|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Infobox Organization
| + | [[Image:CSC.png|right|thumb|250px|The logo of the Center for Science and Culture]] |
| − | |name = Center for Science and Culture | + | The '''Center for Science and Culture''' is a [[Discovery Institute]] program founded in 1996 which: |
| − | |formation = 1994
| + | *supports [[research]] by [[scientist]]s and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-[[Darwin]]ian theory; |
| − | |type = Part of the [[Discovery Institute]]
| + | *supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as [[intelligent design]]; |
| − | |status = Non-profit
| + | *supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific [[materialism]] on [[culture]]. |
| − | |purpose = Promote [[intelligent design]]
| + | *encourages [[school]]s to improve [[science]] [[education]] by teaching students more fully about the theory of [[evolution]], including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.<ref>Source: ''About CSC'' [http://www.crsc.org/aboutCSC.php CSC]</ref> |
| − | |headquarters = [[Seattle]], [[Washington]], [[USA]]
| |
| − | |leader_title = Program Director
| |
| − | |leader_name = [[Stephen C. Meyer]]
| |
| − | |num_staff = Three
| |
| − | |num_volunteers =
| |
| − | |budget = $4.1 million
| |
| − | |website = [http://www.discovery.org/csc/ www.discovery.org/csc/]
| |
| − | |remarks =
| |
| − | }}
| |
| | | | |
| − | The '''Center for Science and Culture''' (CSC), formerly known as the '''Center for Renewal of Science and Culture''' (CRSC), is part of the [[Discovery Institute]], a [[Christian right|conservative Christian]] [[think tank]]<ref>Patricia O’Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that "religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute" are part of the "religious landscape" of that area. [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200502/ai_n9521923 Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse, A Conversation With Barbara Forrest], Church & State, Feb 2005 </ref> in the [[United States]]. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in public school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of [[life]] and the [[universe]] while casting doubt on the theory of [[evolution]] by portraying it as a "theory in crisis."<ref>[http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy] [[Barbara Forrest]]. May, 2007.</ref> | + | The center has more than 40 Fellows, including [[Biology|biologists]], [[Biochemistry|biochemists]], [[Chemistry|chemists]], [[Physics|physicists]], [[Philosophy|philosophers]] and [[History|historians]] of science, and public policy and [[Law|legal]] experts, many of whom are affiliated with [[college]]s and [[University|universities]]. The current (2008) director is [[Stephen Meyer|Dr. Stephen Meyer]].<ref>Source:''About CSC'' [http://www.crsc.org/aboutCSC.php CSC]</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | These positions have been rejected by the wider [[scientific community]], which identifies intelligent design as [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[neo-creationism]] and whereas the theory of [[evolution]] is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of [[scientific consensus]].<ref>"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" [http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf Cynthia Delgado, Finding the Evolution in Medicine, nih record, Vol. LVIII, No. 15] [[National Institutes of Health]]. July 28, 2006</ref>
| + | * it has been a particular interest of the Center to counter the idea that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349] |
| | | | |
| − | The Center for Science and Culture serves as the hub of the [[intelligent design movement]]. Nearly all of the luminaries of intelligent design are either CSC advisors, officers, or fellows. [[Stephen C. Meyer]], a fellow of the [[Discovery Institute]] and founder of the CSC, serves as Senior Fellow and Vice President, and [[Phillip E. Johnson]] is the Program Advisor. Johnson is commonly presented as the movement's "father" and architect of the center's [[Wedge strategy]] and "[[Teach the Controversy]]" campaign, as well as the [[Santorum Amendment]].
