Alfred Russel Wallace comes in for some long overdue recognition

Some have suggested that intelligent design theorists should consider Darwin's much-neglected co-theorist, Alfred Russel Wallace (January 8, 1823-November 7, 1913), an inspiration. Some seem to be taking up the challenge.

Wallace came up with the same "survival of the fittest" idea as Darwin. But - because he found order, meaning, and purpose in the universe - Wallace was not a racist and did not claim that Darwinism was the best idea has ever had, as best-selling authors do today (because it explains the history of life, supposedly).

A key change in the intelligent design controversy in recent years is this: Just what Darwinism really does is slowly but surely becoming a subject of rational enquiry, rather than tax-funded, court-ordered worship.

A friend wrote recently to say,

On Nov. 7, 1913, Alfred Russel Wallace died. Once again, we didn't pay tribute to him in our blogs. I usually wait one day, read the newspapers and magazines, and then post something to remember this date and call attention to the fact that Wallace should also be remembered.

Ah, yes, do pay tribute - as long as it is not the ridiculous and appalling hagiography that surrounds Darwin, such that Darwin, his theory, and his tax-supported followers are immune from rational examination.

For the record, Wallace is not a liberator equivalent to Abraham Lincoln, or should it anything like this be said of him:

Darwin revolutionised the biology of his day; he fashioned a new concept of humankind; he challenged basic philosophical and religious ideas about the nature and meaning of life; so profound was his insight that his thought remains relevant to contemporary biology. These surpassing achievements brought a “revolution” equal in importance to the Copernican revolution. Smitten with reverence, my eye falls on the dust jacket to contemplate the photo of the dignified aged Darwin: yes, he looks like a prophet!

Satirical but just. A Wallace admirer would evade this nonsense, not because Wallace wasn't a great biologist, but precisely because he was. He deserves a better remembrance than to focus neuroses, as Darwin does, for people who would really be happier swinging from the trees.

My friend advises that a small, old biographical booklet on Wallace can be downloaded free here. He reminds me that this month is the centennial of Wallace's book The World of Life, wherein he lays out his own approach to evolution. Wallace scholar Michael Flannery provides an introduction. Flannery is also shortly to publish a new biography of Wallace with Discovery Institute Press, accompanied by a Web site explaining his intelligent evolution approach.

The guardians of the miniscule Wallace cult don't like it, and promptly get everything wrong - but what would one expect? Science history is too important to be left to cultists, just as ethics is too important to be left to ethicists.

News from the evil Discos: Temporary setback for tax mooches

Discovery Institute mentioned a while back (and, for various reasons, I did not get around to noting it), that

Documents to be released relate to the Science Center’s cancellation of a screening of the science documentary Darwin’s Dilemma in its IMAX theater by the non-partisan American Freedom Alliance (AFA) last October. The AFA has filed its own free speech and breach of contract suit against the Science Center, which is still pending. Darwin’s Dilemma investigates the intelligent design of organisms during the “Cambrian Explosion” more than 500 million years ago.

The Science Center claimed that it had turned over all the documents requested by Discovery Institute, but when Institute staff learned that this was not true the Institute filed suit to compel full disclosure. In response, the CSC made the incredible claim that its key decision-makers, clearly identified as CSC staff on the museum’s website, were really employed not by the museum but by a private foundation and so were immune from the public records request.

This is precisely what I mean by tax mooch-ism, where public employees or beneficiaries of the tax regime feel free from the normal standards of thought, speech, and action that govern the rest of us.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Discovery Institute suing California Science Center over alleged undisclosed documents

Podcast here, media release below:

Discovery Institute Sues California Science Center for Suppressing Public Documents Showing Viewpoint Discrimination Against Intelligent Design

Go here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features a special news alert by Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute has filed a lawsuit against the California Science Center for unlawfully refusing to disclose public documents requested by Discovery Institute under the California Public Records Act.

Now the media release.

For more information and continuing updates as the story develops, tune into Evolution News & Views.

