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.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I wonder if a poll has been done to determine how many "Evos" are also socialists in one form or another.. Linking evolution and socialism might be a good study..

Creationists have been trying to link scientists to socialists for 150 years. It doesn't work though, because the socialists all come from the soft sciences, philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc.

And science doesn't discourage God. That's just a small number of folks who've got issues of one kind or another.

[hosepipe]

[ Of course. That has been the point all along. The fallacy is to imagine that an ideal positivist system should be implemented in place of the naturally Conservative system as a social system and that it will be better than living in a grass hut on a faultline under a mud cliff during the hurricane season. ]

(shineing fingernails)(removing glasses).. HuH!... translate whale breath.. d;-)~

[Diamond]

Darwin anticipated this kind of argument and cited a number of things that would be reasonable for a designer to include in living things

A lot of his argumentation in this regard was theological in nature, not scientific.

Cordially,

[Alamo-Girl]

OK (trying to narrow things down) is this how you think evolution works? Or (as in your linked post) do you accept the assumption of evolution, that parent and child are always of the same species.

Seems to me that the theory of evolution requires that, at some point, the offspring cannot breed with some of their cousins but can breed with other cousins and thus the original species is now two and the branch on the tree of life gets a "fork".

[js1138]

Einstein for instance was a socialist but never let his ideology get intermixed with his physics. Dawkins on the other hand is an atheist and drenches his work product with his ideology.

I beg your pardon. Einstein would have howled if a YEC had stood up to oppose him. If he kept out of religion it was because there was no organized movement of fundamentalists trying to shout him down during his lifetime.

As for evolutionists, it's pretty difficult to avoid conflict with religion when your life's work says the literal interpretation of scripture is wrong.

[hosepipe]

[ I bet in your other personality you make fun of sociologists. ]

Sociologists or Socialists.?...
Hmmm.. there may be no or little difference.. Now thats heavy..

[js1138]

Seems to me that the theory of evolution requires that, at some point, the offspring cannot breed with some of their cousins but can breed with other cousins and thus the original species is now two and the branch on the tree of life gets a "fork".

No it doesn't. That's just wrong. Unless you define cousin as a relationship spanning hundreds of thousands of generations.

[Liberal Classic]

Generally speaking, I have no problem with prayer in school, or the use of school facilities by religious clubs, or a speaker delivering a religious message at commencement. (As an aside, I think prayer of sporting events is, well, a bit petty.) I don't have a problem with intelligent design/creationism being taught in philosophy class, or the topic being given as the subject of a writing assignment in English class, or debated in forensics club.

However, students receive precious few hours of science instruction as it is. There is simply not enough time to present any but the prevailing viewpoint. There are too many minority views and competeing theories in legitimate science to do anything but teach the prevailing view. Also, as most school curricula is designed as college prep, primary and secondary schools should approach science education with the goal of teaching what they need to know to go on to further science education at university. This speaks to a need to teach the basics, and do so in such a way as to be useful later in education.

Despite the exclamations of some supporters of intelligent design/creationism, science and math class is actually one of the least politicized disciplines within the educational establishment. I can't see how a legislative or judicial victory for the intelligent design/creationism movement could improve the situation. Basic science must be taught, not science with a eye taken towards cultural sensitivity. If the intelligent design/creationism movement succeeds politically, this sets a precedent for other non-scientific theories to do the same. Wait until the Raelians, or Scientologists demand to have their "science" taught, as well. Wait until the Council or Islamic-American Relations gets its finger in the pie.

[hosepipe]

A Reasoned approach.. sounds logical to me..

[malakhi]

Thank you for your posts, but, er, I seem to be having some difficulty in communicating with you.

We don't speak the same language; I am an empiricist, and you seem to be some sort of platonist.

On one post you assert that cosmology is speculative

Cosmology can be done within the confines of this universe using the scientific method: gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, testing them, etc. "Cosmology" beyond our universe is sheer speculation. Perhaps science will find a way to overcome this limitation at some point in the future, but there is no way at this time to test hypotheses about what is outside of our own spacetime.

The most sure statements we can make about physical reality are mathematical.

I disagree. Mathematics can offer avenues of research, and suggest hypotheses, but the rubber meets the road, so to speak, when hypotheses are tested against reality. Whether it is in the lab or in the field, it is empiricism which tells us whether or not our mathematical models conform to objective reality. The weakness of Greek natural philosophy is that it did not generally test the results of its logical forays. Logic alone doesn't get results; empiricism is the reality check.

The universe is intelligible because it is mathematical. The point raised by Eugene Wigner (and affirmed by Cumrun Vafa) is there is no reason why mathematics should be so effective wrt physics.

Conversely, one could say that our mathematics were formulated precisely to be effective in modeling the universe.

