't the courts just rule against the stickers? As for "teaching the controversy," I don't expect much to come out of this. What does that get them? The whole perceived threat from ID came from the idea of teaching public school students to incorporate "the supernatural" in the science class. That is, not only was "religion" being taught in the schools, but students were being taught "religion" as part of a science education. "Teach the controversy" is surely a nuisance, but since such teaching won't be able to bring up an ID alternative, the "controversy" is just naysaying evolution. And that does not amount to teaching religion in a science class. In other words, in the WW, the "teach the controversy" approach is viewed as an incremental step toward wedging ID into the schools. In the PWW, there is no ID follow up to introduce. The "controversy" hangs out there by itself with nowhere to go.
In psychology, there is an important principle that dictates we tend to see what we expect to see. As Tom gives us his expectations, we can see that he will continue to see The Wedge in the PWW. Anything related to ID will be interpreted as part of a new, mysterious plot (mysterious, because now the Wedge document is irrelevant). What's interesting is that Tom's expectations would have us freeze the exploration of ID as is. Any new concept, any new argument, any new person, will become a new Trojan horse within the Trojan Horse.
So? All of this is activity that is protected by the First Amendment and part of a pluralistic democracy.
As I wrote, "The extremists are those who notice such activity and then use it to define any and all expressions of ID." Sorry, I really think that describes you.
I think that would be a big mistake on Dembski's part. He has introduced his method of design detection and argued for ID. In the PWW, he can now continue this work where his critics no longer have a rational basis for accusing such work as being nothing more than part of the Wedge. If he throws out design, he will just set himself up for another round of conspiracy theories and witch-hunting.
This reminds me of another "suggestion" from a critic who would like to see me go away. His "helpful" advice was for me to denounce ID and come up with a new label.
So I reply to the guy:
Nah, I'll just stick with ol' ID. In the PWW, that way it will be clear I am not part of the Super-Duper Secret Wedge. I'll wear the "not ready to be taught in public schools" label proudly.
There was no claim that that involved unreality.
It can only undercut the entire premise of my discussion if you are still afraid of Cordova in the PWW.
No, I didn't say this. After explaining how you spread misinformation about me, I politely asked you to stay closer to the topic of the PWW.
You've ignored my reply just so you can continue with your misinformation. I do not criticize critics simply because they notice such activity. I criticize those critics who notice such activity and then use it to define any and all expressions of ID. These are the people who are unable to distinguish between the concept of ID, along with the possibility that Life was designed, and a socio-political movement.
And that's your problem "“ I am not Tom. ID proponents do not have a history of spreading lies about me, trying to "out" me, attacking my character, stalking me, etc. The ID critics do. Rather than lash out at the "ID proponents," I have patiently laid out my own novel views and case:
I have begun this process of clarification years ago and will continue to do so.
I have made it clear, on many occasions, that I do not think ID is science and have explained why.
I have made it clear that I do think the case for ID is weak.
So y'see, rather than pick even more fights (and double the population of my opponents), I choose to take a positive approach and lay out my own views. The critics deserve my attention because they rely on their stereotypes and conspiracy theories to psychologize me and I will defend myself and my views.
There is no evidence that the average critic of ID makes a distinction between the two. In fact, several prominent critics have made it clear they interpret all the concepts/arguments through the prism of the movement.
Yes, I know an obsession with motives is crucial to many critics. They rely heavily on psychologizing their opponents.
It is clear that in the PWW, Tom will continue to cling to the Wedge. That is, even after it is illegal to teach ID in schools, he will approach the topic as if this was not true.
Okay, that's the last word on this, Tom and I feel as if I just wasted some time. Earlier today, I told you not to bother with the short reply above. In response, you disrespected your host and posted something anyway, something that accused me of dishonesty and effectively gave me the middle finger (it's in the Hole). In the reply above, you continue to spread misinformation about me and try to make me the topic. Thus, I am not interested in any of your further comments in this entry. It's not because your arguments are so powerful and questions are so hard; it's because of the disrespectful pattern of misbehavior that I perceive.