Her’s an excerpt:

Discovery Institute Sues California Science Center for Suppressing Public Documents Showing Viewpoint Discrimination Against Intelligent Design
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 2 -- Discovery Institute has filed a lawsuit against the California Science Center (the "Center") for unlawfully refusing to disclose public documents requested by Discovery Institute under the California Public Records Act.

Discovery Institute filed the public documents request on October 9, 2009, following the Center's October 6, 2009 cancellation of a contract with the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to screen a pro-intelligent design video, Darwin's Dilemma, at the California Science Center's IMAX Theatre on October 25, 2009.

On November 2, 2009, the Center released 44 pages of documents claiming to have disclosed "all documents" and that "no documents have been withheld," apart from a few e-mail addresses that were redacted.

"California Science Center's claims are not true, and we know for a fact that e-mail communications exist, including communications with the Smithsonian Institution, that should have been disclosed in response to our public documents request but weren't, showing clear violation of California's Public Records Act," said Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute.

Whatta shock! I don’t know that this competes with Climategate, but if the allegations are proved, it signals a similar mentality - the absence of any sense that receiving public funds entails transparency. And that is a very bad policy.

Privately owned corporations need not usually make their business public because they receive their funds from their investors and customers. True, they must provide annual reports, but lots goes on in strategy rooms that they can keep secret. For example, if a hockey franchise is planning to trade a few players and replace the losing streak coach, they needn’t disclose anything until they feel like it, as long as they are not accused of a crime or contract violation, or cited for some other violation. And if the fans don’t like the team, they don’t buy so many season’s tickets. Then investors want out. So the system practically runs itself most of the time.

It’s different with public funds because the taxpayers who fund the enterprise - an arts or science centre, for example - are required by law to do so, even though they may never get to visit, or be uninterested in or even hostile to the project for a variety of reasons. That’s what makes transparency so important for public projects. Something I hope the California Science Center people learn.

Darwinism and pop culture: Pop fiction discovers the Discovery Institute

That shows, like nothing else, how the design debate is taking off. The previously faceless functionaries at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute get to be villains for the public at large, not just for threatened Darwinists, in a new anti-DI novel, The Book of God and Physics :

The Jesuits aren't the villains in this clash between God and physics. Joven's target is the real-life Discovery Institute, an American think-tank that promotes the theory of intelligent design. (Ross King, "Intelligent, By Design," June 9, 2009)

I wonder when the film is coming out. Pass the cheese popcorn.

PS: I have met the Discos. They are actually nice people just doin' a job, taking out the Darwin trash that the Darwinists can't take out themselves - on account of their theory having degenerated into a popular cult.

Theistic evolution: New site challenges tenured Christian profs' homage to atheism

Alarmed, perhaps, by the fact that establishment organizations in the United States are putting big bucks into "theistic evolution" (= God dunit, but it looks just the way it would if God didn't exists, so you must believe on the basis of unsubstantiated faith, not evidence), the evil Discos (the Discovery Institute) have started a Web site to try to explain what is at stake here.

New Website Explores the Intersection of Evolution and Religion

At the launch of FaithandEvolution.org, CSC associate director John
West explains that since its inception in 1996, the Center for Science and
Culture has devoted most of its resources to supporting research, publication,
and education about the scientific aspects of the debate over Darwinian
evolution and intelligent design.

“Nothing is going to change that,” he says, adding that much of FaithandEvolution.Org is focused on presenting scientific information in a clear and understandable manner.

“But we’ve always been clear that science has larger worldview implications, and so we want to encourage open and informed discussion of the implications of Darwin’s theory as well. This has become especially important in recent years as both the ‘new atheists’ and the ‘new theistic evolutionists’ have tried to monopolize the faith and evolution conversation. FaithandEvolution.Org is an effort to inject some balance back into the discussion.”

Read more about the new website faithandevolution.org here.

I wish them well. If I never hea from another tenured "Christian" prof explaining to me that the universe shows no evidence of design and that God means us to get on by "faith" (= delusions, like his) alone, I will ruddy be very glad.

