A Plethora of Pandas; Discovery Institute, Amicus Briefs, and Kitzmiller v. Dover

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will explore Appendix A from your Amicus brief filed in Kitzmiller V. Dover. This section is titled "Documentation showing that the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about the identity or nature of the intelligent cause responsible for life". This page is taken right from your site, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=647 . We will study it one section at a time.

From 1st paragraph:
Plaintiffs have falsely asserted that the scientific theory of intelligent design postulates a "supernatural" creator. In fact, the scientists and philosophers of science who have developed the theory of intelligent design have constistently maintained that the scientific evidence and the methods of design detection that they employ cannot establish whether the intelligent cause(s) responsible for life are inside or outside of nature.

Well, you're starting out with a problematic statement. First, if the people behind Intelligent Design argue that the "scientific evidence" for intelligent design cannot tell us "whether the intelligent cause(s) for life are inside or outside of nature", then how can one qualify intelligent design as science? Science has to be testable, and disprovable. If you cannot scientifically identify a designer in nature, then by the nature of science (under the Discovery Institute's preferred definition of science), that designer does not exist. However, this is only under the Wedge Document's preferred definition of science, which also allows for the incorporation of the supernatural into science. According to the Wedge Document definition, the Intelligent Designer must not exist because there is no proof for its existence that can give us a smoking gun to identify what it is. Under the mainstream definition of science, however, there is no such issue. Mainstream science takes the stance that supernatural causation is outside the realm of science, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven by science. Therefore, while mainstream science cannot disprove God, the Discovery Institute has pushed a view of science that would allow for the disproof of God's existence.

You may notice that I'm going a bit God-heavy in a discussion of a theory that the Discovery Institute claims makes no statement on what the cause of intelligent design is. This is because many of the mainstream ID proponents (such as Jonathan Wells and William Dembski)have no qualms whatsoever about identifying the "designer". Let's look quickly at a quote by Jonathan Wells that explains his motivation as a scientist:

" At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. "
taken from http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

As readers of this blog should know, Jonathan Wells is one of the major supporters of Intelligent Design. Is it a coincidence that his mission to destroy Darwinism for God coincides with his involvement with Intelligent Design, judging from the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, probably not, as evidenced by the following piece of the Wedge Document:

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. "
(http://deardiscoveryinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/01/wedge-documentso-what.html )

So apparently ID is a tool that can overthrow materialistic science and "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.". This wording is vague to the point that it is possible for the Discovery Institute to argue that the term "consonant" shows that ID proponents do not have a certain deity in mind when they use the term "Designer". However, statements such as that from Wells quoted above make that argument extremely weak. It is fairly obvious, that, whether implicitly or not, the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer.

Now, onto another quote from the Amicus brief:

"Intelligent Design theorists have written many technical articles which rely entire upon empirically-based arguments and make no appeal to the supernatural. Rather, technical literature explicating the scientific theory of intelligent design consistently uses observation-based scientific methods to detect the prior action of an unspecified designing intelligence"

First, it is obvious that the "unspecified designing intelligence" is the Christian God, as established above. Also, the claim that ID proponents have published peer-reviewed journal articles has been discussed on a previous blog ( http://deardiscoveryinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/03/peer-reviewed-id-publications.html ), so I won't waste my time re-discussing this subject here. On to another piece of the document, discussing religion:

"Theorists who have formulated the scientific theory of intelligent design have been consistent in stating that design theory does not postulate a supernatural creator, nor does it try to speculate on the basis of science about the nature or identity of the designing intelligence, even when writing before technical religious journals or popular religious audiences via religious publishing companies"

Well they're right here to a degree. Most of the claims that Intelligent Design supports the CHRISTIAN GOD are found in private documents such as the Wedge Document. However, some ID advocates (see Wells and Dembski) have been quite open in public about the religious nature of their work (Wells quote above). Now we'll look at a short statement from an interview by William Dembski:

"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That's where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm. "
( http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm )

As is evident in this statement, it is clear that Dembski "knows" that the intelligent designer is none other than the Christian God. It is clear from this, among the other topics discussed in this blog, that the claims by the Amicus brief appendix in question are extremely vague in that they are technically accurate, but only in the most technical and exact reading. Any research deeper into the issue, especially the surrounding documents (besides articles published dealing SPECIFICALLY with Intelligent Design), shows us that intelligent design is nothing more or less than an attempt to once again develop a theory of Creation in the post Edwards v. Aguilard and Mclean v. Arkansas world.

The end of this segment of the brief deals with the textbook Of Pandas and People. While I have discussed Of Pandas and People previously, I think it is worth looking at this segment of the of the brief quickly. Consider the final paragraph of this document:

"Thus even while design theory was in its infant stages, the authors of Pandas made it explicitly clear that unlike creationism, design theory does not posit a supernatural creator and cannot establish the existence of such a creator using its methods of design detection."

This may be true for the most recent versions of Of Pandas and People, but older versions of the book, as shown through the Dover trial, prove that the authors of Pandas did have a specific designer in mind...the Christian God. Pandas was initially nothing less or more than a Creationist textbook. One final quote, comparing sections of Of Pandas and People as used in the Dover trial, and a previous version:

"Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an abrupt agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Of Pandas and People, Kenyon and Davis 1989)

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)
(second quote taken from http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html )

So clearly there is a Creationist heritage to Of Pandas and People. While the most recent versions of the text did not specifically identify the "designer", clearly this older version does. While it is still vague with regards to an exact identity of the Creator, judging from the fact that it was originally a Creationist textbook, it is apparent that the designer in question was the Christian God.

Clearly, this amicus brief is not as innocent as it appears. Judging from the evidence presented in this blog, there is much more to the Discovery Institute than meets the eye from this amicus brief. It leads one to question the validity of other documents published by the institute.

cdesign proponentist

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will be discussing my personal favorite transitional form, Cdesign proponentist. This organism falls between "Creationist" and "Design Proponent". First discovered in 2005, Cdisign proponentist was a major player in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. This organism was discovered in a draft of the textbook suppliment that you actually support, "Of Pandas and People". This transitional form occured as the book was being changed from a Creationist textbook supplement to an "Intelligent-Design"-based textbook suppliment.

Cdesign proponentist is a transitional form that proves that Intelligent Design arose from Creation Science. In fact, one could argue the point that this organism is proof that Creationists are, in fact, evolving. As for Michael Behe, if a stack of textbooks proving the evolvability of the bacterial flagellum is not enough to demonstrate the validity of evolution at this level, Cdesign proponentist must at least be sufficient to prove that evolution does, in fact, occur at least at some level.

Why are we talking about Cdesign proponentist right now? I was kind of hoping that Ben Stein would include this transitional form in his film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". However, as with any film that an individual is interviewed to be in, and subsequently blocked from viewing the film, I strongly question the validity of its claims. Oh well, I guess I probably won't be allowed to see it either, because I accept evolution and see Intelligent Design for what it really is (as shown by Cdesign proponentists).