| + | ==External links== |
| | + | *[http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Official website] |
| | + | *[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349 "The Wedge Document": "So What?"] |
| | | | |
| − | == History == | + | ==References== |
| − | {{Intelligent Design}} | + | {{reflist|2}} |
| | | | |
| − | In an immediate response to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in [[Edwards v. Aguillard]] against ''[[creation science]]'' being taught in [[United States]] [[public school]] science classes, the term ''intelligent design'' was coined as a substitute in the textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' which was published in 1989, beginning the campaigning of the [[intelligent design movement]] under the leadership of ''Pandas'' editor [[Charles Thaxton]].<ref name=kos>[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/11/8448/52824 Daily Kos: Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies], by DarkSyde, Mar 11, 2006, interview with Barbara Forrest.</ref> The Edwards v. Aguillard ruling also inspired [[Phillip E. Johnson]] to begin anti-[[evolution]] campaigning. He met [[Stephen C. Meyer]], and through him was introduced to others who were developing what became the wedge strategy, including [[Michael Denton]],<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1177 How Not to Critique Intelligent Design Theory] Del Ratzsch. </ref> [[Michael Behe]] and [[William Dembski]], becoming the de facto leader of the group. By 1995 Johnson was opposing the [[methodological naturalism]] of [[science]] in which "The Creator belongs to the realm of religion, not scientific investigation", and promoting "[[theistic realism]]" which "assumes that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God" and expects "this 'fact' of creation to have empirical, observable consequences."<ref name=waw>[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html The Wedge at Work, [[Barbara Forrest]] ]</ref> <!-- 404 not found, info belongs later... [http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html] This group formed the CSC and has continued to operate through it, forming the nucleus of the movement, which it remains to this day, with both Johnson and Meyer serving as CSC officers.-->
| + | [[category:science]] |
| − | | |
| − | In December 1993 [[Bruce Chapman]], president and founder of the [[Discovery Institute]], noticed an essay in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' by Meyer about a dispute when biology lecturer [[Dean H. Kenyon]] taught intelligent design creationism in introductory classes.<ref name="wilgoren"> [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=24bc7c9b16cac8a8&ex=1282276800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive] Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_opendebatelifesorigins.htm |title=Open Debate on Life's Origins: Meyer, Stephen C. |accessdate=2007-08-27 |author= Stephen C. Meyer |authorlink=Stephen C. Meyer |date= 1993-12-06 |publisher=Wall Street Journal }}</ref> Kenyon had co-authored ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'', and in 1993 Meyer had contributed to the teacher's notes for the second edition of ''Pandas''. Meyer was an old friend of Discovery Institute co-founder [[George Gilder]], and over dinner about a year later they formed the idea of a think tank opposed to [[materialism]]. In the summer of 1995 Chapman and Meyer met a representative of [[Howard Ahmanson, Jr.]]. Meyer, who had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science, recalls being asked "What could you do if you had some financial backing?" <ref name="wilgoren"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The '''Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture''', as it was originally named, grew out of a conference called "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture" that the Discovery Insitute organised in the summer of 1995. It was founded in 1996 by the Discovery Institute with funding provided by Fieldstead & Company, the Stewardship Foundation, Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and the MacLellan Foundation.<ref name="wilgoren"/><ref>{{waybackdate|site=http://www.discovery.org/center.html|date=19961103063611|title=Discovery Institute Press Release August 10, 1996}}</ref><ref name=waw/> The evolution of the Center's name in 2002 reflects its attempt to present itself as less religiously motivated in the public's eye.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm |title=AAUP: Wedging Creationism into the Academy |accessdate=2007-08-27 |author=Barbara Forrest |authorlink=Barbara Forrest |coauthors= Glenn Branch |date=January-February 2005 |work=Academe Online |publisher=American Association of University Professors }}</ref> The "renewal" in its name referred to its stated goal of "renewing" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in religion as outlined in the Wedge document. Since that time the Center has disavowed any religious motivations to its agenda and so has dropped "renewal" from its title and moderated its formerly overtly religious language of its public statements <ref>{{waybackdate|site=http://www.discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html|date=19970608130849|title=What is The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture All About?}}</ref>. This was done to appeal to a more secular audience to which the Center hopes its social and political programs will appeal and make inroads.