I don't claim to get special messages from God but I am pretty sure he never meant anything like that.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Conservative blog charges: The ID think tank is in league with Islamic radicals

Here's a weird turn of events: Conservative blog Little Green Footballs thinks the ID think tank Discovery Institute is in league with Islamic radicals.

And here all those other conspira-zozos insist the evil Discos are fundie Christians who think all Muslims are going to hell! Who knew how fast things could change?

Head evil Disco Bruce Chapman (a Reagan admin official in a former life) responds,

The blog site Little Green Footballs has slandered Discovery Institute, whether
intentionally or not, by implying that we are in league with Islamic radicals in Turkey. They base this fantasy, apparently, on a CBC radio report of a year ago that was so poorly researched that it called Discovery Senior Fellow David Berlinski "Paul
Berlinski" and referred to us as the "Christian Discovery organization." Then they interview a host of people of varying views in Turkey who are critical of Darwinism and imply that they are all connected. They seemingly imply Discovery's involvement in this situation based on the fact that Berlinski was invited to speak at a conference held by the municipal government of Istanbul last year. Big deal. (Berlinski, by the way, is a secular Jew, so work with that fact for a while, boys.)

If people at LGF think they can make the case that Discovery Institute is somehow soft on Islamic radicalism and terrorists, perhaps they should pick up a copy of our Senior Fellow John Wohlstetter's new book, The Long War Ahead: And the Short War Upon Us. It is published by Discovery Institute Press and I challenge the LGF folks to read it—or any of my own writings on the Iraq War and the war on terrorism generally—and continue contending that this institute would ever have any truck with people—Muslim or otherwise—who doubt the danger of Islamic fascism.

I think Chapman is wasting his time. Many North Americans are not prepared to be rational either about most Muslims or about the evidence for design in nature. So this is their chance for two freakouts for the price of one.

I am surprised that Little Green Footballs would so easily credit anything that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) broadcasts on the intelligent design controversy. The last thing the CBC people would do would be to pick up the phone to anyone in Canada who knows the Discos and ask how likely this is.

Speaking for myself, I have met a good number of the Discos, and have a pretty shrewd idea what they are like (earnest eggheads and lab rats, mostly). I certainly wouldn't protect them if I had any reason to believe that they were burka boys. It all sounds to me like a disinformation campaign.

Darwinism and academic culture: Nature moves into an alternative reality

A friend writes to say that a recent book review in Nature on the now-famous Dover case (a "teaching evolution" controversy) claims that the Discovery Institute lobbied the Dover school board to adopt the policy (when in fact Disco strongly opposed it).

Now, I know for a fact that Disco was in institutional catfits about the unbelievably stupid Dover policy ever since they first heard about it. There wasn't anything they could do to prevent the subsequent meltdown, though they did try. (Their own recommendations to school boards are much more carefully crafted.than Dover was.)

My friend wonders how the Nature aficionados can live in such a counterfactual world. Well, first, we can safely say that, insofar as the Naturalizers invited an American Darwin lobbyist like Kevin Padian to explain it all for us, that was because the aficionados want to hear their worldview (same as his) confirmed, and they did. So what if it is an alternative reality?

Those interested in Disco's actual position will find it in this Montana law review article, or they can listen to this podcast.

Padian also says,

Conspicuously absent from the trial was William Dembski, the other pillar of intelligent-design 'research', who holds advanced degrees in maths and theology but none in science, and believes that intelligent design is the Logos of the Gospel of John restated in the language of information theory. His notion of 'specified complexity', a probabilistic filter that allegedly allows one to tell whether an event is so impossible that it requires supernatural explanation, has never demonstrably received peer review, although its description in his popular books (such as No Free Lunch, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) has come in for withering criticism from actual mathematicians. Plaintiffs' attorneys were eager to take him apart, but Dembski exited the proceedings in a suspicious eleventh-hour dispute about having his own lawyer represent him in deposition.

Dembski defends his impressive qualifications here.

Now, I didn't follow the Dover case much. I was busy writing The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (as co-author), so I couldn't have followed it even if I was interested. But as it happens, I wasn't interested. American school board fights bore me and historically, they change nothing.