Well let's take a look at your Wedge strategy for a bit. The Wedge Document sets up ID in 3 phases. Now that you have created your own "research" programs (funded by yourself, and not supported by the scientific community), it appears that you are in phase 2 of the Wedge Strategy (publicity). Stein's documentary falls right in with that process. However, given your governing goals for spiritual and cultural renewal, and the fact that A) you've been pushing Stein's documentary and B) Answers in Genesis was allowed to see it but scientists interviewed within the film were not, it seems to me that there are questions in the air with regards to credibility of the film. Go ahead and show it; anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through what you're trying to do.

It may serve the reader of this blog to have the Discovery Institute's goals for spiritual and cultural renewal posted in this blog, so I will post them below:

"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "

This looks like Creationism. Thanks to the discovery of Cdesign proponentist, I think we have the smoking gun proof of this evolutionary linaeage.

peer reviewed ID publications?

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will be considering the validity of your claim that there is a strong base of peer-reviewed articles and books on Intelligent Design. The articles in question will be taken directly from your website ( http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 ). The following question will be raised: do these publications truly qualify as peer-reviewed works in a valid sense (ie. a peer review system that doesn't include ID merely because it is ID, but rather on it's scientific merits?)/

The first questionable articles are those published in "Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer" (from your site). The fact that Meyer is both an editor of the book and also a major player in the internal politics of the Discovery Institute, it is apparent that there would, of course, be papers supportive of Intelligent Design included in this book. Therefore, it is not possible to consider this work an independent scientific publication due to the fact that ID is essentially guaranteed inclusion in the text with little or no regards to the validity of ID as a "science". Other ID-based or ID/evolution debate-based conference and journal publications are also removed with this group.

Removal of those sources strongly cuts down the base of "peer-reviewed" journal articles listed on your site. We will continue by removing "peer-reviewed" books, especially those that are either edited by strong ID proponents or attempting to cover both ID and evolution. While books may have valid information in them, the fact is that they are not required to be scientifically accurate, and thus are not admissible for consideration as scientific publication under our qualifications in this blog. This once again severly cuts down the list of so-called "peer-reviewed" publications.

Now we can begin to look at the scientific papers left. The first step in this process is to remove the journal articles that have been listed multiple times on your database (ie. multiple listings for single articles...almost seems like you're trying to make it look like you have more articles than you do...). Then we can begin looking at these papers (quotes taken from listed site unless stated otherwise:

"M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics. "

"Indirect scientific support" does not qualify as a scientific article on Intelligent Design. Nice try, but the ID movement needs to do more than this if they hope to gain scientific validity. We will now remove all articles providing only "indirect scientific support" for ID from our list.

The following article is introduced as if it provides a compelling peer-reviewed article supportive of ID, implying that ID has actually gotten through the peer-review process:

"D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".

However, here it looks as if the author himself is stating that the article does not provide direct support for ID:

" concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. " ( http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html )

Here's another indirect article. Although the ID term "complex specified information" is used in description, this paper is still not a pure ID-supportive paper that has made it through peer-review:

"D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” "

Lets keep looking! Here's a math-based publication:

"
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”"

Looks promising at first glance. However, once the paper is looked at, it doesn't seem to argue in favor of ID. Here's the abstract and conclusion for the paper:

"Life never ceases to astonish scientists as its secrets are more and more revealed. In particular the origin of life remains a mystery. One wonders how the scientific community could unravel a one-time past-tense event with such low probability. This paper shows that there are logical reasons for this problem. Life expresses both function and sign systems. This parallels the logically necessary symbolic self-referring structure in self-reproducing systems. Due to the abstract realm of function and sign systems, life is not a subsystem of natural laws. This suggests that our reason is limited in respect to solve the problem of the origin of life and that we are left taking life as an axiom...

Subsystems of the mind as functional objects or formal systems are unique in respect to other phenomena that follows the laws of nature and are subsystems of the universe. Life express both function and sign systems, which indicates that it is not a subsystem of the universe, since chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals [26]. Quite contrary, the human mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations, the property of creativity with ability to create through choice with intent. This choice doesn’t violate any laws. It merely uses dynamically inert configurable switches to record into physicality the nonphysical choices of mind. It is therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans or symbolic number cruncher referred to by [25]. At least as observers we are left taking life as an axiom as Nils Bohr suggested in a lecture published in Nature [27] “life is consistent with, but undecidable from physics and chemistry” [19]."
http://home.online.no/~albvoie/index.cfm

While this article appears, at first, to support ID, a close read of the article shows that it, in fact, does not. Hypothetical mathematical arguments are employed to give an idea of complexity to the origin of life. However, science has shown us time and time again that mathematical probability arguments are often misguided. The following site also shows us more rebuttals of ID peer-review claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

The only articles left are either exceedingly difficult to access or continue to employ the same type of logic discussed above. If ID was a valid scientific entity, however, one would expect common, easily accessible, staunchly pro-ID papers published in mainstream journals such as Science or Nature rather than a few papers supposedly in support of ID that yet never seem to imply that ID is the cause behind these papers in obscure journals (for the most part). Publications in books put together by ID advocates or authors attempting to cover the ID movement and evolutionary theory do not count as independent peer-reviewed articles due to the fact that at least some pro-ID papers are guaranteed publication in these works by default. Somehow, the fact that the Discovery Institute repeats the listing of multiple articles multiple times on this list, as well as the fact that most of these publications are published specifically in bodies that are meant by nature to include ID theory publications, leads me to wonder about the validity of the Discovery Institute's claims. What is especially telling is the fact that many of the papers that the ID movement use for support don't even involve ID within the pagese of the papers involved. It seems like Discovery Institute is fishing for any possible citation in an attempt to buy credibility for their pet theory.

Transitional fossils

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will talk about your stance on transitional fossils once again. As suggested in my earlier post on transitional fossils, at least some of your members think that there are no transitional fossils. However, when a transitional form such as Tiktaalik comes up, obviously falling right between phases that were supposed to have had not transitional phases, you seem compelled to comment. We will consider an attack on mainstream scientists and Tiktaalik linked on your site in this letter.

