Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

The barbarians are at the gates, threatening to destroy all that is noble and just in Western Civilization, especially America's preeminence in science and technology. In his new book "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller contends that we are embarked upon a titanic struggle for America's soul; a desperate intellectual struggle with advocates of Intelligent Design creationism and their sycophantic supporters, who are, indeed, the very barbarians lurking before the gates of reason, seeking to supplant the centuries-old scientific method with their own peculiar, more expansive, "definition" of science, that would represent nothing less than an instant return to the superstition and sorcery of the Dark Ages. How have these advocates for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design succeeded in gaining the sympathy and support of many Americans? In their exhaustive, extensive overview of the origins and history of Intelligent Design creationism and especially, its infamous "Wedge Strategy" document, philosopher Barbara Forrest and biologist Paul R. Gross have rendered the most authoritative account yet on the Intelligent Design movement, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", and one that deserves to be read by a broad readership, if only to emphasize the political, cultural, as well as scientific, dangers to American - and indeed, all of Western - Civilization which this movement poses. While Forrest and Gross don't answer directly my question - one that is also an underlying theme of Miller's book - their superb scholarly account suggests some possible reasons for this sympathy and support. "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" is noteworthy for these reasons. Forrest and Gross do an admirable job "dissecting" the "Wedge" document, discussing its scientific "interest" in the context of its underlying political and cultural values. They also provide an extensive examination of leading Intelligent Design advocates Michael Behe and William Dembski's reluctance to publish their "work" in long-established mainstream scientific venues, most notably in peer-reviewed scientific journals, demonstrating instead an utter contempt for longstanding scientific practice. Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, they also observe how, especially in Dembski's case, these advocates do not shy away from the Christian religious implications of their "work" on Intelligent Design. Forrest and Gross also document a compelling history of lies and other obfuscations practiced by Intelligent Design advocates like biologist Paul Chien's "examination" of the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", as well as a well-documented trail of extensive ties between the Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design's "think tank" - and various Fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups, again casting doubt on the claims of Intelligent Design advocates

There's a cancer infecting North American schools. It's as insidious as any virus, with a virulent core protected by a sheath of sanctity and the illusion of "fair play". The infective kernel is Christianity and the shell it resides in is "intelligent design". The religious campaign to oust or discredit science, in particular evolutionary biology, has a long history in the United States. Almost unique among nations, the United States has constitutional provisions, and a long trail of legal decisions, against religious intrusion in public education. Having been defeated in many arenas, a new Christian movement, cloaking itself in "scientific" mufti, has emerged with a long-term strategy for infesting public education. The movement champions something called "intelligent design" and its avowed strategy is "the Wedge". The "Wedge", as shown in this intense and deeply penetrating survey, is a well-organised, well-funded campaign. From its Discovery Institute headquarters, it unleashes waves of propaganda in the form of books, "research studies", videos and circuit-riding preachers of the gospel of anti-Darwinism. The authors trace the origins of the movement from the original "wedge" document, follow its campaigns into classrooms, school boards and even the US Congress, demonstrating the motivation is religious, not scientific. While they give much attention to the "big names" of ID, Behe, Dempski, Johnson and Wells, they leave no stone unturned in revealing the population of creatures underneath willing to challenge Darwin as "immoral" or "materialist". The authors trace the transformation from "Christian creationism" to "scientific creationism" [sic] to "intelligent design"[sic!]. They explain the "philosophy" behind the movement, while reminding us that not a single scientific paper either proposing or explaining "intelligent design" has ever been published. What has been published is limited to "popular" works by the four "big names", all of which have been devastatingly refuted by professionals in their various fields. Some of the refutations are contained in the main text, but the treasure in this book is the extensive "Notes" section at the back of the book. However much attention you give the body of this volume, be prepared to spend at least equal time there. After examining the elements making up this mockery of science, the authors relate how it has manifested in various States. Reading this account of the buildup of a campaign to overturn not only US education, but the entire society, can be tedious. The repetition of hypocrisies, flagrant opportunism and deception can weary the reader. One can only sympathise deeply with these two authors who forced themselves to troll the polluted waters of ID to bring you this litany of potential disaster to schooling. Their conclusion rests on the usually camouflaged but often clearly expressed declarations of "wedge" campaigners that this is a religious crusade. The "wedge" is a