Again, for those interested in what actually happened, there was nothing especially suspicious about Dembski withdrawing. Not only was he justifiably skeptical of the management of the case, but the manuscript for his own textbook, Design of Life was seized during the proceedings. It just wasn't a team he could be on.

I should add, in the interests of full disclosure, that I blog with Dembski (though I didn't back then). I helped Dembski collect a debt re Dover by making a noise about it. I also did some editorial work on Design of Life. But that was one of several jobs I had to quit, due to the demands of The Spiritual Brain. However, I have promised Dembski I'll write the index for Design, and will shortly do so. There, conspiracy freaks - that's plenty enough for you! Go to town on it!

In the end, neither Nature nor the U.S> Supreme Court can make Darwinism do what its proponents claim, though they can prevent productive discussions of the problem for as considerable time. Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution explains why. See my summary of his key arguments here. I have also been regularly updating my post on Stuart Pivar's struggles to get his non-Darwinian evolution theory heard.

Note: Prof. Peter Irons asks me to note that he published an article contra Disco in the same edition of the Montana Law Review. Noted!

Darwinism and popular culture: Sister Eugenie explains it all for you

Just when you thought that the intelligent design controversy was about whether Darwinism can do all that the Darwinists claim, friend David Rice draws my attention to this June 30 Ring of Fire radio show featuring Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., among others:

Eugenie Scott, Executive Director Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, with the inside story about the Discovery Institute, the well-financed "think tank" promoting intelligent design and other far-right causes.

He listened to it, and notes,

Politics, folks, it's all about politics. Eugenie, true to form, goes political in this interview to discuss the "stealth" tactics of the Discovery Institute to establish a right-wing political agenda and basically a theocracy. She doesn't discuss the evidential claims of ID at all; this was ALL about motives. The double standard lives on. She's done it again and I hope she keeps it up.......the NCSE is loosing big time.

She says that ID backers are "right wing libertarians" and that the Wedge document is a "road map to theocracy".

To conserve your time, David advises, "Hit the "Hour 2" link on the right. Jason Alexander talks politics for a little and then Eugenie Scott appears at the 18 minute, 24 second mark."

To conserve your sanity, I suggest asking yourself how people could possibly be theocrats and libertarians at the same time.

Like, I'm this bigtime theocrat so I am going to MAKE you go to church. On the other hand, I am also a libertarian, so it's no problem if your church is the Whoop-de-DOO!! Lounge and Strip Bar. Or, by registering on the Internet, you can get your waterbed declared a church. It's all good for business, right?

I think we better get back to what's wrong with Darwinism myself.

Intelligent design and popular culture: Evil geniuses of the Discovery Institute find acceptance among orthodox Jews

Yes, of course I was just kidding about the evil geniuses. Regular readers will know that I am no fan of conspiracy theories - in fact, I use them as a sort of instant IQ test.

That is, a person who wants to convince me that he is both stupid and unteachable, and possibly insane, can best accomplish that goal by letting me know that evil conspirators run the world and their plotters are all around us.

In reality, almost all agendas are right out there in the open, but few notice. As Sherlock Holmes warned, we see but we do not observe.

Anyway, elsewhere I have commented on the way in which Disco's evil geniuses "time and again - apparently effortlessly - made both negative legacy media coverage and the normal behaviour of frantic Darwinists work in their interests."

So when Discovery's uber-wizard Bruce Chapman sent round a note the other day to say that he and ID-friendly tech pioneer George Gilder had been well received in Israel, I was hardly surprised to hear it. Indeed, I had heard things like that before.

The part I found interesting is,

Three of George's speeches dealt directly with the negative influence of Darwinism on contemporary society and then posed the positive scientific evidence for intelligent design. It was exciting to realize how well that message resonated with orthodox Jews in Israel, including scientists.

The fact that Chapman would even write this shows that materialism has dominated cultures worldwide to such an extent in recent years that people hardly know their own names any more.