First, here is a link to the article being discussed:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html

Now, for our first quote:

"I love it when new "missing links" are discovered, because it's then--and only then--that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question. When reports came out this week of an alleged example of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetrapods -- Tiktaalik roseae -- evolutionists finally came clean about the previous lack of fossil evidence for such a transition"

I don't see the major issue with scientists admitting to not having a transitional form. An argument of this type is about as valid as attacking a scientist's background by claiming that the individual did not have a strong background before recieving an education. Just because Tiktaalik was not known initially does nothing to undermine it's validity as a transitional form. In fact, it serves to support evolutionary theory; evolution predicts the presence of a transitional form, paleontologists find exactly that in the rock record, and then claiming that the transitional fossil is invalid because scientists don't have the transitional fossils that fall between this transitional fossil, less complex fossils, and more complex fossils. But I guess this is the sort of attack that the Intelligent Design movement must resort to when any "evidence" of a Designer in the fossil record is completely and totally insignificant. Attacking admissions of the lack of transitional fossil A when we have B, C, and F does nothing to undermine the scientific validity of evolution. Rather, it shows that scientists aren't making up transitional fossils. Scientists have the transitional fossils that they claim exist. I guess this is the type of attack that must be resorted to when there is no scientific validity behind the claims of the attacking party.

The general trend with this type of argument is as follows: First, mention a transitional fossil, then make some sort of weak attack against modern science (often selectively quoting from technical papers that appear to support their claims when in actuality the article itself doesn't; I suggest referring to the link posted and checking out the papers discussed for more on this). Then, we see the argument from personal incredulity...ie "well I can't see how this can be a transitional fossil, so it must not be", ignoring that the scientists who studied the fossil may actually know more about paleontology than the author of the article debunking the science does. Funny. Does the article linked in this blog use this type of end claim? Of course!! Let's see it!

"But only now that we have Tiktaalik will we hear evolutionists boast about the size of the previously large "gap" in this transition, and how Tiktaalik solves all these previously unanswered questions. I'm super skeptical that this new fossil is good evidence that a transition took place: Acanthostega was truly a tetrapod, but Tiktaalik is a fish. As Clack and Ahlberg write, there's still a large gap (and any usefulness a fin had for walking was the result of a lucky pre-adaptation)"

My advice, trust scientists who have worked on the fossils, and not some random person writing on a website that claims that Tiktaalik can't be a transitional fossil because of some preconcieved devotion to the "wrongness" of evolution. I'll link some of the articles here. Have fun Discovery Institute, they make the author's points in the linked article above look extremely weak.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~karowe/tetrapod%20fish%20brief%20summary%20NAture%20April%202006.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5770/33

There's 4 peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles that support Tiktaalik's validity as a transitional form. I challenge you to show me even one peer-reviewed article debunking this fact.

Discovering Discovery Institute's science education policy

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today, I've been investigating your perspectives on science education. I have noticed some interesting trends, and would like to raise some questions as to the motives of your views. It appears that your view on science education is, like most of the articles and books your fellows publish, strongly consonant with Wedge Strategy.

To discuss your science education policy, we will consider the document on your website that explains it. First, let's take the beginning of the document:

"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."

At this point, we appear to be between phase 1 and 2 of Wedge strategy. There is the hesitance to teach Intelligent Design in the classrooms yet, but we are currently in a phase where there is a desire to undermine the validity of evolutionary theory in schools. As the opposition, with strong support from Discovery Institute yearns to "teach the controversy", they also deny any desire to teach Intelligent Design in the classroom. This is perhaps because we haven't reached that phase in the Wedge Document yet. Eventually, the Discovery Institute does, of course, wish to have Intelligent Design taught in classrooms; after all, the Wedge Document showcases a yearning to undermine the definition of science and the validity of evolutionary theory (and replace it with Intelligent Design).

"Four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner"

This statement should be revised to "Although Discovery Institute does not yet advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools". As mentioned above (and also in my Wedge Document blog), the Discovery Institute does support replacing evolutionary theory with Intelligent Design in the scientific realm, and also by default the classroom, eventually. Teach the controversy now, teach Intelligent Design 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road. This way, students will be raised to doubt evolution first, and thus will become more receptive to the teaching of Intelligent Design. With luck, in a few generations, you'll succeed in raising students who will easily accept Intelligent Design. This strategy is perhaps Discovery Institute's best chance to gain some sort of scientific legitimacy. By slowly wedging their way into the scientific curriculum, they would theoretically succeed in raising America's children to accept Intelligent Design. A nation of people open to Intelligent Design would most definitely be an asset to Discovery Institute's attempt to undermine scientific materialism and redefine society. Scary thought.

"The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the individual teacher’s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was unconstitutional, “…teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

Here's an attempt to gain legal validity by the Discovery Institute. They can't legally teach Intelligent Design in the classroom because, as shown in a previous blog, Intelligent Design is inseparable from Creationism. However, by slowly wedging into the curriculum by teaching "a variety of scientific theories" (hey, here's a new scientific theory called "Intelligent Design"?), the Discovery Institute appears to see a possible way to infilitrate America's education system. Whether or not they succeed remains to be seen.

Works Cited:

Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy. Discovery Institute. 9/10/2007

Intelligent Design, Creationism, and a panda with a sore thumb

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will be discussing Dean Kenyon and whether or not Intelligent Design is linked to Creation Science. It is perhaps best to let Kenyon's own words express his viewpoint, so let's let his own words speak for him.

Dean Kenyon is a prominent defender of Creation science. In fact,Answers in Genesis lists him in a listing of Creation Scientists (see list http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp), and he was a witness in the Edwards v. Aquillard evolution-creation case in favor of Creation Science(see link for trial transcript with Kenyon)(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html ). Let's consider parts of his affidavit:

" It is my opinion, although not in the area of my expertise, that creation-science is as nonreligious as evolution."

This shows that Kenyon accepts Creation Science as scientifically valid. Thus, it calls into question the validity of Pandas...ie could Of Pandas and People be a Creationist text in disguise? Let's see another quote from the above link:

"Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. Evolution-science is equivalent to evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some would disagree) to include biological evolution (or organic evolution) from simple life to all plants and animals, biochemical evolution (or chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution of the first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe). Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts. The subject of origins is a part of evolution, and the origin of the first life and tre-origin of the universe are generally regarded by the scientific community as part of evolution."

This almost sounds like an early discussion of Intelligent Design. Perhaps that is because it is. In "Of Pandas and People", Kenyon and Davis state the following:

"Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an abrupt agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Kenyon and Davis 1989)

Intelligent Design appears to be the same thing as Creation Science according to Kenyon. Would the Discovery Institute support such a text? If yes, then it would be evidence that the Discovery Institute accepts Intelligent Design as Creation Science. Here, we see Stephen Meyer, a major player at the Discovery Institute, actually writing a "note to teachers" to be published within the textbook supplement ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1671 ). Shows that at least some at Discovery Institute at one point at least accepted the validity of the textbook, and thus Creation Science as a whole. Is it possible that the book itself never was a Creationist textbook supplement? No. In 1986, this exact textbook was published as "Creation and Biology". The only differences between the 2 books are the name and the fact that Creation science is changed to intelligent design in the 1989 edition. Telling. So the Discovery Institute (or at least some of its higher-ups) support an initially Creationist textbook supplement.