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Despite these changes to attempt to appeal to a broader, less religious, audience, the CSC still states as a goal a redefinition of science, and the philosophy on which it is based, particularly the exclusion of what it calls the "unscientific principle of [[materialism]]", and in particular the acceptance of what it calls "the [[scientific theory]] of intelligent design". The position of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is that the principle of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] allows [[falsifiability]] and that [[supernaturalism]] is unfalsifiable, meaning any suggested policies or curricula put forth by the Center that rest on supernatural suppositions would be by definition [[pseudoscience]], not science. The Center maintains that the exclusion of supernatural explanations introduces a bias that is driven by [[materialism]] rather than being scientifically based.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==CSC's Wedge strategy==
| |
| − | {{main|Wedge strategy}}
| |
| − | An internal CSC report dating from 1998 which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID was leaked to the public in 1999. This plan became known as the ''[[Wedge strategy]]''. The 'Wedge Document' explained the CSC's key aims are "''To defeat [[science|scientific]] [[materialism]] and its destructive [[moral]], [[culture|cultural]] and [[politics|political]] legacies''" and to "''replace materialistic explanations with the [[theism|theistic]] understanding that [[nature]] and [[human|human beings]] are created by [[God]]."''
| |
| − | | |
| − | To accomplish this, the document sets as "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''" and notably "''To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.''" This was seen in the following years, with public debates over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms taking place in many states as part of the [[Teach the Controversy]] campaign.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If the CSC's strategy is successful, within twenty years the goals are "''To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in [[science]]. ''" and "''To see design theory permeate our [[religion|religious]], cultural, moral and political life.''"
| |
| − | | |
| − | The CSC seeks to downplay the significance of the 'Wedge Document', saying "Conspircay [sic] theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the "Wedge" document."<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101 The "Wedge Document": So What?] Discovery Institute staff, February 3 2006</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==CSC campaigns==
| |
| − | ===Teach the Controversy===
| |
| − | {{main|Teach the Controversy}}
| |
| − | The CSC's Teach the Controversy campaign seeks to promote the teaching of "the full range of scientific views" on evolution <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2112&program=CSC%20-%20Science%20and%20Education%20Policy%20-%20School%20District%20Policy%20-%20MainPage Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members] Discovery Institute staff. August 21, 2007.</ref> on "unresolved issues" and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory" <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutScienceEducationPolicy CSC Questions about Science Education Policy] Discovery Institute staff.</ref> Critics of the CSC's campaign say that they have manufactured the controversy and that they promote the false perception that evolution is "in crisis" and is a "dying theory".<ref name="kitzmiller_pg89">"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'', but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]]</ref><ref name="nejm">"That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006</ref><ref name=AAAS> "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006 </ref><ref>[http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy] [[Barbara Forrest]]. May, 2007.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The strategy has been to move from standards battles, to curriculum writing, to textbook adoption, all the while undermining the central positions of evolution in biology and methodological naturalism in science. The CSC is the primary organizer and promoter of the Teach the Controversy campaign. It adopted the tactic of remaining behind the scenes and orchestrating, underwriting and otherwise supporting local campaigns, ID groups, and proponents to act on its behalf in lobbying state and local politicians and school boards.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Examples of Teach the Controversy in action were the [[Kansas evolution hearings]], the [[Santorum Amendment]], [[Intelligent design movement#2002 Ohio Board of Education|2002 Ohio Board of Education intelligent design controversy]], and the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover, Pennsylvania Board of Education intelligent design controversy]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | The CSC alleges that the program and curricula they advocate presents evidence both for and against [[evolution]] and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Casting the conflicting points of view and agendas as an academic and scholarly controversy was proposed by [[Phillip E. Johnson]] of the Discovery Institute in his book ''The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism''. In it, he writes of the 1999-2000 [[Kansas evolution hearings]] controversy over the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in public school classrooms: ''"What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the controversy."''