You said you "didn't give a damn" if I deleted your comments. I'll assume you were being honest.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2005 @ 10:40 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Salvador,
I don't look to the PWW as one which that will hasten the acceptance of ID. I simply view it as a world where a window of opportunity might emerge where more people can objectively assess the questions related to ID. Keep in mind that my original essay has am important qualifier "“ "if there is truth to ID." I don't come to the table as one who believes in ID and am thus looking for ways to get more people to believe likewise. I come to the table with honest suspicions and am looking for ways to assess those. More objective evaluators can only be a good thing.
As for getting ID taught in the universities, I understand you have the blessing of the president of the NCSE. Nevertheless, I don't see how a socio-political climate that threatens most in academia can be viewed, in the long run, as something that helps your goal. If you try to get a course in ID offered somewhere, you will need faculty members to teach it and faculty members on a committee to approve it. In the current environment, those faculty members would be easily tarred with the broad brush of the Wedge.
Let me offer you some friendly public suggestions. I'll make it public so that opinions from the top of my head cannot be viewed as conspiring.
First, the whole idea of using the college classroom as a vehicle to promote an agenda will not sit well in an academic environment. Put yourself is some different shoes and pretend you are on a curriculum committee that is presented with the proposal to teach a class on atheism, where the class will explore the thinking and history of some of history's greatest atheists. Since atheism is an important part of our culture, there should be no problem with this. But what if you found out through secondary sources that the professor has argued there are too many religious people around and designed his class as a means to convert more students to atheism?
As you know, I like you (you seem like a really nice guy). And I'm obviously quite sympathetic to your ID notions, even though you go much further with them than I do. But I have to tell you that if I was on a committee, you don't have my vote for approval. This is because it sounds like you want to use the classroom to proselytize. If you can't get someone like me to vote for approval, what are you going to do with a hardcore critic is strongly advocating disapproval on the committee (with Wedge document in hand)?
You also mention that there is a big demand for an ID course in the colleges. That is helpful, but that will unlikely be enough. For example, if we consider an outlandish example (actually I don't know how outlandish it is given what is taught at some colleges these days), a professor who wanted to teach a course on video game strategy would probably easily fill it every time it was offered. But popularity is not the only criterion, especially when faculty are given the power to approve or disapprove. As such, they will want to see a real educational mission behind the class.
So this is what I would suggest. First, you have to do some soul-searching and make sure you are not inventing a class to "convert students,' but instead you really believe the course has true educational value. Here, you may want to consult the college or university's mission statement. Secondly, conduct a survey of all the courses that are taught by the college/university. For example, several have classes dealing with "animal welfare," which can be easily construed as an appendage of the animal rights movement. If the school has classes that can be easily viewed as part of an agenda, obtain the syllabi and see how they are taught.
Finally, and most importantly, make a class whose purpose is to educate and enlighten the students. I would suggest a course on "The Design Argument." You can roughly model it after chapter 2 of Barrow and Tipler's book, where you explore the history of the design argument to help us understand the current situation. You can begin with Greek and Roman philosophers who argued for and against design. Explore the The Bridgewater Treatises, the natural theology movement, the work of David Hume, Paley, Darwin, etc. Then get to the modern ID arguments and the critic's counter-arguments.
Put simply, make sure the course would fit the goals of the school, model it after other potentially controversial courses already in existence, and offer a product that seeks to educate, not indoctrinate.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
July 1st, 2005 at 1:23 am
Three cheers for that last post…
Comment by hebenz — July 1, 2005 @ 1:23 am
July 1st, 2005 at 2:34 am
Mike,
Thank you for you're long and thoughtful reply. I don't think there is anything you wrote that I didn't find myself mostly agreeing with. In regards to your topic, if a PWW transpires, I would hope that the scenario you outline will ensue, and not the one I envision.
What I will explore, and further discussion belongs elsewhere, is the fact some secular college curriculums in religion departments are structured to prepare students who choose a path toward a seminary education to become ministers or missionaries. Perhaps, only in that context, where it is already acknowledged where the students are headed, can such a course have any hope of approval in the current environment. How such a course could migrate beyond that context is a problem for later…
I will take your suggestion however, and hunt for an alignment to department missions and needs. An ID course will succeed if it is perceived to satisfy the needs of the school. Plain and simple.
A very small but hopeful sign is ID is already getting sporadic attention in existing religion classes, and perhaps it can be extended from there. Students at JMU have gotten homework credit from their professors for attending our IDEA events, and for that I am deeply grateful….
