Many people know about the infamous “wedge document,” a fund-raising document outlining the Discovery Institute’s action plan to conquer evolution in the public arena. Its somewhat Christian/deist goals, which were not (and are not) part of the DI’s public mission statement, made evolutionists cry “foul,” accusing the DI of promoting religion in the guise of science. William Dembski, a leading Intelligent Design proponent, has tried to distance himself and the ID movement from religious goals, and is no record as saying that
the wedge metaphor has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, with ID critics like Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross writing books like Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, the wedge metaphor has even become a liability. To be sure, our critics will attempt to keep throwing the wedge metaphor (and especially the notorious wedge document) in our face. But the wedge needs to be seen as a propaedeutic — as an anticipation of and preparation for a positive, design-theoretic research program that invigorates science and renews culture
I have no problem with the wedge strategy, and find most of its goals and means laudable. However, Dembski, in a humorous but serious publication, is now suggesting what he calls The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists (PDF).
The vise strategy consists in subjecting each of these types of Darwinists to a sustained line of questioning about the five key terms (nature, science, evolution, creation, design), questions that they have no choice but to answer — hence the ‘vise’ metaphor. The aim of this line of questioning is to make clear to those reading or listening to the Darwinists’ testimonies that their defense of evolution and opposition to ID are prejudicial, self-contradictory, ideologically driven, and above all insupportable on the basis of the underlying science.
Good reading.
How can you have no problem with it Seeker? Aren’t you the one CONSTANTLY arguing that ID isn’t about religion?
I am not an anti-religionist. If the southern Baptists, rather than the DI, want to pursue that strategy, I’d say have fun with it – make the evolutionists fight for their faith.
In my mind, the evolutionary worldview, and it’s illogical stranglehold on science is harmful to science, and should be challenged.
Again, I’m not a super ID fan, just enough to see that evolutionists, as Orson Scott Card put it:
“It comes to this: If you question the Darwinist model, you must be religious; therefore your side of the argument is not admissible in the public arena, and certainly not in the public schools.
This is an attempt to shut down discussion by hiding behind the Constitution. It’s what you do when you’re pretty sure you can’t win on the merits. ”
Seeker,
I disagree with Card – we oppose ID because there’s no science to it, and even if there was, it is simply an attempt to worm the Christian God into the classroom. And as I have to remind you for the millionth time, my daughter shouldn’t have to learn about such nonsense.
Seeker, I think that Card is on to something… just like the legendary Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard’s claims:
Briefly, L Ron H’s vitalism holds that there is a basic Life Force which directs living things in a purposive fashion towards survival and survival only. He claims that he demonstrated that this Life Force exists in each living cell by a grand experiment he did in 1937. The same experiment, he says, proved Darwin was wrong about inheriting learned responses.
Why have we not tapped this immeasurable well of Wisdom and Knowledge before? This guy should write a book on Mental Health and Spirituality!
Dude, are you saying that I shouldn’t take a sci-fi writer’s opinion on science as valid? Man, you are truly earning your name. I mean, we take scientist’s opinions on public policy and morality :)
Quote: I disagree with Card – we oppose ID because there’s no science to it, and even if there was, it is simply an attempt to worm the Christian God into the classroom.
Well, I guess that proves that your reasons for opposing ID have nothing to do the evidence but only with your anti-religion presupposition that you apply before the evidence. You say evidence can’t be discaused because “science” is physicalist presupposition in your mind.
So you want to force your presuppositions on everyone by force and threats of violence and will use those tools to prevent any review of the evidence….such is the way of the Scientific Establishment and the Technocrats.
I’ll ask you the question that Mr. Card asks and you must answer:
If in the future Terrorists manufacture a bioweapon and release a disease into a population and the Government wants to know where the disease came from who do they ask to find the origin:
A philosopher or a scientist?
If in the future Terrorists manufacture a bioweapon and release a disease into a population and the Government wants to know where the disease came from who do they ask to find the origin: A philosopher or a scientist?
I would actually say philosopher. Whether that philosopher were also a scientist is merely an enabling skill.
Someone without strong ideaology would (probably) never commit such an atrocity. It is only a person with strong (but very, very warped) moral, religous or political convictions would do this, as they would see it as the “right” thing to do.
A scientist could be involved in creating something that could be used as a weapon, though its intent was not so (Think fertilizer being used as a bomb in the OKC bombing). Only a zealot of some sort would use it as such.
Well, it might even be some genetic engineered crop that some communist country released, which then turned out to be an environmental pathogen that they wanted to deny. How would scientists be able to track it back to an intelligent cause?
They would probably try to identify the original, natural strain and look to see where it varies… Then try to determine whether such things could be done using existing technology.
Unfortunately with ID, there is not "baseline" to work from. Hence the disagreement as to origins.