I mean, like, you're an orthodox Jew and you don't think the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Say what? Isn't the whole of orthodox Judaism a design for life that responds (and, ideally, corresponds) to the design of the universe? Otherwise, why bother? It strikes me as a lot of trouble for nothing if there is No One at the other end who cares if you are doing it.

Citing this Jerusalem Post piece that actually tries to interpret what guru Gilder is saying (instead of just telling us what is supposed to be wrong with it), Chapman notes that further pilgrimages to Israel are planned.

I can't wait till orthodox Jewish interest in ID is exposed as an evil Zionist conspiracy. Readers, do write and let me know - but please note that I won't intentionally post links to anti-Semitic sites.

Update!: Aussie prof who protests Darwin Exhibition misrepresentations is NCSE associate

I have recently enjoyed a most interesting correspondence with Hiram Caton, retired poli sci prof and former colleague of the late David Stove who is attempting to set right the many misrepresentations in the current Darwin Exhibition, which has travelled from the American Museum of Natural History to various points (some near you probably). The main problems can be traced to ridiculous hagiography, of course. I have often pointed out (and am certainly not the first to do so), that Darwinism functions as a sort of religion for its fervid supporters, often in desperate conflict with transcendent faiths.

It now emerges that Prof. Caton, who is not affiliated with any religion, is an associate of the National Center for Science Education, the American Darwin education lobby, a relentless promoter and enforcer of Darwin in the tax-supported school systems. Specifically, he tells me that he is

an evolutionist who opposes the introduction of creationist concepts into secondary school biology. In fact, I'm an associate of the lead organization in the struggle against the creationists, the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE is aware of my article.

He is also listed as a supporter of the Darwin Day celebrations.

I should think Caton is trying all these people’s patience rather sorely, and all the more so because he is planning a full scale essay on the discrepancy between the theory and evidence for Darwinism, for which details will likely be available here.

Now, speaking of discrepancies, I don't see any discrepancy in principle between wanting to prevent creationist concepts from being taught in secondary schools and wanting to knock the stuffings out of the Darwin myth.

Indeed, contrary to widespread legacy media mythmaking, even the Discovery Institute, the ID think tank, does not not want intelligent design (ID) concepts taught in schools.

(And I suppose only religious school systems could consider teaching actual "creationist" concepts, as such, since these concepts are clearly linked to theism, the Bible, etc.)

Similarly, I rarely encounter people who do not want evolution taught in schools. They want its baggage train to be unloaded somewhere else. Unfortunately, it often isn't.

Some interesting comments from our correspondence that Dr. Caton has given me permission to post:

Here is the skinny on Caton's key observations:

^The Origin is based on principles, which I specify, that had been in place for about 50 years. ^The evolution concept had *saturated* public opinion in the UK by 1860. The notion that public prejudice against evolution obstructed its publication is nonsense. The idea of a 'missing link' between apes and humans was also widespread. ^The natural selection principle was first published *before* Darwin departed on his voyage and was independently discovered again in 1836 by Darwin's old pal, Edward Blythe. ^The eugenics idea wasn't discovered by Galton; it was clearly stated by the French translator of the Origin in 1863, who attributed it to Darwin; he didn't disavow the attribution. Three of Darwin's sons were members of the Eugenics Society and one, Leonard, was a major force in the society. A key figure in the creation of Neo-Darwinism, R A Fisher, was a dedicated eugenicist. Fisher's patron was Leonard Darwin. ^Darwin's writings had virtually no effect on experimental biology of his day, eg, Pasteur, Robert Koch. ^Two of Darwin's most vocal advocates, Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, denied that natural selection was the generative principle of evolution; for Haeckel it was Lamarckism.

While we are here, in 1969, I studied Victorian literature at a small university in Ontario. While Darwin's Origin was certainly identified as a milestone, it was only one of many milestones. I was clearly given to understand that the mindset it typefied was already a commonplace. That was not emphasized as a talking point. It emerged clearly from our studies. One result is that Darwin hagiography obscures the true history of the modern era.

What has been the reaction to his observations?