Of interest to me, regarding a PWW world is not just the reactions of the academics in science, but in the religion departments. As far as I can tell, the religion faculties have mostly stayed on the sidelines. One adminstrator I spoke with even asked, "What's is the Discovery Institute?"
In either non-PWW or PWW, I guess one novel approach to ensuring ID is taught is to promise the college administrators ID and creationism will get slammed, and then sneak in Henry Morris, Phil Johnson, Michael Behe in at the end of class! Here is an English class at GMU that did exactly that.
http://mason.gmu.edu/%7edtaciu...
Salvador
PS
By the way, I like you too, Mike.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 1, 2005 @ 2:34 am
July 1st, 2005 at 9:20 am
Hebenz:
Let's clarify what the PWW is. First, what is the Wedge? According to the critics (and their perceptions are widespread and entrenched), the Wedge is simply a political movement that uses the concept of ID as a means to a religious end. So important is The Wedge is that it defines everything related to ID over the last decade. As Brayton explains:
Everything about ID must be interpreted through the prism of the Wedge. I'm reminded of Paul Gross's essay which essentially states that before we get to the ID arguments, we must see them in their sociological/political context.
So what's the PWW? Again, consult Brayton:
The PWW will be upon us not when some local court rules, but when Brayton's description becomes reality.
Hebenz writes:
We'll see. In the WW, this kind of thing can be construed as part of the well-funded, carefully-crafted, incremental plot to get the "˜designer' taught in schools. In the PWW, that perception evolves into pure paranoia, as there is nowhere to go after this kind of thing. Instead of being part of a plot to get "religion in the science class,' it is merely a nuisance. In our country that values freedom and the First Amendment, you can have a creationist revival in the public square. You just can't have the government force kids to learn creationism in the school rooms.
In the PWW, the critics will seem to be unhappy with this state of affairs. They can't be unhappy with the school situation, since the government has placed off-limits signs around them. So they must be unhappy that the public square allows such debate.
Like I've been saying, I have found that many critics have come to rely on the Wedge as their crutch. In the PWW, they will either have to give up the crutch or not. If they choose to hang onto their crutch, they are likely to evolve into full blown paranoid conspiracy theorists and witch-hunters.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2005 @ 9:20 am
July 1st, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Mike wrote of the critics of ID:
I can see a few examples of that already. One can only imagine what the full blown version would be in PWW.
Look at how John Rennie of Scientific American reacted when University Presidents and CEO's decline to swear allegiance to his cause:
Cowardice, Creationism and Science Education
He was openly calling University Presidents and Intel's CEO cowards? And that the President's didn't even rate as hypocrites?
If tantrums like that happen with even more vigor in a PWW, then I would say the extreme critics will indeed marginalize themselves from the mainstream. I cannot immagine a better symbol of the mainstream than a University President, and if anything, University Presidents might be a little less sympathetic to ID than the mainstream.
I do not know in a PWW why Rennie would still have cause to have such tirades, but if he continued to in a PWW, I think the scenario you envision Mike, may come to pass.
Already I see some bloggers like Jason Rosenhouse lambast liberal papers for not sufficiently denigrating IDists. And when the anti-ID journal Nature, didn't go far enough in their opposition to ID, the editors got an earful.
The die-hard critics are honestly starting to look marginalized by their usual supporters, and if a PWW accentuates that, I can only imagine what that would be like.
Have a nice Independence Day Weekend everyone.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 1, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
July 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Sorry, Mike to repeat this, but otherwise this topic-fantasy doesn't make much sense. You didn't answer my tougher questions:
If the Discovery Institute doesn't do it, then how can you even suggest it? How can you post-prefix the Wedge document? Even further, how can a Wedgie them-self post-prefix it without establishing what parts of that document they now no longer agree with? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air of your own political hopes. What if…?
The mainstay of the IDM really is trying to upset or "˜revise' the way science is done, that is, as we know it up to the present time. This is not a hidden agenda, but an openly spoken fact of what the ID movement is about in their own words. Why try to deny it?
Trying to re-define ID theory according to your terms, using someone else's documents is not a realistic or acceptable solution.