Time for another statement by Kenyon (from the trial transcript linked):

"The creationist scientific conclusion is that empirical data currently in hand demand the inference that the first living organisms were created. This view of the origin of life is based on a detailed analysis of laboratory information from molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, the simulation experiments on chemical evolution, as well as relevant aspects of physics, geology, astrophysics, probability and information theory."

Again, sounds exactly like Intelligent Design theory. There seems to be some sort of pattern here. Let's read some more from the trial transcript:

"At the heart of the molecular activity of all living cells is the genetic coding and protein-synthesizing machinery which stores and translates biologic information. This information is contained in the specific linear sequences of the subunits of DNA, RNA and proteins. At least 20 different proteins are required for the replication of DNA. At least another 50 proteins are needed to transcribe and translate the information stored in the DNA molecules into the amino acid sequences of proteins (J. Fox 1978; Sheeler and Bianchi 1980). Among these proteins are the aminoacylsynthetases, the enzymes that link the various amino acids to their respective transfer RNA molecules. In the absence of even one of these enzymes, protein synthesis does not take place. The genetic code is actually read by the aminoacylsynthetases since they match an amino acid with its own transfer-RNA molecule. If we go back into the past to the first time the protein-synthesizing machinery functioned, we are faced with the problem of the origin of the necessary aminoacylsynthetases. Where did the proteins come from before the protein-synthesizing system originated? One can postulate that the necessary proteins formed abiotically in the primitive ocean, but there is virtually no experimental evidence for such a postulate. "

Here we have Behe's Irreducible Complexity concept, proposed as part of Creation Science. But Intelligent Design isn't the same thing as Creation Science. Or is it? What can one do to explain these extremely close similarities without accepting the two "sciences" as one in the same? Perhaps ignore the evidence and paper trail? Let's look at one final quote from the trial transcript:

"These scientific considerations form the core of biochemical creation, and show that it is as scientific as chemical evolution, and in fact is preferable in scientific plausibility to chemical evolution. These are weighty issues of fact. Evidence often taken to support a naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis, points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the creationist view of origins. Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto, the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."

Attacks on naturalistic explanations for life? Sounds like...Wedge Strategy. Probability attacks? Brings to mind the work of William Dembski. Sounds like Intelligent Design really does have a lot in common with Creation Science after all! What would be thoroughly damning for Discovery Institute's claim that Intelligent Design is not science would be to have a Creation Scientist, such as Kenyon, as a member. And surprisingly enough, Dean Kenyon is indeed a fellow of the Discovery Institute! http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=89&isFellow=true

Dear Discovery Institute, if you hope to uphold any scientific validity, you have a lot of explaining to do. It seems as if Intelligent Design is closer to Creation Science than you claim to accept. Perhaps we are not getting the whole story from you.



Davis, P. and Kenyon, D. "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". Haughton Publishing Company. Dallas. 1989

Edwards Vs Aguillard trial transcript links:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html (Kenyon's affidavit)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html

The Wedge Document...so what?

Dear Discovery Institute,

Now it is time to face one of our biggest issues, namely, the Wedge Document itself. First, lets see the document itself. It is visible at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349 , but I will include text of the Wedge Document on this blog as well:

"CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE


INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.


Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art


The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.


Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.


Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.


Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.


The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.


THE WEDGE STRATEGY


Phase I.


* Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity


Phase II.


* Publicity & Opinion-making


Phase III.


* Cultural Confrontation & Renewal


THE WEDGE PROJECTS


Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication


* Individual Research Fellowship Program

* Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)

* Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)


Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making


* Book Publicity

* Opinion-Maker Conferences

* Apologetics Seminars

* Teacher Training Program

* Op-ed Fellow

* PBS (or other TV) Co-production

* Publicity Materials / Publications


Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal


* Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences

* Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training

* Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities


FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY


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


The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").


Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication


Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making


Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal


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 witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.


Phase II. The pnmary 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 pnnt 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. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." 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, Chnstians. 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.


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.


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 hurnan beings are created by God.


Five Year Goals


* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.


Twenty Year Goals


* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.


FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES


1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)


2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)


3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows


4. Significant coverage in national media:


* Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

* PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

* Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

* Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media


5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God


6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory


7. Scientific achievements:


* An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

* Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

* Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

* Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory


ACTVITIES


(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)


(3) Teacher training


(4) Academic Conferences


(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences


(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets


(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking


(8) Op-ed and popular writing


(9) Documentaries and other media productions


(10) Academic debates


(11) Fund Raising and Development


(12) General Administrative support


THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY


Books


William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)


Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.


These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.


InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.


McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.


Academic Articles


Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.


Television and Radio Appearances


During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."


Newspaper and Magazine Articles


The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works."

What does the Discovery Institute say about all this? They attempt to explain away the document as nothing more than a modest fundraising proposal. (see link) However, note that they do not attempt to debunk the validity of the document, and indeed admit to its authenticity. Note also that "Wedge Strategy" has been incorporated into the work of many ID theorists (for example, Jonathan Wells). The paper trail that has been pointed to throughout these blogs show that the Wedge Strategy is an attempt to redefine the definition of science itself. The Discovery Institute admits this fact as well, and complain that science is controlled by "Scientific materialists". However, the fact is that science cannot deal with that which can't be touched or percieved, and therefore by nature the supernatural is not part of science.

In "The Wedge Document, So What?" (see link), the Discovery Institute argues that they are not trying to force a theocracy. However, that is besides the point. The question is whether or not they are attempting to push religion into science classrooms. Although the Discovery Institute maintains that the Designer is not named (ie no religion is favored), lets look at a quote from the Wedge Document:


"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. 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. "

This statement shows the fact that they are in fact (apparently) attempting to use Intelligent Design to support Christianity. Not a theocracy, but it is a practice that has been declared unconstitutional (if the Discovery Institute hopes to one day put Intelligent Design into the classroom). This action would violate the seperation of church and state clause in the Constitution, and similar attempts to do this have been repeatedly shot down by the Supreme Court.

Let's consider another short quote for more damning evidence:

"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 hurnan beings are created by God. "

Let's look at Discovery Institute's comment on a similar statement from the Wedge Document (taken from linked article):

"Discovery Institute's Center...wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [from Wedge Document]

This passage instead was referring to our conviction that sceince, rather than supporting a materialistic philosophy, is at least consistent with theistic belief, including Christian belief. In fact, some of our fellows actually go further than this. They think that new developments in science may actually support a theistic worldview or have "theistic implications," even though they do not think that science can "prove" the existence of God or specific religious doctrines"

Again, telling. This shows that the Discovery Institute does, indeed, aim to redefine science to include the supernatural. Under the definition of science required to incorporate Intelligent Design, astrology would also be considered a science. Also please note the Discovery Institute quote that ends with "even though they do not think that science can 'prove' the existence of God" (above). If you can't prove a Designer exists, then Intelligent Design necessarily fails the test of science, even if science were redefined to include the supernatural. As shown, Intelligent Design is not science. Besides, even if the definition of science were changed so that Intelligent Design could be considered science, it would fail the burden of proof. I have shown this before by showing evolutionary pathways for structures that the ID movement claims to be "irreducibly complex", and the Discovery Institute shows us that by admitting that you cannot prove the existence of "God" (the "Creator"). Game over.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will be looking at one of the star witnesses for the Intelligent Design movement, namely lawyer Phillip E. Johnson. With the publication of "Darwin on Trial" in 1991, Johnson instantly became a celebrity to those that would argue against evolutionary theory. Let's look at some of his works.

