The strange case of Dr. Discovery and Mr. Hide

Dear Discovery Institute,

How are you today? I am doing quite well, thank you for asking. You may perhaps appreciate me noting some discrepancies I've noted in books connected to your Institute, however. We'll start with William Dembski, one of the most well-known individuals connected with your institution.

In Dembski 1999, the author states the following (printed on Brockman 2006 p. 3and checked for validity in Dembski 1999):

"Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ"

As shown by our previous discussions on the Wedge Document, this statement correlates perfectly with the Discovery Institute's ideals. However, apparently in order to sell Intelligent Design to the general public, Dembski states (Dembski 2004, and quoted in Brockman 2006 p. 3):

"Intelligent Design is not an evangelic Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing...Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world---without appealing to religious authority"

Both statements have been made by the same author. Which is correct? Perhaps we should examine "Of Pandas and People", an old ID textbook, for answers? Lets start with a quote from the book defining Intelligent Design:

"Evolutionists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact---fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Davis and Kenyon 1989 p. 99-100)

Is it just me, or does this definition of Intelligent Design reek of Creationist theory? Perhaps this resemblance is because the book was originally a Creationist book titled "Creation Biology" (Shermer 2006 p. 102-3, Humes 2007 p. 285). It is also telling that Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute, has affiliated himself with the book by publishing a "Note to teachers" within its pages, especially in the 1993 edition (www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/indexphp?commonand=view&ID=1671
see for web posting of this note).

In today's discussion, as inspired by the conflicting claims of William Dembski, we've seen evidence of "Pandas"' Creationist ancestry, conflicting claims by William Dembski (both supporting and suppressing Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy), and even the support of "Pandas" by some of Discovery Institute's own. My dear friends at the Discovery Institute, for the sake of ID's survival as a science, please step away from the Wedge Strategy and stop contradicting yourselves so that it will one day be possible to give credibility to your researchers.



Works Cited:

Brockman, J. "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement". 2006
Davis, P. and Kenyon, D. "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". 1989
Dembski, W. "Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science & Theology. 1999
Dembski, W. "The Design Revolution". 2004
Humes, E. "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul". 2007
Shermer, M. "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design". 2006