Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document” How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend

Evolution News ^ | 10/07/05 | Staff

[Heartlander]

Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend

In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight.

1. The Background

• In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scientists and other scholars who were critical of neo-Darwinism and by those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design; and (2) to explore, in various ways, the multiple connections between science and culture.
• To raise financial support for the Center, Discovery Institute prepared a fundraising proposal that explained the overall rationale for the Center and why a think tank like Discovery would want to start such an entity in the first place. Like most fundraising proposals, this one included a multi-year budget and a list of goals to be achieved.

2. The Rise of an Urban Legend

• In 1999 a copy of this fundraising proposal was posted by someone on the internet. The document soon spread across the world wide web, gaining almost mythic status among some Darwinists.
• That’s when members of the Darwinist fringe began saying rather loopy things. For example, one group claimed that the document supplied evidence of a frightening twenty-year master plan “to have religion control not only science, but also everyday life, laws, and education”!
• Barbara Forrest, a Louisiana professor on the board of a group called the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, similarly championed the document as proof positive of a sinister conspiracy to abolish civil liberties and unify church and state. Forrest insisted that the document was “crucially important,” and she played up its supposed secrecy, claiming at one point that its “authenticity…has been neither affirmed nor denied by the Discovery Institute.” Poor Prof. Forrest—if she really wanted to know whether the document was authentic, all she had to do was ask. (She didn’t.)
• There were lots of ironies as this urban legend began to grow, but Darwinist true-believers didn’t seem capable of appreciating them:
  --Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, is in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense.
  --At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
  --Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute sponsored for several years a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation between church and state.

3. What the Document Actually Says

• The best way to dispel the paranoia of the conspiracy-mongers is to actually look at the document in question. It simply doesn’t advocate the views they attribute to it.
  First and foremost, and contrary to the hysterical claims of some Darwinists, this document does not attack “science” or the “scientific method.” In fact, it is pro-science.
• What the document critiques is “scientific materialism,” which is the abuse of genuine science by those who claim that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism.
• Second, the document does not propose replacing “science” or the “scientific method” with “God” or “religion.” Instead, it supports a science that is “consonant” (i.e., harmonious) with theism, rather than hostile to it. To support a science that is “consonant” with religion is not to claim that religion and science are the same thing. They clearly aren’t. But it is to deny the claim of scientific materialists that science is somehow anti-religious.

Following are the document’s major points, which we still are happy to affirm:

1. “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is 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.” As a historical matter, this statement happens to be true. The idea that humans are created in the image of God has had powerful positive cultural consequences. Only a member of a group with a name like the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association” could find anything objectionable here. (By the way, isn’t it strange that a group supposedly promoting “theocracy” would praise “representative democracy” and “human rights”?)
2. “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 throughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.” This statement highlights one of the animating concerns of Discovery Institute as a public policy think tank. Leading nineteenth century intellectuals tried to hijack science to promote their own anti-religious agenda. This attempt to enlist science to support an anti-religious agenda continues to this day with Darwinists like Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, who boldly insists that Darwinism supports atheism. We continue to think that such claims are an abuse of genuine science, and that this abuse of real science has led to pernicious social consequences (such as the eugenics crusade pushed by Darwinist biologists early in the twentieth century).
3. "Discovery Institute’s Center... seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” It wants to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." We admit it: We want to end the abuse of science by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson who try to use science to debunk religion, and we want to provide support for scientists and philosophers who think that real science is actually “consonant with… theistic convictions.” Please note, however: “Consonant with” means “in harmony with.” It does not mean “same as.” Recent developments in physics, cosmology, biochemistry, and related sciences may lead to a new harmony between science and religion. But that doesn’t mean we think religion and science are the same thing. We don’t.
4. “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” It is precisely because we are interested in encouraging intellectual exploration that the “Wedge Document” identified the “essential” component of its program as the support of scholarly “research, writing and publication.” The document makes clear that the primary goal of Discovery Institute’s program in this area is to support scholars so they can engage in research and publication Scholarship comes first. Accordingly, by far the largest program in the Center’s budget has been the awarding of research fellowships to biologists, philosophers of science, and other scholars to engage in research and writing.
5. “The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized.” It’s shocking but true—Discovery Institute actually promised to publicize the work of its scholars in the broader culture! What’s more, it wanted to engage Darwinists in academic debates at colleges and universities! We are happy to say that we still believe in vigorous and open discussion of our ideas, and we still do whatever we can to publicize the work of those we support. So much for the “secret” part of our supposed “conspiracy.”

A final thought: Don’t Darwinists have better ways to spend their time than inventing absurd conspiracy theories about their opponents? The longer Darwinists persist in spinning such urban legends, the more likely it is that fair-minded people will begin to question whether Darwinists know what they are talking about.

Read the Wedge document for yourself, along with a more detailed point by point response and clarification of falacious allegations.