| |
| − | | |
| − | In its early years the CSC (then called the CRSC) offered science curriculum that assured teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars." This had the net effect of encouraging ID sympathetic teachers to side-step standard textbook adoption procedures. Anticipating a test case, Discovery Institute director Stephen C. Meyer along with David K. DeWolf and Mark Edward DeForrest published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CRSC&command=view&id=1109 Santorum Language on Evolution], Center for Science and Culture</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to published reports, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls, lobbying and media pieces that support intelligent design and their Teach the Controversy strategy.<ref name=battle>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens], Peter Slevin, [[Washington Post]], March 14 2005</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In August 2005 the New York Times reported that since 2004 there have been 78 campaigns in 31 states to either Teach the Controversy or include intelligent design in science curricla, twice the number seen in 2002-2003.<ref>[http://www.msu.edu/course/te/407/FS05Sec3/te408/files/Politicized%20Scholars%20Put%20Evolution%20on%20the%20Defensive%20-%20New%20York%20Times.pdf Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive] Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Intelligent design in higher education===
| |
| − | The cultivation of support for ID and its social and political agenda in higher education is a very active part of CSC's strategy. Though the CSC claims there are established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design, it identifies only Discovery Institute Fellows and affiliates on its website,<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php CSC Frequently Asked Questions] Center for Science and Culture.</ref> Of those listed, [[Michael Behe]]'s support for intelligent design is so out of step with the scientific mainstream that his department at Lehigh university felt compelled to publish a policy statement:
| |
| − | {{quotation|"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."<ref>[http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"], Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences</ref>}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | CSC-recommended curricula benefits from special status at number of religious schools. [[Biola University]] and [[Oklahoma Baptist University]] are listed on the [[Access Research Network]] website as "ID Colleges." In addition, the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, which began as a student organization at the [[University of California, San Diego]], helps establish student IDEA clubs on university and high school campuses. The Intelligent Design and Undergraduate Research Center, ARN’s student division, also recruits and supports followers at universities. Campus youth ministries play an active role in bringing ID to university campuses through lectures by ID leaders Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and others. This activity takes place outside university science departments.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Several public universities, including the [[University of California, Berkeley]] and the [[University of New Mexico]] have had intelligent design often as freshman seminars, honors courses and other courses outside required curricula in which instructors have wider latitude regarding course content).<ref>[http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm Darwinism Under Attack], Beth McMurtrie, [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]], December 21, 2001</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Research fellowships===
| |
| − | The CSC offers lucrative fellowships of up to $60,000 a year for "support of significant and original research in the natural sciences, the history and philosophy of science, cognitive science and related fields." Published reports state that the CSC has awarded $3.6 million in fellowships of $5,000 to $60,000 per year to 50 researchers since its founding in 1996.<ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5262 Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive], Jody Wilgoren, [[The New York Times]], August 21, 2005</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | To date none of the Center’s fellows has produced scientific research which has found wide acceptance within the broader [[scientific community]]. What research has been published is consistent with that called for in the Wedge Document however, which it says is to form the foundation of the center's [[Wedge strategy]]. Among these are 50 books on intelligent design, such as those by [[William A. Dembski]], many published by religious presses like [[InterVarsity]] or Crossway, and two documentary films, <cite>Unlocking the Mystery of Life</cite>, and <cite>The Privileged Planet</cite>. The former was broadcast briefly on public television creating a [[Intelligent design movement#2003 PBS video controversy|controversy]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Since its founding in 1996, the CSC has spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million <!