A number of leading evolutionists and historians have commented on my essay. None question my facts (well, one questioned one important claim). But some expressed unease about my criticism of the Great Man. My response is that I criticize only the interpretation of his reputation, and its creation in the first place. I state in the article what I think his real achievement was, and I hail it as a great scientific achievement. In correspondence with creationists, I plead that they exaggerate the influence of Darwin/evolution on the secularization process. By far the greatest influences are liberal and socialist blank slate theory. That influence is so great, indeed, that many evolutionists abandon Darwin when it comes to the crunch: the inheritance of behaviors, such as sex, race, and age differences: they endorse the blank slate belief. To put it another way, the Darwinian Revolution didn't happen in the social sciences. The controversy over sociobiology and over the Bell Curve are hot spots on that map.

Hmmm, yes indeed. Although Darwinism and liberal "blank slate" theory (= if outcomes are not equal, society is unjust) are not often in direct, perceived conflict, in any actual conflict, blank slate will win.

One thinks of former Harvard president Larry Summers, completely orthodox in his rejection of intelligent design, but utterly destroyed by "blank slate" political correctness about women in science.

I noted, in response to Caton that I do not think that high school science classes should be discussing the ID-Darwinism uproar:

It is difficult enough to teach basic concepts. Unfortunately, however, some want to import to Canada an American-style controversy by pushing evolution as early as possible, as an antidote to creationism/ID. As I have said, that would greatly help both the creationists and the ID guys - but at the expense of the public and the student. (You see, these kinds of issues can’t get as hot in Canada all by themselves, because our system is not nearly as polarizing as the American one. There is no functional equivalent here of the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, or the Christian Right. Publicly funded voluntary religious schools are legal here, with little controversy. People rarely sue school boards and school boards do not pull “Dovers”. So Canada is not a natural setting for such a controversy. But if it does become a setting, well, business will boom for me. But I don't want it to happen anyway.

That said, I think teachers should not be forbidden to respond to student questions, let alone given documents to read aloud, or propaganda to cite. Teachers are either professionals or they aren't. If they cannot be assumed to generally have good judgment about teaching, it's all over anyway.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design. My reviews of movies relevant to the intelligent deisgn controversy.

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Thinkquote of the day: The infamous "Wedge" document

One thing that absolutely fascinates me is conspirazoids - people who think that social, demographic, philosophical, political, economic, or you- name-whatever-kind-of-change must originate in a conspiracy. Now, I have never been a fan of conspiracy theories, for the simple reason that in my experience as a journalist, most people cannot keep secrets if their social importance would increase as a result of spilling the beans. Also, I do not have a conspiracy theory about conspirazoids. I just think that some people deal with anxieties over unwelcome change by assuming that a "vast rightwing conspiracy" or a "vast left-wing conspiracy" is behind it. And heaven knows, some people have a lot to be anxious about.

Anyway, many Darwinists have been flogging the "Wedge document" for years, allegedly setting out the intelligent design guys' plan to take over the world. John G. West of the evil Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (the ID think tank) tells me,

The so-called "Wedge" document was simply an old fundraising proposal. As such, it wasn't a public document, and those who took it didnt have the right to release it. But the Darwinist's preoccupation with the document shows how little of substance they really have to focus on. Contrary to Darwinist claims, there was nothing "secret" about the proposal's explanation of the harmful consequences of the pseudo-science of scientific materialism. That same language had been used in all sorts of public documents. The effort by Darwinists like Barbara Forrest to portray this fundraising proposal as some sort of "secret strategy" is silly to the point of absurdity. Especially ridiculous was Forrest's painstaking effort in her book Creationism's Trojan Horse to try to determine whether this document really came from Discovery Institute. All she had to do was ask us and we would have verified it (we did to any reporter who asked). But she never did. She was too intent on her conspiracy-mongering.

Well, maybe she finds that sort of thing fun. My own take on the origin of the ID controversy is this: The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe. Reputable scientists can be found on both sides. Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises. The controversy continues to grow because, while materialism is prevalent in academia and the media, it is widely discredited in the population at large, including the professional classes. No wonder the Darwinists prefer conspiramongering.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.