All presuppositions made in those two disciplines are stated as axioms and postulates related to the investigation at hand.

Mathematics, sure. But I don't see physics operating that way.

In those disciplines, no theory is treated as Holy writ.

And, in biology, the theory of evolution would likewise be replaced with a better model if it were falsified. You seem to be saying that the very success of evolution as a theory is a strike against it.

[malakhi]

The only possible uncaused cause is God.

Either an unsupported assertion, or a tautology.

[Alamo-Girl]

The point betty boop has been trying to make is that a "myth" can be either true or false. The modern notion of a "myth" is usually something false, but that was not the original meaning. She and I both speak with the original meaning.

The theory of evolution is a myth, a story. That doesn't mean it is false. It could indeed be true.

All historical science theories are myths. They are stories based on an incomplete quanitization of the continuum of history (e.g. archeology, Egyptology). Again, that doesn't mean their stories are all false - or true.

But conveying Truth is often the purpose of a myth!

Parables, metaphors and types are a most excellent way of conveying Truth - and are frequently used for that exact purpose throughout Scripture.

Likewise, the Greek philosophers used myths to convey truth.

[Diamond]

Cordial sophistry.

Assuming without justification that that the only scientifically acceptable causes in science are mechanistic (as to opposed to the actions of intelligent agency) is the sophistry. If the same methodological criteria were applied impartially to evolutionary theory then it doesn't meet the strict criterion of testability and positive verification by repeated observation of cause-effect relationships either. There are a host of Darwinian theoretical postulations of past, unobserved and unobservable events that purport to account for present impirical biological data. In either case the "testabilty" lies in the putative explanatory power rather than verification by direct and repeated observation. In the case of a theoretical postulate of ID, the past action of an unobservable agent could have empirical consequences in the present just as an unobservable genealogical relationship between organisms does.

Cordially,

[hosepipe]

[ "Cosmology" beyond our universe is sheer speculation. Perhaps science will find a way to overcome this limitation at some point in the future, but there is no way at this time to test hypotheses about what is outside of our own spacetime. ]

Cosmology within this universe is mostly shere speculation.. i.e. black holes.. The speed of light is SOoo damned slow.. its a wonder anything can deduced from it(correctly)..

[Alamo-Girl]

Disprove it!

Even the thought of a pursuit to disprove God is anathema to me.

Spiritually, I am living proof of the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit because the old me is dead and gone; the new me is nothing at all like her. The old me was mean-spirited, rude, self-serving and completely unloveable. The new me is very much alive in timeliness while yet in the flesh; I have no interest in the old things and my life goals now are to love God absolutely and my neighbor unconditionally.

I'm sure betty boop and xzins and many others here on the forum have a similar testimony.

[betty boop]

Unless, of course, you are saying that nothing existed or happened before it could be recorded by humans?

Nope, I'm not saying that. But we call that "pre-history."

[malakhi]

What non-circular reason is there to disqualify theories that invoke instances of agency or intelligent design?

I'll note that I was speaking specifically of "supernatural causes", not merely "intelligent design".

To assert that such theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic

They are not scientific because they are neither testable nor falsifiable.

The postulate that there was agency involved in the origin of life and its diversity is no more outside the bounds of that which is directly or indirectly observable, testable and falsifiable than is the postulate of unobservable genealogical connections between organisms as the result of purely mechanistic processes.

Sure it is, because you are adding in an additional element, agency, when the theory of evolution, as it stands, accounts for the evidence just fine without it. Which is not to say that one may not also believe in a supernatural agency behind it, but this belief is not a matter of science.

Presumably, you do not deny that it is possible that the actions of an unobservable agent could have empirical consequences in the present, do you?

It is not my place to deny it. If you wish to assert that actions of a (in terms of what I was discussing above) supernatural agent could have empirical consequences in the present, then it is incumbent upon you to come up with evidence for it, and formulate a testable hypothesis by which first, one could distinguish between supernatural and natural causes, and second, one could repeatedly demonstrate evidence of supernatural agency. That is, if you wish to insist that religion be accepted as science.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! But, er, since when is socialism a religion?

And concerning Dawkins - he howls indeed but his is certainly not the only discipline which disputes a 6,000 year age of the universe measured from our space/time coordinates. Off the top of my head, there's also astronomy, geology, archeology, cosmology, geometric physics.

Methinks he doth protest too much...

[highball]

Ok Diamond, what discovery could we possibly make that would prove ID to be false?

Unless you can give a specific answer to that question, ID isn't science.

[Alamo-Girl]

Unless you define cousin as a relationship spanning hundreds of thousands of generations.

That is the point isn't it - the cousins get too "distant" over time?

Thank you for your reply!