[Heartlander]

Mr. Douglas Kern sums up the current neo-darwinist stance:

"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads." - Douglas Kern

Kern does raise an interesting point in his article - How does one logically adhere to neo-darwinism yet separate oneself from sociobiology?

For example, if one believes we owe our existence to random mutations and natural selection (RM&NS):

I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone
-by Richard Dawkins, Singer

Come on now, if evolution is a fact (just like gravity is a fact) then why would a neo-darwinist distance his/her self from this philosophy? And speaking of philosophy, why does philosophy allow this debate without name-calling or political aspects as shown here ? There is no dualism within the neo-darwinian paradigm.

Now back to this infamous “Wedge Document”… I would like to submit a couple of ‘wedge documents’ myself that show the other side of this debate from people who take a strict ‘neo-darwinian’ stance:

The Bright Movement:

The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Brights

Humanist Manifesto I & II

And for the record, why was there no uproar about this peer-reviewed paper ? The stats were bad and so were the conclusions. Where is the outcry? Why should this be allowed as peer-reviewed without the same criticism as a paper from Meyer?

[fizziwig]

Poopy-head? I resemble that remark!

[Heartlander]

(((ping)))

[SteveMcKing]

Don't discuss dogs at a cat show, nor cats at a dog show.

Don't go to Burger King and ask for a Big Mac, nor for a Whopper at McDonalds.

Don't go to a theater and ask to see a menu, nor to a restaurant and ask the waiter "What's playing?"

Don't go to church and talk about science, and don't discuss your religion when doing biology.

[highball]

"Don't go to church and talk about science, and don't discuss your religion when doing biology."

You'd think that this was self-evident, but the Discovery Institute obviously doesn't get it.

[Heartlander]

…and don't discuss your religion when doing biology.

This is my point – and I don’t see a need to get a burger at a movie to draw the conclusion.

[Hoplite]

As ID is to Creationism, evolutionnews.org is to Discovery.org.

I wonder why they didn't put this material on the original website?

Not.

[mlo]

"Darwinist fringe" ?

[highball]

Not content to re-define the word "science," they are now trying to re-define the word "fringe" to mean "a group less than 99% of the whole."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Heartlander]

Booo!!!

[Right Wing Professor]

Bit late for spin control. The Wedge Document is part of the court record. The Thomas More lawyers, who are doing a pretty good impression of the Three Stooges, failed to exclude testimony about the document, and (better yet)pages of other testimony about public testimony by Johnson, Dembski and others, proving that the Wedge Document is completely consistent with public statements by other prime movers in the Discovery Institute.

The ID scam is exposed, guy. Time to find another euphemism for creationism, and this time tell your guys to keep their big mouths shut about how this is really just a Kewl Scheme to get Biology Class turned into Church Service.

BTW, what a really cool idea it was to try to question Forrest about the connection between evolution and bestiality. I wonder are these Thomas More lawyers regulars on the Designed Universe website.

But what I find particularly telling is your indignation at the Brights. You've been attacking them since they were founded. And what are they looking for? Global domination? Nope. Just understanding and tolerance for atheists and agnostics. It appears that's too much to ask from the likes of you. You'd prefer to the good old days when you could set the Inquisition on them.

[Heartlander]

Word play?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Link to AntiEvolution.org.

[Heartlander]

“…Singer defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."
Singer

[Right Wing Professor]

Casey Luskin is apparently auditioning for the part of Humpty Dumpty.

“It was only in that very generic sense that the book used the notion of "creation"—that is, that signs of plan, purpose, and intelligence in nature point to an intelligent cause,” added Luskin. “Pandas makes it explicitly clear in many instances that they are not postulating a supernatural cause, because to do so would go beyond the limits of science. No ‘word-processor-conspiracy-theory’ from Forrest can change the fact that Pandas’ arguments were always distinct from those of traditional ‘creationism’.”

Once that term had been so defined, it’s understandable and perfectly appropriate that people trying to use the term in a completely different way (reasoning from scientific evidence to design) would be all the more interested in finding a term that more precisely fit what they were actually doing. Without changing the substance of their argument (from evidence in nature to intelligence, and not speculating about the supernatural), the authors found a more generic term that was less likely to be misunderstood.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

[Right Wing Professor]

Other than displaying that you share the fascination so many creationists seem have with bestiality, I can't image what this has got to do with the Wedcge Document.

[Right Wing Professor]

Impenetrability, that's what I say.

[Right Wing Professor]

And for the record, why was there no uproar about this peer-reviewed paper ? The stats were bad and so were the conclusions.

Ask the Christian university that published it. Don't take it up with me. I've already described it on another thread as a piece of crap.

[Heartlander]

Prof, you are a member of the Bright movement along with many other scientists…
The Bright Movement:

The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Brights

This is different from the wedge document?