The Wedge Strategy: why “intelligent design” is a religiously political, not scientific, movement

For those of you who don’t know, in 1998 the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (now called the “Center for Science and Culture“), a division of the Discovery Institute, the bastion of the creationist/intelligent design (c/ID) movement, published an internal manifesto to promote religion over science, which they called The Wedge Strategy.

This document detailed the Discovery Institute’s plan to insinuate creationism, now calling itself “intelligent design”, as the dominant idea in the public psyche through the debasement of empirical science and postmodification of the social sciences and humanities.

Initially, the strategy begins with an introduction that reads like standard christian propaganda. The very first paragraph reads:

THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was 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 you can see, these assertions are made unapologetically, without any evidence to back them up, and taken as a given. At best, these statements are intellectually dishonest; at worst they’re a prime example of historical revisionism.

We can appreciate it, though, when we consider the audience expected to be the only ones who were to read it: right-wing fundamentalist evangelical christians, i.e. the internal audience of the Discovery Institute. Fortunately, they weren’t the only ones to have access to this document which was leaked onto the Internet in early 1999.

The rest of the introduction is just the usual poor scholarship and christian self-agrandising egotism that we’ve come to expect from creationists, designed to influence those who are already of a mind to support christian theological ideas and those who don’t usually think critically about baseless claims. It equivocates philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, philosophical materialism and social materialism, and misrepresents both the natural and social sciences.

One of the most telling portrayals of the c/ID movement also features in the introduction, which states that Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

While this sounds like it could be relatively innocuous propaganda, one must consider what they consider to be ‘materialism’, and on this point they are equivocal as mentioned above. Arguably, one could be mistaken in taking this as an assumption, so we will leave this point here for the moment. I would, however, like to make one additional point: in the original document (PDF), this phrase was afforded such import that it was placed in a cutline in the centre of the first content page!

The main body of the document contains the main goals of the ID movement (which I’ll come on to in a moment) and the three-step plan for how the strategy was (is?) to be implemented, which consists of three phases:

• “Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity” indicates the programmes in “scientific research, writing and publicity” that the Discovery Institute would sponsor, including individual scholarships and research programmes into paleontology and molecular biology with scientists sympathetic to the c/ID movement.
• “Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making” lists the marketing opportunities that they would use to promote their ideas, include teacher training, television productions, apologetics seminars, opinion-maker seminars and publicizing books (presumably written by ID advocates with the support of the Discovery Institute).
• “Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal” notes the facets of academia that they seek to insinuate, with academic and scientific challenge conferences and a research fellowship programme with a goal to shift [from natural sciences] to social sciences and humanities. It also shows that they expect to be challenged in the courts, as they also mention potential legal action for teacher training!

The focus on the shift…to social sciences and humanities mentioned in Phase III, the so-called “soft” sciences, shows that they presume that the natural sciences had already been (or were in such a state of confusion to be considered as to be imminently) overcome. The social sciences are the major platform from where they could promote their doctrines of christianity, increase their stranglehold over subjects such as philosophy and ethics and further the application of revisionist ideas to history, literature, and so on.

The goals of the Strategy themselves are the most damning of all. Detailed within the goals, already mentioned as having five- and twenty-year timeframes, we find the meat of the desires of the c/ID movement.

In the “governing goals” we find the statement that explicitly notes that intelligent design is creationism in disguise:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

My emphasis. Here we can plainly see that intelligent design is equivalent to creationism. In fact, the Strategy also notes that their theistic understanding is incompatible with current scientific understanding, which they seek to replace, not augment or improve. ID is therefore not a scientific hypothesis, it’s an alternative to it.

Within the five-years goals, we see another telling admission:

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

This disclosure tells us two things: that they have already decided that “design theory” is a legitimate alternative explanation for any number of conclusions of the natural sciences, without any scientific validation of these hypotheses; and that their goal is to introduce itself into the social sciences and humanities, where it can have greater influence in a social context.

In the twenty-year goals, we find the (in my opinion) the most incriminating acknowledgment that intelligent design is not a scientific outlook:

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

Emphasis as original. Again, this tells us a couple of things about the agenda of the c/ID proponents: they are not interested in methodological scientific enquiry into ID: they have already decided it is a valid theory (or, more accurately, the only valid theory; that they do not care about the conclusion of bona fide scientific enquiry; and that they admit that they seek to infiltrate all aspects of science with a presupposed hypothesis without confirmation.

All of the above conclusions are supported by details in the aims of the Five Year Strategic Plan Summary, which include the following:

[t]he social consequences of materialism have been devastating … [t]hat source is scientific materialism

[i]f we view … science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that … can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points

[d]esign theory promises to … replace it [science] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions

[w]ithout solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate

we are supporting vital writing and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice

we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, … think tank leaders … congressional staff, college and seminary presidents … and academic allies

we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians

[w]e intend … to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture

[o]nce our writing and research have had time to mature … we will move forward with direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science

[w]e will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to … design theory into public school curricula

[t]he attention … should draw scientific materialists into open debate … and we will be ready

[w]ith an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism

Emphasis as original.

In conclusion, it’s clear to see that:

• ID is rebranded creationism, which they deny
• the identity of the designer is consistent with the idea of the christian god, which they deny
• ID is promoting a viewpoint not only consistent with, but based on, the christian religion
• ID is intended to replace science, not explain it, contrary to their claim that they seek to explain the natural world
• the ultimate goal of ID is to act as a “wedge”, through the natural sciences, into the social sciences and humanities, which are more conducive to the promotion of theological ideas and more accessible to the public
• they aim to popularise ID within the public sphere to make it difficult for scientists to defend against
• they consider philosophical materialism and social materialism as equivalent
• they consider paleontology and biology as the two places where a “wedge” can be placed for maximum effect, consistent with their historical attacks on Darwinian evolution and the fossil record
• they aim to influence political, academic and famous individuals to their cause
• their plan includes an attitude of ‘biding their time’ until society is accepting of ID
• they intend to litigate to ensure adoption of ID in schools
• they want to create an environment where christian attitudes are prevalent in society

The creationist/intelligent design proponents are lying. It’s not science, kids, it’s religion. Don’t do it.

No other posts are likely to be like this.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Comments