The Intelligence of Intelligent Design

Back in Ben and Robin's intro level CSCL class we looked at the website of the Center for Science and Culture - a known advocate for teaching the theory of intelligent design in schools, and for generally treating it as an accepted theory. I know that intelligent design is a false theory - my courses in science, my scientific knowledge, and, well, common sense have made this all too clear to me - as well as my rejection of certain Abrahamic and "Eastern" religions' influence on my worldview (though I'm sure they constantly pervade it).

Their article "Darwin's Sacred Cause Offers Little New and Nothing of Importance" (sounds too much like our OGaddam debate...). The article, written by a member of the Discovery Institute, featured on the CSC website, presents a dichotomy of Darwinism (and his supporters) and the CSC camp (Intelligent Design, Creationism, etc.). The rhetoric of the CSC comes through their ability to shift the debate to character, credibility, and reputation. The Discovery Institute certainly knows how to cite sources as it frames a really more academic and literary debate involving Darwin - though really the CSC is only arguing against two of Darwin's critics. The reader (and I include myself in this) is unaware of how the lines are drawn and how the teams are set up - Darwin definitely didn't ask for these supporters or critics, yet his arguments seem hinged on the credibility of a few PhD students from X University. By throwing out the name 'Darwin' the Discovery Institute and the CSC are certainly doing more than debating whether or not a few critics were right/wrong in their interpretation of Darwin's views of slavery and equality: they're debating evolution and intelligent design to the relatively uninformed reader.

But why is intelligent design such an attractive body of knowledge to some? Well, it seems the CSC frame it as a scientifically-accurate theory. The website includes some covert prestige, subtle legitimizing factors like the meme/stock photo of the Vitruvian Man - a trope of scientific symbols, as well as a double helix or DNA strand, as if the theory of intelligent design had much to say about DNA at all. They label themselves a 'secular think-tank organization' though they go on to specify "its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic... Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society."

In this way the CSC is acting as a bit of a "hybrid" - is it scientific, like when Crichton uses those fancy graphs and footnotes (and then proceeds to interpret them in his own way) and gets to appeal to a Senate Committee on climate change, or is it a personal (or religious) view, like when Crichton writes a New York Times best selling fiction novel, that intelligent design is based on?

This also brings up the possibility that this is a difference in language and epistemology. Certainly the CSC may value knowledge created by certain people/sources in a certain language both than others - more than 99% of the academic community to be more exact. Their language is academic, yes, but it focuses on knowledge coming from people of a religious background speaking in a dialogue that assumes that those beliefs are correct - which attributes more power to knowledge perpetuated by a god, a god's words, or a god's followers. Its not that the CSC isn't listening to the other side, its that they can't understand what they're (we're) saying.

The funding the CSC requires mainly come from its Board, which include many politicians or politically-active individuals from historically wealthy families (ie. the Roosevelts). The goal of the CSC is to intervene in the teaching of evolution and to promote a creationist way of thinking in the classroom. Its members mainly include people of professional background (academics, or those of higher education) who have highly religious background, but include self-identified agnostics as well.


Eric Best