-- explain where the money comes from-->on research according to Meyer, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can ponder intelligent design. Over those nine years, $792,585 was spent to finance laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 was spent to help graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The results of this are found in Discovery Institute-authored science class curricla, "model lesson plans," that are at the center of many of the [[Intelligent design movement#Intelligent design movement in the political arena|current debates]] about including intelligent design in public school science classes. These are promoted by the CSC which urges states and school boards to include criticism of evolution science lessons, to "[[Teach the Controversy]]," rather than actually teach intelligent design which is susceptible to legal challenges on [[First Amendment]] grounds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Controversies==
| |
| − | In May 2005 the [[Discovery Institute]] donated $16,000 to the [[National Museum of Natural History|Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History]], and by museum policy, this minimum donation allowed them to celebrate their donation inside the museum in a gathering. The [[Discovery Institute]] decided to screen a film entitled [[The Privileged Planet (film)|The Privileged Planet]], based on the book [[The Privileged Planet]], written by two senior fellows of the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2170&program=CSC%20-%20Video%20and%20Curriculum%20-%20Multimedia The Privileged Planet], The Discovery Institute.</ref> Notably, the video was also a production of Illustra Media,<ref>[http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm The Privileged Planet]</ref> which has been identified as a [[front organization|front]] for a creationist production company.<ref>[http://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm The Smoking Gun - "Intelligent Design" IS Religious Creationism!], Dave Thomas, New Mexicans for Science and Reason</ref> Upon further review, the [[National Museum of Natural History|Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History]] determined that the content of the video was inconsistent with the scientific research of the institution.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001098.html The Panda's Thumb: Smithsonian Institution Statement]</ref> They therefore refunded the $16,000, clearly denied any endorsement of the content of the video or of the Discovery Institute, and allowed the film to be shown in the museum as per the original agreement. Editorials have decried as naïve and negligent the [[National Museum of Natural History|Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's]] failure to identify the [[Discovery Institute]] as a creationist organization, exclude the video with its review process in the first place, and identify the entire incident as an example of [[Wedge strategy|Wedge Strategy]] in action.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201659.html Dissing Darwin], [[Washington Post]], June 3, 2005</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Center also funded research for the controversial book <cite>From Darwin to Hitler</cite> by Center fellow [[Richard Weikart]].<ref>[http://www.darwintohitler.com/ From Darwin to Hitler]</ref> Weikart claims that Darwinism's impact on ethics and morality played a key role not only in the rise of [[eugenics]], but also in [[euthanasia]], [[infanticide]], [[abortion]], and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. The reasoning and language Weikart employs mirrors both the preamble to the [[Wedge strategy|Wedge document]] and the center's early mission statement:
| |
| − | {{quotation|The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective standards binding on all cultures, claiming that environment dictates our moral beliefs. ...
| |
| − | 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.<ref>{{waybackdate|site=http://www.discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html|date=19970608130849|title=What is The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture All About?}}</ref>}}
| |
| − | The Center also republishes similar articles from Weikart in which he expands on this theme.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2172&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Social%20Sciences%20and%20Humanities Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?], [[Richard Weikart]], ''The Human Life Review'', March 1, 2004</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | On September 6, 2006, on the center's ''Evolution News & Views'' blog Discovery Institute staffer Casey Luskin published a post entitled "Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries." There Luskin reprinted a letter from a reader complaining that Wikipedia's coverage of ID to be "one sided" and that pro-intelligent design editors were censored and attacked. Along with the letter Luskin published a Wikipedia email address for general information and urged readers to "to contact Wikipedia to express your feelings about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries] Casey Luskin, Evolution News & Views, September 6, 2006.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Criticisms==
| |
| − | At the foundation of most criticism of the CSC and the Discovery Institute is the charge that the Institute intentionally misrepresents many facts in the promoting of its agenda. A wide spectrum of critics level this charge; from educators, scientists and the Smithsonian Institute to individuals who oppose the teaching of creationism alongside science on ideological grounds. The following are most common areas in which the Institute is accused of being intentionally misleading:
| |
| − | | |
| − | *'''Teach the Controversy''' Mainstream scientific organizations maintain that there is no controversy to teach, in the sense that the theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community. Such controversies that do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, and the controversy alleged by the Discovery Institute is manufactured.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *'''Santorum Amendment''' Despite the amendment lacking the weight of law, consistent with the Discovery Institute's [[Wedge strategy]], the amendment's inclusion in the conference report of the [[No Child Left Behind Act]] is constantly cited by the Discovery Institute as evidence that "federal education policy" calls for a "teach the controversy approach".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/10/EDGJIA98SK1.DTL Controversy over life's origins], [[Stephen C. Meyer]], [[John Angus Campbell]], [[San Francisco Chronicle]], December 10, 2004</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | *'''Wedge strategy and the Discovery Institute agenda''' A common allegation often leveled at the CSC by critics is that it is conducting a campaign, the ultimate goal of which is to reshape American culture by influencing public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. The [[Wedge strategy|Wedge document]] bolsters this claim. They claim that the Center's dismissal of the document and strategy is disingenuous, as when the Center's actions in the political sphere, such as its Teach the Controversy campaign, are taken into account it becomes apparent that the Wedge strategy is indeed being followed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *'''Peer review''' Though the CSC often claims that articles and books asserting intelligent design are published in the peer-reviewed scientific press, the only pro-ID article that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal was quickly retracted by the publisher. That article, titled <cite>The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories</cite>, was by the institute's Stephen C. Meyer and was published in <cite>Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington</cite> in 2004. One month after its publication, the journal's publisher issued a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and as having side-stepped peer review (see [[Sternberg peer review controversy]]).<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp BSW repudiates Meyer], [[National Center for Science Education]], September 7, 2004</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Intellectual dishonesty]], in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence and a lack of [[rigour]] is one of the most common criticisms of the Center..<ref>"ID supporters present fallacious arguments, use dishonest rhetoric, and often present non-contemptuous responses as evidence that their theories are gaining acceptance." [http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/BioScience.pdf Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent Design Movement] Jason Rosenhouse. BioScience, Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2003.</ref> It is alleged that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Its critics, such as [[Eugenie Scott]], [[Robert Pennock]] and [[Barbara Forrest]], claim that the CSC knowingly misquotes scientists and other experts, deceptively omits contextual text through [[ellipsis]], and makes unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Barbara Forrest]], author of ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]'' and [[Glenn Branch]] say that the CSC uses academic credentials and affiliations opportunistically.<ref name=acadme>[http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm Wedging Creationism into the Academy] Proponents of a controversial theory struggle to gain purchase within academia. A case study of the quest for academic legitimacy. Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch. January-February 2005. Academe, a publication of the American Association of University Professors</ref> In 2001 the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications (the ''[[New York Review of Books]]'', the ''[[The New Republic|New Republic]]'' and the ''[[Weekly Standard]]'') to proclaim the adherence of approximately 100 scientists to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similarly confusing lists of local scientists were circulated.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In another instance, the CSC frequently mentions the Nobel Prize in connection with [[Henry F. Schaefer]], a CSC fellow, and chemist at the [[University of Georgia]]. Critics allege that CSC is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" since Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Alongside the allegation that the center intentionally misrepresents facts, [[Eugenie Scott]] and other critics say there is a noticeable conflict between what the CSC tells the public through the media and what they say before conservative Christian audiences. They contend that this is a studied and deliberate attempt at the obfuscation advocated by Wedge strategy author Phillip E. Johnson.