I remember my astonishment, a little over eight years ago, when I read David Berlinski's article, "The Deniable Darwin," in Commentary magazine. After a few paragraphs, I wondered if I were reading a parody. I was shocked that Commentary had published something that merely substituted insults for facts and logic. Of course, there were letters to the editor. Including a half-page one from Paul Gross. He rightly asked, referring to Berlinski's article, "How could Commentary not have let some biologist read it" (after which, one would hope, there was no way Commentary would have published it). He mentioned that he didn't have the space to refute all of Berlinski's unsupported or dead-wrong assertions in a short letter. I'm happy to report that he and Barbara Forrest have now taken the time and trouble to refute the Intelligent Designers in a full length book. Still, as Forrest and Gross explain, the main problem is not with the content of the Intelligent Design arguments. It is with the lack of content. I was to discover this eight years ago when I read Berlinski's response to the letters to the editor. Berlinski spent over a page replying to Gross. No problem with that. The problem was that Berlinski didn't address the points Gross had made. And I finally realized that Berlinski had done this intentionally, simply writing down words that gave a vague appearance of having something to do with the topic but did not in fact counter any arguments. The authors make this fundamental point about the "intelligent designers" (the "Wedge"). The Wedge has substituted public relations for facts and for logical arguments. As Forrest and Gross quite properly put it, "The issue is not Darwinism or science: the issue is the Wedge itself." According to the authors, the Wedge seeks to do something other than challenge a debateable set of scientific assertions. It is trying "to overthrow the system of rules and procedures of modern science and those intellectual footings of our culture laid down in the Enlightenment." I agree with Forrest and Gross that what we need is not so much a debate about Darwinian evolution: the authors answer the critics, but that topic was put to bed in any scientific sense of the term many decades ago. What we all need to address is what to do about the threat of public policy on scientific matters being determined on grounds which are entirely divorced from any semblence of scientific knowledge. And I hope this book will help us do that.

If ID represents such superior science, why do its advocates devote their efforts almost exclusively to political and religious activism, while doing virtually nil actual science? Why do they continually conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism, or abiogenesis with modern evolutionary theory? Forrest and Gross provide a meticulously documented history of the modern ID movement, and forcefully lay to rest any notion that ID has anything to offer science, if it ever did. They lay bare the particular religious motives of ID's principle advocates who, it seems, don't really care about science at all (if they did, one might think they'd roll up their sleeves, get into a lab somewhere, and do some actual research). Instead, they merely dredge up the usual, well-worn anti-Darwinian Creationist canards, repackage them in spiffy new & improved ID wrappers, and solicit politicians and other policy-making bodies for support... demanding equal time for ID in the name of "fairness." If ID means to be taken seriously as science, and if its advocates really want to be fair, is it too much to ask that they provide actual evidence for their assertions?I could assert that there are pink teapots orbiting Pluto until I'm blue in the face, but if I can't provide empirical evidence to back my claim, why should anyone (let alone scientists) take me seriously? So, without evidence, why should the claims of ID be regarded any differently?By the way, I can't help but notice that the "review" from a reader in Sunnyvale (now San Jose, I see), CA is repeated, word for word, in a "review" of Mark Perakh's "Unintelligent Design." Has the Sunnyvale/San Jose reader actually read either of these books? Or is this merely vacuous boilerplate blather?

"Intelligent design" (ID) is a religious and political movement that claims that only a designing intelligence (the Christian deity) could be responsible for the order we see in the natural world. It seeks to overthrow "scientific materialism" (what everyone else just calls "science") and replace it with Christian doctrine. Although its proponents claim ID is science, there are essentially no papers describing the "theory", testing it, or making predictions from it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Instead, its proponents publish popular books with religious or political presses.ID books are full of self-praise and hype, but very little actual science. What little science there is is full of flaws (one crucial calculation in Dembski's _No Free Lunch_ is off by 65 orders of magnitude, a fact he has never publicly admitted). This book is the first to document, in exhaustive detail, the religious and political motivations behind ID. Forrest and Gross show how the movement was conceived after a religious conversion by a law professor; how it is bankrolled by a Christian reconstructionist millionaire; how it is based on nonexistent science; and how it seeks to replace science at all levels, from grade school to the National Science Foundation, with Christian dogma.Contrary to the claim by one reviewer (who did not dare give his name), there is essentially no name-calling in this book. Instead, the analysis is scholarly, impeccable, and sober; the endnotes alone run for 65 pages. If you are concerned about how the Religious Right is hijacking science education in the United States, this book is essential reading. Be sure to take your blood pressure medication before starting, because the unrelenting duplicity that Forrest and Gross chronicle in the ID movement is sure to make you burst a blood vessel.Will the scientific community heed this wake-up call? I certainly hope so.