Truth and Untruth, and Intellectual Dishonesty

I mentioned, in an earlier post, some web sites that appear official yet are full of pseudo science. Exhibit 1: The Idea Center.

Nowhere on this page does it mention the Christian ideology of the Idea Center. Indeed, it calls attention to the "religious implications evolution has [for those who attack Intelligent Design]".

This page links to the Center for Science and Culture, another group with an impressive sounding name but a clear agenda. Check out their page and look for the admission of a Christian mission (hint: you won't find one), then check out what Wikipedia has to say about the Center.

The Idea Center's history page says that it was inspired by a lecture by Philip Johnson. Johnson is a born again Christian, a major figure at the Discovery Center, and was later given a place on the Idea Center's advisory board. Johnson once said: "The real enemy is naturalistic, impersonal Darwinism that deliberately and consciously seeks to set God on the sideline of our culture."

Concerning the strategy behind ID, he offered this: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

Other names on the Idea Center's advisory board are names that keep popping up in the ID debate:

William Dembski, currently a teacher at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

Mark Hartwig and Dennis Wagner, both directors of the Access Research Network, which promotes Christian right positions on euthanasia and stem cell research, creation science, and intelligent design.

Jonathan Wells, a follower of Rev. Moon's Unification Church, who, according to Wikipedia, earned his degree in Biology so he could discredit Darwin.

Real paragons of scientific impartiality here.

But it gets better.

The page in question mentions that the Kansas Board of Education has not mandated the teaching of Intelligent Design in school. This is technically true.

The actual new standards can be found here.

From the above document:

"We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement."

Id is not part of the standards, but the tortured language above is a clear endorsement of ID as a scientific theory. Note this bit: "the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Whew! Chock full of assumptions.

Here are some of the assumptions: ID is a scientific disagreement with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is a claim. There is an apparent design of living systems.

So, although the standards do not mandate teaching ID, they clearly endorse it as an alternative to evolution, while encouraging students to look at alternative theories of evolution.

Other changes include a redefinition of science. The Board of Education changed the definition of science to exclude natural explanations for observable phenomena. Why?

Here is what was changed.


For some discussion of the changes go here or here.


For a little more background on the religious basis of the Intelligent Design movement, research the Dover, Pennsylvania ID case. A good place to start is the Judge's ruling.

Tags:

• intelligentdesign
• propaganda