<ref>"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."[http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_berkeleysradical.htm Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson] Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone Magazine June 2002</ref> When speaking to a mainstream audience and to the media, the institute portrays ID as a secular, scientific theory, that the teaching the controversy campaign does not promote ID, and that their agenda is not religiously motivated. But when speaking to what the Wedge document calls their "natural constituency, namely (conservative) Christians," the institute's officers express themselves in unambiguously religious language that contradicts these statements. This in the belief that they cannot afford to alienate their constituency and major funding sources, virtually all of which are conservative religious organizations and individuals such as [[Howard Ahmanson, Jr.]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] has voiced [[First Amendment]] concerns over Discovery Institute's activities. He described the approach of the teach the controversy movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry":
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{quotation|"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God."<ref name=battle/>}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2004 [[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]] published ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]'' documenting the history of the intelligent design movement and the DI's Center for Science and Culture as well as critiquing the ID "research"([[Oxford University Press]]).<ref>[[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]]. ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]''. 2004</ref> Forrest and Gross referred to the group as an outgrowth of Johnson's religious mission and explored its plans for "a rigorously God-centered view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism."<ref>[[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]]. ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]''. 2004, page 19 and 23</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Funding==
| |
| − | The Center is funded through the [[Discovery Institute]], which is largely underwritten by grants and gifts from wealthy [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalist]] conservative individuals and groups, such as [[Howard Ahmanson, Jr|Howard Ahmanson Jr.]], [[Philip F. Anschutz]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]], and the MacLellan Foundation.<ref>[http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=147 Discovery Institute emerging as force in creation, public policy] Karen L. Willoughby. Baptist2Baptist, May 15 2001.</ref><ref name="wp_slevin">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens] Peter Slevin. Washington Post, March 14 2005.</ref><ref>"Nearly all of the Discovery Institute's money for the Intelligent Design project comes in the form of grants from wealthy fundamentalists and from Christian political groups. In 2003, the Discovery Institute received some $4.1 million in donations and grants. At least twenty-two different foundations give money to the Intelligent Design project; two-thirds of these are religious institutions with explicitly Christian aims and goals." [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/deception.cfm Deception by Design] Lenny Flank. TalkReason.org</ref>
| |
| − | <ref>"Financed by some of the same Christian conservatives who helped Mr. Bush win the White House, the organization's intellectual core is a scattered group of scholars who for nearly a decade have explored the unorthodox explanation of life's origins known as intelligent design." ... "The records show financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of them with explicitly religious missions." [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=24bc7c9b16cac8a8&ex=1282276800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive] Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Published reports place the Discovery Institute's budget for ID-related programs at over $4 million per year. The Center's expenditures can be assumed to be substantial based on the scope and quality of the Center's extensive public relations campaigns, materials and contributions to local and regional ID and Teach the Controversy efforts.
| |
| − | | |
| − | CSC director, [[Stephen C. Meyer]], admits most of the Center's money comes from wealthy donors from the [[Christian right]].<ref name="wp_slevin"/> [[Howard Ahmanson, Jr|Howard Ahmanson Jr.]], who provided $1.5 million in funding that established the Center, has said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/ | title=Avenging angel of the religious right | publisher=[[Salon.com]] |date= 2004-01-06 | first=Max | last=Blumenthal | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref> The MacLellan Foundation commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html | title=Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens| publisher=[[Washington Post]] |date=2005-03-14| first=Peter | last=Selvin | accessdate =2007-05-17}}</ref> Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the [[George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004|Bush campaign]]. Until 1995, Ahmanson sat on the board of the Christian reconstructionist [[Chalcedon Foundation]],<ref>[http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre3.html