Salvador Cordova is a Wedgie, pure and simple and self-proclaimed. One of the loudest in the game. How can he now pretend to get beyond himself with a clear conscience? This is why he promotes classes in ID theory, whether in schools, universities, colleges or church groups, even if the "˜science' of ID is not (yet) capable of delivering. This promotion of ID courses fits conveniently with the Wedge strategy, which Mike Gene is now somehow supporting by encouraging a course in ID, even if in religion classes. This is basic Wedge-in-action.
A PWW would mean isolation for those (such as Salvador) who suggest ID as an updated form of scientific creationism or as a "˜rational or probabilistic proof' of God's (or the un-named IDer's) existence. ID may continue to press for legitimacy, though in a PWW it would have to distance itself from YEC-IDists in order to have any hope of becoming scientific. As it is now, there is no reason not to support those who are at least not against one's convoluted views of REVOLUTIOnism, though Mike Gene admits ID theory is revolution-not.
Did you know that some IDists believe ("˜non-dogmatically') the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? Really they do (like many Americans, who again distinguish themselves from much of the rest of the world))! This was one of the major things that disqualified "˜creation science,' i.e. since mainstream scientists agree otherwise, as does Michael Behe a contradictory IDist himself, that the Earth is not young but "˜old'. If Mike Gene's proposed PWW is to become a reality, it will require similar proclamations against ID-Creation Science. It would split the ID-tent; ID in a religion or philosophy class is emphatically not ID-science.
The problem with some versions of ID (since there is no singular version to criticize, but many theories of ID) is when they invoke creationist ideas and authors to legitimize ID views. These people evangelize (or try to evangelize) when on an evangelical stage and speak (or try to speak) in scientific terms when on a scientific stage. They switch between "˜no one here but us scientists' and "˜don't want to address the theology of ID' at his own whim. This lacks integrity, depth and rigour, is unfair to theologians who would not be swayed by lacklustre science (as a one-way ticket) and is disingenuous to religious persons who would (unknowingly) hear only a one-sided view of "˜science' in Christian student groups. ID in religion (or philosophy, used pejoratively) classes, they say, but claim ID is really a science. A PWW merely shifts the burden.
Though probably I don't agree with his adherence to evolutionism (if that is indeed his view) or his fear of religionists, I surely do agree with hebenz, contrary to the approach of Mike Gene, that anti-ID people are not irrationally concerned with political ID. There are indeed those who have a realistic case against (and reason to combat) politicization in the name of ID = scientific revolution, even if they support the theistic views of the majority of those inside the IDM.
"To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." "“ Wedge
ID has not satisfied the majority of readers/listeners that it is THE BRIDGE between science and theology. Is this the reason Mike really wants to propose a Post-Wedge-World? Is Mike Gene proposing a bridge between science and theology with his views on origins, purpose, meaning and teleology? I find that to be far-fetched.
For those who don't support theistic-ID but who wish for another version of ID to suit their irreligious or agnostic pro-scientific (scientism) views, there doesn't seem to be a safe way out. That is, if the DI, ID Network and those in control of the ID circus have their say and use the Wedge document to light the way, the future of science-in-America is still in doubt.
Mike Gene, Krauze, Steve Peterman and Guts may not be among the majority of theistic-IDists, but they are, in one way or another, furthering usage of the Wedge (or at least its intentions) by supporting the concept, theory or movement of ID over against whatever version of neo-Darwinism or evolutionism they see as their foe. The question really is how far are they willing to go? It is impossible to get beyond a Wedge ideology if they are standing obviously still inside ID's Wedge against scientific materialism. But like I said, this may not be a bad thing in itself.
Hopeful thoughts of peace for all sides in this time of discourse,
Arago
p.s. I wrote this before reading Mike's June 30th p.m. posts, but I wonder what Mike thinks ID is if it is not a "˜science'? What is it that he hears whispering? Is that the spirit of nature whispering or something else? This is imo a great analogy, btw.
"Instead of being afraid of a well-planned, well-funded specifically identified agenda to get "˜the designer' taught in the schools, you'll have to be afraid of people who think differently in a pluralistic democracy and whose thinking goes back at least 2500 years." "“ Mike Gene
It is not only 'get the designer taught' that defines the Wedge document, but also its intimations of revolution. Let me repeat, I am not a Darwinist and I am not afraid of IDists.
Happy Canada Day (over there)!
Comment by g arago — July 1, 2005 @ 5:12 pm