First, is Johnson's work consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy? Let's let his own words speak for him. The following is from his article "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism":

"There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism" (Johnson 2006 p. 32).

Johnson here precisely explains why Creationism is scientifically untenable. But Intelligent Design isn't creationism...is it? Johnson seems to think so:

"All persons who affirm that "God creates" are in an important sense creationists, even if they believe that the Genesis story is a myth and that God created gradually through evolution over billions of years" (Johnson 2006 p.28).

Johnson considers anyone who accepts the presence of a Creator, for scientific purposes especially or otherwise, a Creationist. And Johnson's entire attempt within the article cited is to overthrow "Scientific Naturalism" and replace it with a Theistic mindset, which aligns beautifully with the Wedge Strategy. Johnson's statement in "Darwin on Trial" thoroughly reveals his mindset:

"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth" (Johnson 1993 p. 133)

Telling. Can Phillip Johnson really be ignoring all evidence in favor of evolution? Not all of it. He mainly ignores the fossil record, which we will return to later. First, lets look at one of the evidences in favor of evolution that Johnson accepts:

"The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinsism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees that were the moths' habitat, the percentage of dark moths increased, because of their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as chagning conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring." (Johnson 2006 p. 24)

This is at least an admission that microevolution can occur. To see how microevolution and macroevolution can occur together in a population, refer to my discussion of ceratopsians in my fossil record blog.

What does Johnson have to say about fossils? Let's consider "Darwin on Trial":

[in reference to Darwinian Natural Selection] "There was a way to test the theoryby fossil evidence, however, if Darwin and his followers had wanted a test. Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediates must have been imense, even "inconceivable". Perhapse evidence of their existence was missing because in 1859 only a small part of the world's fossil beds had been searched, and because the explorers had not known what to look for. Once paneontologists accepted Darwinism as a working hypothesis, however, and explored many new fossil beds in an effort to confirm the theory, this situation ought to change. In time the fossil record could be expected to look very different, and very much more Darwinian.

The test would not be fair to the skeptics, however, unless it was also possible for the theory to fail. Imagine, for example, that belief in Darwin's theory were to sweep through the scientific world with such irresistible power that it very quickly beecame an orthodoxy. Suppose that the tide was so irrestible that even the most prestigious of scientists---Harvard's Louis Agassiz, for example---became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Suppose that aplentologists became so committed to the new way of thinking that fossi lstudies were published onliy hf they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absense of evolutionary change. As we shall see, that is what happened. Darwinism apparently passed the fossil test, but only because it was not allowed to fail." (Johnson 1993 p. 48)

First, evidence of stasis (periods of no evolutionary change) is published, as with Eldredge and Gould's work on Punctuated Equilibrium. Second, there are ways for evolution to fail the fossil record test. For example, show me a panda in the Permian, and you have disproven evolution. Third, evolution has passed the test. There are huge volumes of known transitional fossils (see my fossil record blog for just a few examples) available to paleontologists. It is when authors such as Johnson, who have no background in paleontology, brush past known fossil evidence in an attempt to support their ideas that there are problems with grasping the fact that the fossil record does indeed support evolutionary theory. See, for example, the following quote:

"The story to be tested is that a fish species developed the ability to climb out of the water and move on land, while evolving the peculiar reproductive system of amphibians and other amphibian features more or less concurrently. No specific fossil fish species has been identified as an amphibian ancestor, but there is an extinct order of fish known as the rhipidistians which Darwinists frequently describe as an "ancestral group" The rhipidistians have skeletal features resembling those of early amphibians, including bones that look like they could have evolved into legs. But according to Barbara J. Stahl's comprehensive textbook, "Vertebrate History", "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence od feveloping the stout limbs and ribs othat characterized the primitive tetrapods"

In 1938, a coelacanth, an ancient fish thought to have been extinct for about seventy million years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean. Many paleontologists considered the ceolacanth to be closely related to the rhipidistians, and thus a living specimen was expected to shine light on the soft body parts of the immediate ancestors of amphibians. When the modern coelacanth was dissected, however, its internal organs showed no signs of being preadapted for a land environment and gave no indication of how it might be possible for a fish to become an amphibian. The experience suggests that a rhipidistian fish might be equally disappointing to Darwinists if its soft body parts could be examined." (Johnson 1993 p.76-77).

Johnson seems to ignore transitional fossils that prove a fish ancestry for amphibians. While Tiktaalik wasn't known in 1993, Icthyostega was! Here are the transitional forms Johnson wants (see following link)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

Kind of kills Johnson's argument. Perhaps his lack of understanding of the fossil record has clouded his judgement, or maybe he has a prior commitment to the Wedge Strategy. Either way, he aims to change the rules of science to incorporate the supernatural, a strategy I've discussed many times before. Johnson is a lawyer, and therefore good at making the most of small amounts of evidence. However, as shown by the above quote on fossils, Johnaon himself does exactly what he accuses "Darwinists" of doing, namely, warping the evidence to suit his views.


Works Cited:
Johnson, P. "Darwin on Trial". Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove. 1993
Johnson, P. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism". presented in Dembski's "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing". ISI Books, Washington. 2006. p. 23-40

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

Jonathan Wells and the Wedge Strategy

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every morning. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father’s many alks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin’s theory that living things originated without God’s purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God’s involvement in nature or history; in the process, they reinterpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination

Father’s [Reverend Moon of Unification church], my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. ---Jonathan Wells

The above words, from Jonathan Wells’ piece titled "Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second PhD" (also covered in Dawkins article in Brockman 2006 p. 92-3, and Shermer 2006 p.109-111 and Humes 2007 p. 165) show an inherent bias in Wells’ work. Wells, a member of the Unification Church, is apparently attempting (like many at the Discovery Institute) to destroy Darwinism as a result of his chosen worldview. While most of the Discovery Institute is only trying to change the definition of science, Wells appears to be attacking Darwinian evolution as a result of a mission given by his religious leader, ie he seems to be on a mission from God, at least in his mind. While a religious background is no reason to question a scientist’s work, it is when the scientific work done by the individual is only being done in an attempt to push a religious goal that the individual’s research should be called into question, if it is indeed flawed. We will consider Wells’ research in this blog.