| |
| − | Christian Reconstructionism], Frederick Clarkson, The Public Eye, March and June 1994</ref> and funds many causes important to the [[Christian right]], including [[Christian Reconstructionism]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Fellows ==
| |
| − | <div style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
| |
| − | *Program Advisor: [[Phillip E. Johnson]]
| |
| − | *Program Director: [[Stephen C. Meyer]]
| |
| − | *Associate Director: [[John G. West]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Senior fellows ===
| |
| − | *[[Michael J. Behe]]
| |
| − | *[[David Berlinski]]
| |
| − | *[[Paul Chien]]
| |
| − | *[[William A. Dembski]]
| |
| − | *[[David DeWolf]]
| |
| − | *[[Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez]]
| |
| − | *[[Michael Newton Keas]]
| |
| − | *[[Nancy Pearcey]]
| |
| − | *[[Jay Richards]]
| |
| − | *[[Mark Ryland]]
| |
| − | *[[Wesley J. Smith]]
| |
| − | *[[Richard Weikart]]
| |
| − | *[[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|Jonathan Wells]]
| |
| − | *[[Benjamin Wiker]]
| |
| − | *[[Jonathan Witt]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Fellows===
| |
| − | * [[Raymond Bohlin]]
| |
| − | * [[Walter Bradley]]
| |
| − | * [[J. Budziszewski]]
| |
| − | * [[John Angus Campbell]]
| |
| − | * [[Robert Lowry Clinton]]
| |
| − | * [[Jack Collins]]
| |
| − | * [[William Lane Craig]]
| |
| − | * [[Brian Frederick]]
| |
| − | * [[Mark Hartwig]]
| |
| − | * [[Kenneth Hermann]]
| |
| − | * [[Cornelius G. Hunter]]
| |
| − | * [[Robert Kaita]]
| |
| − | * [[Dean H. Kenyon]]
| |
| − | * [[Robert C. Koons]]
| |
| − | * [[Forrest Mims]]
| |
| − | * [[Scott Minnich]]
| |
| − | * [[J.P. Moreland]]
| |
| − | * [[Paul Nelson]]
| |
| − | * [[Joseph Poulshock]]
| |
| − | * [[Pattle Pak-Toe Pun]]
| |
| − | * [[John Mark Reynolds]]
| |
| − | * [[Henry Schaefer]]
| |
| − | * [[Geoffrey Simmons]]
| |
| − | * [[Wolfgang Smith]]
| |
| − | * [[Charles Thaxton]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Former Fellows===
| |
| − | * [[Francis J. Beckwith]]
| |
| − | * [[Michael Denton]]<ref>[[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]], ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]''. Oxford University Press, 2004. page 153</ref>
| |
| − | * [[Marcus R. Ross]]<ref>[[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]]. ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]''. 2004, page 59</ref>
| |
| − | *[[Jeffrey Schloss]]<ref>Edie Lau, "[http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/SB/lib00166,10D08083C220A998.html Some find middle ground in science-theology clash]," ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'', October 3, 2005</ref><ref> [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/the-evolution-o-7.html "The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss"], [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]], August 12, 2008</ref>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Staff ==
| |
| − | * [[Bruce L. Gordon]], Research Director
| |
| − | *[[Casey Luskin]], Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs.<ref name="LuskinBio">{{cite news | url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=188 | title=Casey Luskin, Staff - Discovery Institute | publisher=Center for Science and Culture |date= 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-07-17}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | == See also ==
| |
| − | * [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns]]
| |
| − | * [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | <!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->
| |
| − | {{Reflist|2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | == External links ==
| |
| − | * [http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Discovery Institute's CSC]
| |
| − | * [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html The Wedge Strategy]
| |
| − | *** [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=109 The Wedge Document -- So what? from the Discovery Institute]
| |
| − | '''Articles'''
| |
| − | * [http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-darwin.php Discovery's Creation] A brief history of the Discovery institute and how the Wedge Document was made public.
| |
| − | * [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4116_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute] - the NCSE shows the changing banners on the CRSC/CSC's website.
| |
| − | * [http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5262 Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive] Jody Wilgoren. Originally published in the [[The New York Times|New York Times]]. 21 August 2005
| |
| − | * [http://www.mmisi.org/ir/31_02/west.pdf The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture, JohnG. West, Jr.]
| |
| − | | |
| − | <!-- Categorization -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors| ]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Discovery Institute campaigns| ]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Intelligent design organizations]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Intelligent design movement]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Advocacy groups]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[es:Centro para la Ciencia y la Cultura]]
| |
| − | [[it:Center for Science and Culture]]
| |
