Post-Wedge Anti-Wedge: The Fat Lady Isn't Singing
by JoyDespite some complaints about the political nature of these sociopolitical issues, I thought I'd go ahead and introduce for everyone's pleasure the official Anti-Wedge Strategy [hat tip to PT via none other than Pim] launched by Massimo Pigliucci, David Baum and Mark McPeek for the joint council of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the Society of Systematic Biologists, and the American Society of Naturalism. It's a true jewel in the sense that it helps to elucidate well the reason why the emotionally-invested critics of ID aren't yet ready to let go of the Wedge now that it's been soundly defeated in the US courts.
We like to call this the "Post-Wedge World." Mike coined the phrase on purpose, demonstrating the fact that the attempt by creationist fundamentalists to 'wedge' their way into public school science classrooms was ill-conceived from the beginning. Now the engaged DarwinDefenders are left bereft of the Wedge as a reason to justify their strident political activity. So they came up with this in order to keep the brawl going.
Who here is promoting the politics? 
August 8th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Pretending that only one side has extra-scientific concerns is silly. Politics is inevitable when an issue involves public funding and governmental policies. All the central concerns of both sides are related to such issues.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
August 8th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
We got
them now. They are playing right into our hands. We let them think they have defeated us in Kansas, but our clandestine Trojan horse is embedded deep within their camp.
We are going deep undercover.
Comment by teleologist — August 8, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
August 9th, 2006 at 3:18 am
Joy, if you'd read the link I posted on 'Post-Wetge Commentary,' you'd notice that it was the same one you attribute to PT and Pim.
You verify that Wedge = ID in Schools? Same narrowness as Mike, it seems.
No, I am not a Darwin Defender. Do I support anti-wedge? No, but then again, I'm not in the U.S.A. either.
Is i+d obviously highly politicized on both sides? Not really tough to figure that one out…
Gregory
p.s. it was not 'the wedge' that was defeated in US courts, but i+d's pretension to 'science'
Comment by g arago — August 9, 2006 @ 3:18 am
August 9th, 2006 at 10:17 am
g arago:
I did notice your link, which is why I downloaded the pdf for this blog. Thanks.
You're right of course. Science isn't science until science says so. This doesn't necessarily mean that what science says is science is particularly scientific, or that what science says isn't science doesn't qualify per the superficial 'rules'. It just means the club is exclusive.
Yet the Wedge's primary strategy was to get ID taught in public schools in order to promote a non-materialist view of origins. Then the entrenchment of materialism at all levels of society could be challenged. ID cannot be taught in public schools, and while I think the materialist mindset is terminally dumb, people - even scientists - can be terminally dumb if they want. I've said many times that it's all about dueling metaphysics, and dueling metaphysics will be a passionately played human pastime for as long as there are humans to play the game.
The best thing to have happened from all this is the change in the way evolution is taught in public schools. The specifically metaphysical assertions have been stricken from the textbooks, the absolutist and anti-theological language has been erased, and a range of possibilities for things science is not very knowledgeable about are being presented. Suddenly (and my grandson's textbook was brand new) biology has to play science by actual scientific 'rules' - Neodarwinists never liked provisionality, but they're now going to have to learn to live with it.
By the way… have you noticed how the DarwinDefenders have taken to complaining that people who reject the Neodarwinian version of life and evolution are "anti-evolution?" It's a semantic sleight-of-mind designed to re-cast the terms of engagement now that the Wedge's religious baggage has been legally barred from public education. And, given the fact that most of the ID supporters I know of have no problem with evolution, fundamentally dishonest.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2006 @ 10:17 am
August 10th, 2006 at 3:15 am
Got any examples? I mean, real ones?
Comment by edarrell — August 10, 2006 @ 3:15 am