Before addressing the scientific validity of Wells’ claims (I do a relatively quick explanation of Icons of Evolution in an attempt to keep this blog of a bearable length for the reader, and also due to the fact that this book has been rebutted by many authors already), it is worth noting that he is yet another key member of the Discovery Institute. Therefore, one would expect the validity of his claims to be telling with regards to the nature of Discovery Institute’s scientific claims as a whole. Let’s compare the above passage to the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western Civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progrerss in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art…

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [now named the Center for Science and Culture] seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics, and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. (taken from the Discovery Institute’s press release "The "Wedge Document": "So What?"")

[another Wedge Document quote, same source]:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That cource is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy.

As shown by the above quotes, Jonathan Wells’ personal religious convictions and goals fit in perfectly with the Discovery Institute’s plan to undermine scientific materialism, ie. the clause in the definition of science requiring testability of ideas and essentially removing appeals to the supernatural from the realm of science. Many leaders of the Intelligent Design movement are in favor of changing the definition of science to include the supernatural, and this pattern will be illustrated throughout the course of this blog. Now that Wells’ religious convictions and goals have been shown to line up with Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy, we can critically consider some of Wells’ writings.

Wells’ book Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?: Why Much of What we Teach About Evolution is Wrong, published in 2000, attempts to undermine the scientific validity of evolutionary theory by attacking ten pieces of evidence for evolution that Wells claims have been debunked, and as a result, somehow undermine the validity of Darwinian evolution.
Wells’ first "Icon" is the Miller-Urey experiment. Wells here explains that there are flaws in the Miler-Urey experiment. While some of the questions he raises may be valid, there are some points worth noting in the defense of evolutionary theory. First, Wells is attacking abiogenesis (the origin of life) rather than Darwinian evolution (the diversification of life) here. Even if the Miller-Urey experiment is eventually proven to be completely worthless to science, its falsification would not in any way serve to falsify Darwinian evolution. Natural selection works only after life has originated; it cannot function until that point because by nature natural selection requires life to be in existence to operate.

Secondly, if all else fails, the Miller-Urey experiment did serve to produce amino acids. Amino acids are some of the major building blocks of life, and the creation of these acids is fundamental to scientifically explaining the origin of life. The next question that one could raise in reference to this experiment is the question of replication. How could the acids replicate? Robert Hazen raises a possibility in his article titled "Life’s Rocky Start" (2001). Perhaps the amino acids utilized mineral facies present upon formation in order to replicate. This would not only provide a framework for the creation of complex protein strings, but would also serve to explain the presence of a large bias in handedness in amino acids.

Wells’ next "Icon" is the Darwinian "tree" of life. Wells attacks this point by using the Cambrian explosion; since diversification apparently occurred rapidly at the Cambrian explosion, it serves to nullify the commonly-held interpretation of evolution, namely, that evolution leads to gradual increases in diversity through nature. Stephen Jay Gould does an outstanding job at explaining the trend Wells is using as evidence "against" evolution in his book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (Gould 1989 p. 23-52), and I recommend reading this piece to anyone questioning the validity of the fossil record. Also worth noting in reference to the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion is the fact that there are known predecessors to the Burgess organisms in earlier sediments. While these organisms may not be closely related to the Burgess animals (there is a Chinese assemblage from the early Cambrian that preserves some Burgess-type organisms, such as simple chordates. However, the Ediacaran fauna, for example, are not known to be closely related to the Burgess fauna. What is important to note, however, is the extreme bias against soft-body preservation in the fossil record, and thus, how rare early soft-bodied organism fossils are), there are fossils present that show transitional phases leading up to the Burgess organisms in at least a few cases.

Wells’ third "Icon" is homology. However, the tetrapod body form, and derivations of the tetrapod limb, are so obvious to those with a background in the subject that is tough to misunderstand the implications of homology. While convergent evolution can produce similar features, in some cases, extremely similar features, good phylogenic data derived from a combination of features serves to nullify any confusion caused by apparent similarities caused by convergent evolution.

Wells’ next "Icon" is Haekel’s embryo drawings. Wells claims that Haeckel’s embryo drawings are used to indoctrinate biology students into an acceptance of evolution (Haeckel’s embryo drawings are known to be embellished in order to better illustrate the evolutionary evidences shown, and thus show bad scientific research practices which undermine Haeckel’s credibility in this case). However, that assumption is false. See Randy Olson’s recent film Flock of Dodos: the Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus for a short, crisp, yet nice destruction of this claim. While Haeckel’s embryo drawings have been proven to be scientifically inaccurate, the general trend in embryology does show the evidence that Haeckel embellished his embryo drawings with in an attempt to illustrate.

Next, we see Archaeopteryx. Wells essentially claims that Archaeopteryx is not evidence of evolution because Archaeopteryx lived before more-dinosaur-like relatives of Archaeopteryx. See my blog on the fossil record for a discussion of Archaeopteryx as a valid transitional fossil.
Wells next attacks the validity of experiments done on peppered moths that appeared to show that changes in moth color occur in response to pollution levels. Wells claims that photographs in textbooks are staged in order to make them appear viable, and that this disproves the research. The key point is that, while the photographs themselves were staged, they were used to illustrate actual experimental data dealing with the evolution of the moths (Humes 2007 p. 171).
While Humes’ statement (see source) initially appears to be a last-ditch effort to defend evolution, when his entire book is read, it becomes apparent that it is not. See the following statement:

Adaptation of peppered moths has been proved to occur across multiple generations, regardless of the staged illustrations (Humes 2007 p. 174)

Most modern scientists would agree with Humes here. In fact, the website of the National Center for Science Education has an entire page dedicated to rebutting Wells’ work in Icons. For the discussion of peppered moths, see www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon6moths.html. The site rebuts Wells’ other claims within the book as well.

Wells’ next "Icon" is the experimentation done on fruit flies. The important concepts to take out of the fruit fly research deal with genetics. The key point behind these experiments is the fact that they show that certain genetic changes can produce new features (ie extra wings) in organisms. This fact is not questioned by the scientific community because it is scientifically proven; the experiments have been done.

Yet another Wells "Icon" is that of Darwin’s finches. However, these are evidences of microevolution, as conceded by many Design theorists. Design theorists, and even some Young Earth Creationists, do not attempt to refute microevolution as a rule, so this example is not as strong as Wells would expect it to be. The same is true with regards to the moth experiments listed above.

Next, Jonathan Wells discusses evolution in fossil horses. Wells’ major argument against the validity of these fossil horses is the fact that they show evidence as branching as opposed to linear evolution. The initial interpretation of these fossils was that they did show evidences of linear evolution, while that is false. This is perhaps a relict of the way Victorians approached evolutionary theory, in an attempt to find "direction" in evolutionary patterns. Gould again hits home on this "Icon" in Gould 1989. I strongly suggest reading that book to anyone with an interest in evolutionary theory.

