m "It's" to "its". Minor. |
Odd nature (talk | contribs) Linking Darwinism |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Intelligent Design}} |
{{Intelligent Design}} |
||
'''Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns''' are a series of related [[public relations]] campaigns conducted by the [[Discovery Institute]] which seek to promote [[intelligent design]] while discrediting [[evolution]], which the Institute terms "Darwinism." The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the [[intelligent design movement]] and the Institute directs these campaigns through its [[Center for Science and Culture]] division with guidance its public relations firm, [[Creative Response Concepts]].<ref>[http://www.crc4pr.com/firm/clients.asp Creative Response Concepts, clients]</ref> |
'''Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns''' are a series of related [[public relations]] campaigns conducted by the [[Discovery Institute]] which seek to promote [[intelligent design]] while discrediting [[evolution]], which the Institute terms "[[Darwinism]]." The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the [[intelligent design movement]] and the Institute directs these campaigns through its [[Center for Science and Culture]] division with guidance its public relations firm, [[Creative Response Concepts]].<ref>[http://www.crc4pr.com/firm/clients.asp Creative Response Concepts, clients]</ref> |
||
The response of the [[scientific community]] has been to reiterate that the theory of [[evolution]] is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of [[scientific consensus]]<ref>"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" [http://www.nih.gov/nihrecord/07_28_2006/story03.htm Finding the Evolution in Medicine] [[National Institutes of Health]]</ref> whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. |
The response of the [[scientific community]] has been to reiterate that the theory of [[evolution]] is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of [[scientific consensus]]<ref>"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" [http://www.nih.gov/nihrecord/07_28_2006/story03.htm Finding the Evolution in Medicine] [[National Institutes of Health]]</ref> whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. |
Revision as of 15:23, 13 June 2007
Part of a series on |
Intelligent design |
---|
Concepts |
Movement |
Campaigns |
Authors |
Organisations |
Reactions |
|
Creationism |
Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns are a series of related public relations campaigns conducted by the Discovery Institute which seek to promote intelligent design while discrediting evolution, which the Institute terms "Darwinism." The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement and the Institute directs these campaigns through its Center for Science and Culture division with guidance its public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts.[1]
The response of the scientific community has been to reiterate that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus[2] whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
The campaigns
The over-arching goal of the Institute in conducting the intelligent design campaigns is religious; to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[3] To accomplish this the Institute has conducted a number of public relations campaigns. The governing strategy of these various campaigns is called the Wedge strategy and was first made public when the Institute's "Wedge Document" was leaked on the World Wide Web in 1999. The Discovery Institute argues that science, due to its reliance on naturalism, is an inherently materialistic and atheistic enterprise and thus the source of many of society's ills, and that "Design theory [intelligent design] promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview."[3]
The most notable campaigns conducted by Institute are Teach the Controversy, Critical Analysis of Evolution, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Free Speech on Evolution, and Stand Up For Science.[4] None of these campaigns are aimed at directly influencing the scientific community, which the Institute considers dogmatic and hidebound, but rather are focused on swaying the opinions of the public and public policy makers, which, if effective, it is hoped will respond by forcing the academic institutions supporting the scientific community to accept the Discovery Institute's redefinition of science. Public high school science curricula has been the most common and visible target of the campaigns, with the Institute publishing its own model lesson plan, the Critical Analysis of Evolution.
In order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that derailed previous attempts to introduce creationism into public high school science curricula, the Institute avoids directly advocating for intelligent design in high school curricula. Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" or "Teach the Controversy":
"As a general approach, Discovery Institute favors teaching students more about evolution, not less. We think students deserve to know not only about the strengths of modern evolutionary theory, but also about some of the theory's weaknesses and unresolved issues. In other words, students should be taught that evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, continues to be open to analysis and critical scrutiny. According to opinion polls, this approach is favored by the overwhelming majority of the American public, and it has also been endorsed by the U.S. Congress in report language attached to the No Child Left Behind Act Conference Report."[5]
One claim of the Institute common to many of these campaigns is that "scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution" and have been discriminated against,[6] has resulted in a number of sub-campaigns arising out of the allegations being conducted by the Institute. Notable among these sub-campaigns is the Institute's role in the Sternberg peer review controversy and in the more recent case of Guillermo Gonzalez's denial of tenure. The Institute promote an image of intelligent design proponents who suffer professional setbacks or fail to advance as victims while pointing to critics of intelligent design and the Institute such as PZ Myers as the abusers.[7][6] The list of methods the Institute employs in response include what they term "Public Education"; described as exposing 'bigotry and intolerance' to 'public disapproval' often through the Institute's blog Evolutionnews.org, "Personal Assistance"; described as "providing assistance in locating free legal representation from a network of concerned lawyers across the nation" and "investigations" and lobbying of officials by the Institute, "Legal Defense" and "Grassroots Action".[8]
Critics say Institute is conducting a deliberate disinformation campaign. One common criticism is that the rhetoric employed by the Institute in its campaigns is intentionally vague and misleading[9][10] and that the campaigns mask a near total absence of scientific support and productive research programs. The Templeton Foundation, who once provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Foundation senior vice president Charles L. Harper Jr. said "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."[11][12]
In a Seattle Weekly article, The New Creationists, Nina Shapiro quoted Bruce Chapman when she wrote that behind all Discovery Institute programs there is an underlying hidden religious agenda:
"Yet the Discovery Institute as an organization didn't get involved in the issue in order to solve the mysteries of the universe. Chapman is up front about having a social and political agenda. He sees design intelligence as a way to combat the growing reliance on genetic explanations for human behavior and what he sees as an undermining of personal responsibility. As an example of this phenomenon, Chapman cites the infamous 'Twinkie defense' used by a murder defendant claiming his sugar high made him do it. Others associated with the institute take a bigger leap of logic to argue that welfare, as currently dispensed, is a misguided consequence of the Darwinian outlook. 'If you see human beings as nothing but matter and motion, than all you do is treat them like mouths to feed,' says Jay Richards, program director for the institutes Center for Science and Culture. 'If they're more than that, you treat the whole person,' he argues, which would mean looking at such things as family structure and the role of moral and religious values in their lives. Do you really have to attack a whole branch of science in order to counter liberal views on welfare? The Discovery Institute folk think they do. 'Unless you get the science right,' Chapman says, 'it's very hard to contend with the other arguments.'"[13] --Nina Shapiro, The New Creationists
See also
- Framing (social sciences)
- Spin (public relations)
- Kansas evolution hearings
- Intelligent design in politics
References
- ^ Creative Response Concepts, clients
- ^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
- ^ a b Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
- ^ Stand Up for Science website
- ^ Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute, September 21, 2005.
- ^ a b Free Speech on Evolution Campaign Main Page Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.
- ^ While we're at it, let's also fire the math teachers who can't do algebra PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog), August 1, 2005.
- ^ Free Speech on Evolution Campaign Page 2 Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.
- ^ "ID supporters present fallacious arguments, use dishonest rhetoric, and often present non-contemptuous responses as evidence that their theories are gaining acceptance." Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent Design Movement Jason Rosenhouse. BioScience, Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2003.
- ^ Political Animal, Intelligent Design Kevin Drum. Washington Monthly, March 24 2004.
- ^ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
- ^ Anti-Evolutionism John Templeton Foundation.
- ^ The New Creationists Nina Shapiro. Seattle Weekly, April 18 2001
External links
- Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture
- Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute
- Stand Up For Science A Discovery Institute campaign to influence the Kansas evolution hearings
- Law Review Articles about "Teaching Darwin, Design and the Origins Controversy" by Discover Institute Fellow Francis Beckwith