The Wedge Strategy

[ZombieHorde]

The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

The wedge metaphor, attributed to Phillip E. Johnson, is that of a metal wedge splitting a log and represents using an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.

snip

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

* "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
* "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

There are three "wedge projects," referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:

* Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
* Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
* Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy">Much, much more at this Wikipedia link

The bold is mine.

[stopbush]

1. Fortunately, this creationist idiocy has lost every court battle to date,

teachers and scientists are becoming more vocal and fighting back, and with more Americans identifying as being non-religious, this type of stupidity is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

Still, we can't be complacent, because the religious are persistent. In fact, the stupider the idea, the more persistent they tend to be. The rational need to be ever watchful and ready to take on these religious strategies and defeat them on the merits.

[Why Syzygy]

2. I really wish

they would quit trying to replace science with religion. It is so unnecessary.

[skepticscott]

10. The problem is

that for many of these people, it IS necessary. Quite a lot of religious believers are able to reconcile the reality of science with their faith. I think they have to do a little turning off of their brains to accomplish that feat, but hey, everyone does that in some way or another. A significant number of other believers are deeply invested in a literalist view of their god and their sacred texts, however. For those people, if they acknowledge that any aspect of their religion is subject to interpretation or error, then any of it can be. Their entire faith is cast adrift, their entire worldview shattered, and they have nothing to support them, so they hang on to the whole thing for dear life, reason and evidence be damned.

[frebrd]

3. Why are Fundies so afraid of reality?

Is it some kind of genetic predisposition in some people?

:shrug:

Incredible!

[trotsky]

4. "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"

Huh. Whaddya know, they've got a few allies right here on DU.

[struggle4progress]

5. It's clear the Discovery folk have no real idea what science is: and for that reason,

they will continue to lose in court and in the public arena against anyone who can explain science clearly

The real complaint of the Discovery folk and their intellectual fellow-travelers is this: science does not countenance non-materialistic explanations, and it is therefore hostile to religion and spiritual issues

The hypothesis, of course, is true by definition: science is only concerned with natural observations and natural explanations. That is what science is: it is an effort to understand the natural world. The quality of scientific understanding is gauged by a computational ability to predict reproducible phenomena. Even if one believed in miracles or other "supernatural" phenomena, such phenomena (by definition) could not be considered scientifically. Moreover, from a strictly scientific point of view, it is counterproductive to assume that any particular material phenomenon has no scientific explanation: such an assumption corresponds to accepting defeat in the struggle to understand the world

The conclusion, however, is a non-sequitur. No particular ontological commitments or religious views are required to practice science. To practice science, one merely needs to honestly and diligently observe natural phenomena and to seek natural descriptions of these phenomena that accurately predict the phenomena. It is entirely possible to believe (say) in miracles or "supernatural" phenomena, and yet to do good scientific work: one must merely ensure that no appeal to miracles or "supernatural" phenomena contaminates the scientific work at hand. This is similar to the fact that one can study geometry and can prove interesting geometrical theorems without actually believing in the Platonic existence of points and lines: the logic can be clean and correct whether or not one has definite ontological commitments. The political approach of "Discovery" is to insist the materialism, that defines science, necessarily requires its practitioners to commit themselves entirely to a purely mechanical aspiritual worldview -- but what science really requires is that its practitioners should provide the best possible natural and materialistic account of whatever scientific question they are actually investigating

[Occam Bandage]

6. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."

They know quite well what science is about. They don't like it.

[struggle4progress]

7. I don't really see a way to distinguish between "they don't understand science" and

"they understand science but don't like it." As a practical matter, I would generally prefer to argue that my ideological opponents did not understand the issues, rather than argue that they are intellectually dishonest. It is true, in some cases, that painting one's opponents as intellectually corrupt is the only option, but it will usually be a harder sell politically. Since the political threat posed by "Discovery" does not consist in "Discovery" itself but in the ranks of its recruits, who may be misguided without being cynical, I'm inclined to stick with the view "they don't understand science" -- even if one could make the case that "Discovery" itself, the original source of the propaganda, was cynical rather than misguided

[Occam Bandage]

8. I do not understand what the problem is in the distinction.

The leaders of the ID movement are pretty open about the fact that they do not see the issue as one regarding the validity of a scientific theory, but rather as a fight between scientific materialism and religious faith. Their aim is not actually questioning whether the evidence supports Darwinian evolution; it is a matter of forcing a fight between competing incompatible but widely-held and widely-overlapping worldviews by playing up the incompatibilities on ground favorable to their worldview. That is the essence of the wedge strategy.

As for combating their movement by publicly sticking to "you do not understand the science, the science says X?" That is reasonable. I see nothing to be gained by fighting them on the ground of their choosing. Dismissal of their movement as scientifically illiterate is all that is called for.

[struggle4progress]

9. The distinction I am making is not with respect to what the scientific conclusions are, but

with respect to what the scientific method is. I've argued with plenty of creationists over the years, and it seems to me that the scientific evidence for evolution will never persuade many of them: their objections are often philosophical or emotional

I'm not at all sympathetic to people who object to science on the grounds that it involves only a materialistic view of the world: it is essentially the nature of scientific inquiry that the inquiry is naturalistic and materialistic -- and the successes of that project are substantial and self-evident. But the practice of science is somewhat like making a chart of a land that one has crawled through in the dark, using what we know from what others have told us and our own limited discoveries. Here and there, the map is excellent; elsewhere, it is wanting. It is a method of study that requires enormous discipline to pursue well, and not everyone is well fit for it. There are also other productive ways of looking at the world. So I have some sympathy for people who are uncomfortable in adopting a completely materialistic view of the world themselves. Philosophical debate with them will usually be non-productive: the best outcome, that one might expect, would be that they understood something about what the scientific enterprise is, and that this understanding involves no superfluous delusions about philosophical commitments -- because science really has very few philosophical commitments: if it had many, almost nobody could practice it

Arguing with "Discovery" and their recruits about scientific fact will typically be pointless: the problem is that their attack on evolution is based on philosophical considerations, not scientific considerations. Thus, the problem is not merely a lack of understanding of the scientific facts, but a lack of understanding of the scientific method