Wells’ final "Icon" is that of human evolution. Consult my fossil record blog for a few links on this subject. Talk.Origins also has good sources on both human evolution and evolution as a whole. The evidence in favor of human evolution is so strong that I currently employ only a few references on the subject, allowing those with a background in anthropology to cover that area while I cover the fossil record as a whole and other subjects I am more familiar with. However, consider that one of the most damning evidences against Wells’ research here goes right back to the Wedge Strategy:

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. (Discovery Institute, "The "Wedge Strategy": "So What?"")

This strategy was developed before Wells published his book; the Wedge Document was leaked to the public in 1999, Icons of Evolution was published in 2000. Coincidence?

As shown by the short discussion of Icons of Evolution, Wells here has created a straw-man version of evolutionary theory, a theory in crisis, a theory not supported by the evidence. Later in the book, Wells suggests putting warning stickers on textbooks, and even provides some for readers to cut out themselves and paste in. What Wells does not note is the fact that these warning labels fit perfectly with the Discovery Institute Wedge strategy. By attacking evolutionary theory at the grassroots level, in our nation’s schools/with our nation’s young ones, they will have much greater success in their attempt to undermine scientific materialism, just as the Wedge strategy requires. However, the warning label path has been blocked by courts time and time again. I believe that the lack of compelling evidence as to why evolutionary theory should be challenged in Icons of Evolution betrays the true purpose of the book. If the purpose of the book were to scientifically undermine evolution, it fails miserably because it does not attack the most important evidences in favor of evolutionary theory; rather, it attacks "problems" that are not seen as problematic by any mainstream evolutionary theorist. This betrays the fact that the book was written to push a political/religious motive, not to improve science. Consider the Wedge Document goals already quoted here as well as the next one in reference to classroom policies:

[from the Wedge Document’s 5 Year Goals] To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. (Discovery Institute, "The "Wedge Document": "So What?"")

This appears to line up quite nicely with Wells’ textbook stickers and attacks on the teaching of evolutionary theory as presented in Icons of Evolution.

Next, we’ll consider Wells’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Let’s start off with another statement dealing with the Wedge Strategy’s educational goals.

The Discovery Institute defends the right of teachers to discuss ID if they choose to do so, but it opposes requiring ID until it becomes better established in the scientific community (Wells 2006 p. 155).

Apparently we must wait until the Wedge Strategy succeeds in changing the definition of science to include appeals to the supernatural, a situation that will never happen if the scientific community as a whole holds its ground. Currently, the Discovery Institute pushes a "Teach the Controversy" agenda rather than explicitly mentioning ID. Wells, its seems, agrees with this plan:

As Congress was debating the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Republican senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania proposed a "Sense of the Senate" amendment that subsequently became part of the joint House-Senate Conference Report accompanying the final bill. "The conferees recognize," stated the report, "that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society"

…Many Darwinists refuse to acknowledge that there are "differing scientific views" on biological evolution…(Here Wells goes on to discuss Eugenie Scott’s statement against anti-evolution arguments, and Stephen Meyer [of Discovery Institute fame] responding to these arguments)...As we have seen in the previous chapters, Darwinism has serious problems with the evidence, and some highly qualified scientists are skeptical of its exaggerated claims. Shouldn’t science students be permitted to learn about them? (Wells 2006 p.145-7)

As shown here, Wells is all in favor of teaching "alternates" to evolution, as well as problems with the theory. This would allow the Wedge Strategy to begin to gain a foothold in the American education system. Also, Wells’ arguments in the "previous chapters" mentioned in the above quote are not nearly as compelling as one would expect to be made by an individual attempting to undermine Darwinism. We will examine some of these arguments in this blog, but first, in accordance with the Wedge Document’s claims in reference to the cultural evils of Darwinian evolution and scientific materialism as a whole, here is a quote pitting Darwin against religion:

Many Darwinists are virulently anti-Christian. Richard Dawkins once said religion "is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate," and Daniel C. Dennett thinks Christianity should be "preserved in cultural zoos". A common sight in American college towns is cars displaying Darwin fish---deliberate mockeries of the traditional symbol of Christianity, with feet underneath and "Darwin" inside. One variant has a Darwin fish raping a Christian fish.

Anti-Christian zealots are often in the forefront of attacks on intelligent design. In 2005, the chairman of the University of Kansas Religious Studies Department, atheist Paul Mirecki, proposed to teach a course titled "Intelligent Design Creationism and Other Mythologies." Mirecki boasted on a web site that "fundies" would see the course as a "slap in their big fat face." He also endorsed a description of Pope John Paul II as "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress."

Even disregarding such excesses, it is clear that there is a fundamental conflict here. It is not between religion and science, or even between Christianity and evolution, but between traditional Christianity and Darwinism. Although the latter may allow for the existence of a deity, it is not the God of traditional Christianity, who created human beings in His image. The contradiction couldn’t be sharper, and most attempts to blunt it end up by abandoning traditional Christianity. (Wells 2006 p. 173).

This passage is inherently dishonest. Wells uses the most militantly anti-religious atheist proponents of Darwinian evolution and attempts to paint all proponents in such a light. Even if this is not the intent, Wells only highlights the most militant evolutionary theorists. Dawkins misuses evolutionary theory in an attempt to push an atheistic agenda. Dennett also feels that evolution supports atheism. While they are both extremely intelligent individuals, they are misguided in their attempt to use evolution to push a religious agenda. The moderate proponents of evolution represent what many of us think. There is no inherent conflict between science and religion because they occupy two separate realms; science tells us physically how we exist, and religion deals with the spiritual realm. Science is testable, concrete. Religion is spiritual and mystical. Science must be proven. Religion is based on faith. Evolutionary theorists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Kenneth Miller are perhaps the most well-known advocates of this mindset. Darwinian evolution need not be anti-religion, and it inherently isn’t.

What is also telling about this passage is that Wells fails to mention any of the extreme radicals on the anti-Darwin side. Wells himself has admitted to devoting his life to "destroying Darwinism", so naturally he only picks the most radical evolutionary theorists in attempt to portray evolutionary biology in a bad light. Wells makes the major mistake of claiming that Darwinian evolution is inherently anti-Christianity, when, in reality, it isn’t. The Roman Catholic Church sees no problem with evolutionary theory, although the Church would tend to disagree with such loose cannons as Richard Dawkins and Paul Mirecki (after all, Pope John Paul II does deserve much more respect than to be called "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress". I’m not sure if this claim is valid, but it would not surprise me given the nature of some attacks by atheists on religion. These atheists make the same mistake Design theorists do, namely, attempting to include religious implications in a scientific theory. Again, religion is inherently outside the realm of science due to the definition of science. Science cannot prove or disprove the presence of a deity. This is where faith must be applied. ). See for example the following quote, and also Gould 1997:

Religious faith is not the problem here, and I do not wish to state otherwise. What Is problematic is when religion is removed from its proper role. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive (Truth cannot contradict Truth), as they deal with two wholly different realms: religion dealing with how to live our lives in a moral sense, and how to interact with other people to a certain extent; and science dealing with how to live in and interact with a constantly changing world. Religion is a powerful force that can bring out the best in people when exercised in its proper element, and science can be a dangerous tool when taken out of context. The mirror statements also apply, such that religion is also dangerous when taken out of context, and science is a powerful positive force when applied in its proper element. When religious doctrines are forced into a science classroom, no good can come of it. Let us keep religion in the realm of religion, and leave the science classrooms to what they are meant for, the teaching of science. (Bertasso 2006)


Perhaps Wells feels that one must choose between religion and "Darwinism" because he feels a religious calling to destroy Darwinism. However, many in the scientific community would agree with the statement above.

Next, we will compare Wells’ writings with the ID textbook supplement Of Pandas and People. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Wells states that:

Intelligent design is compatible with some aspects of Darwinian evolution. ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection. It just denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they can accomplish. ID does not maintain that all species were created in their present form: Indeed, some ID advocates have no quarrel with the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor (Wells 2006 p.8-9)

This explains the viewpoint of ID theorist Michael Behe. Behe accepts macroevolution, but argues against evolution creating the complex building blocks of life. It appears that his criticisms of Darwinian natural selection are misguided, however. Behe appears to be questioning abiogenesis rather than evolution itself (a distinction present in many of these blogs). Natural selection, by nature, cannot apply to abiogenesis; abiogenesis deals with the origin of life while natural selection deals with the subsequent diversification of forms after life has originated.

On to the question as to whether Pandas agrees with the work of Wells. Consider the following quote:

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)

Apparently either the ID textbook supplement or Jonathan Wells is mistaken here. While some may claim that the ID movement does not attest to the validity of Pandas, it is worth noting that Stephen C. Meyer approves the book, indeed he even wrote a note to teachers in the 1993 edition. The Discovery Institute appears, overall, to accept the validity of the textbook, as evidenced by the May 1st 1993 "A Note to Teachers" article on the Discovery Institute’s website. Somewhere here, things do not add up. Which publication is correct?

In conjunction with the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Strategy, Wells devotes a section of his Politically Incorrect Guide to railing against the evils of methodological naturalism in the scientific community. This term coincides with the definition of "scientific materialism". This book is apparently one of the Discovery Institute’s attempts to undermine scientific materialism. It certainly lives up to the goals set out by the Wedge Document.

Wells also argues against evidences for microevolution in his book, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. This shows a pattern common in Wells’ works. Point out evidences of microevolution in action, point out that they are "only microevolution", and then claim that they serve to not show any evidence for "macroevolution", which is essentially the same as microevolution, except on a larger scale. See for example my ceratopsian evolution discussion present on this webpage (fossil record blog).

Wells also claims that DNA shows evidence of "Design". By nature, this needn’t be taken as an argument against natural selection. Wells seems to have a problem with the origin of DNA, not necessarily mutations that occur after DNA has originated. Again, while natural selection may have some impact on the formation of DNA, the origin of DNA is again going back to the science of abiogenesis, and not evolution. Natural selection essentially fails to operate until we have competition, which occurs long after the first DNA strand was formed. Therefore, natural selection has nothing to do with the initial formation of DNA, only subsequent variation of DNA, which Darwinian natural selection has been shown to be able to explain. Wells also attacks evolutionary theory, using for example the bacterial flagellum, which has already shown to have been able to evolve.

What does Jonathan Wells believe about the fossil record? Let’s see it in his own words:
It turns out that the problem with fossils is not that transitional forms are missing, but that fossil evidence in principle cannot provide evidence for descent with modification (Wells 2006 p. 20).

This statement is so patently false that it requires a blog to answer in full. See my fossil record blog for an explanation as to why this is false. This statement by Wells showcases a massive misunderstanding of the fossil record, and calls into question his credibility to be discussing the subject.

As shown in this blog, Wells’ work has been shown to drastically misinterpret the data in favor of evolutionary theory in an attempt to falsify evolution as a science. This work comes hand-in-hand with an intriguing similarity to Discovery Institute’s Wedge Strategy. While Wells’ claims have across the board been shown to be either wrong or irrelevant, he still continues to be billed as one of the leaders of the Discovery Institute’s attack on Darwinian evolution. Is the best that the Discovery Institute can do with $5 million a year? Objections to Darwinian theory that have been repeatedly shown to be false do not constitute a strong objection to Darwinian evolution. With nearly all arguments made by Design theorists, the mainstream scientific community has been able to prove the Design theorists false. This leads one to ask the question "Is Intelligent Design science?" The answer is no. It is nothing more and nothing less than attempt to undermine the definition of science and return America to a Christian, theistic worldview. But don’t take my word for it…read the Wedge Document and compare it to the work of some Design theorists such as Wells!


Works Cited:
Behe, MJ. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press NY, 2006. 10th Anniversary Edition
Bertasso, M. "Evolutionary Theory in an Insecure World". First published November 2006. www.nileseldredge.com/darwin_blogs_037.htm accessed 1/3/08
Brockman, J. Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Vintage Books. NY 2006
Davis, P., and Kenyon, DH. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, 1989.
Discovery Institute. "The "Wedge Document": "So What?"". Available on Discovery Institute’s website www.discovery.org. Just search for "Wedge Document" and it will come up.
Gould, SJ. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. WW Norton& Company NY. 1989
Gould, SJ. "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History 106, p.16-22. printed March 1997. Also available at www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
Hartwig, M., and Meyer, SC. "A Note to Teachers". www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/indexphp?command=view&ID=1671 accessed 1/2/08, published 5/1/1993
Hazen, R. "Life’s Rocky Start". Scientific American. Vol. 284 # 14. p. 76-84. Printed April 2001.
Humes, E. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul. HarperCollins NY, 2007. First Edition
National Center for Science Education "Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes About Evolution is Wrong." www.natcenscied.org/icons
Also cited www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon6moths.html. Accessed 1/3/08
Olson, R. Flock of Dodos: the Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus. Docuramafilms, 2006. video/DVD
Shermer, M. Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. Times Books, NY. 2006
Wells, J. "Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.". www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/darwin.htm. Accessed 1/2/08
Wells, J. Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?: Why Much of What we Teach About Evolution is Wrong. Regnery Publishing, Inc, Washington DC, 2000
Wells, J. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Regnery Publishing, Inc, Washington DC, 2006