UPDATE: CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

I originally wrote the Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design series in 2005, then re-organized the articles in March, 2006.

After my original writing in 2005, Judge John E. Jones rendered his opinion in December, 2005, on the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. This is the case in which a school board, with some assistance from the Discovery Institute, attempted to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum as an alternative "theory" to evolution.

The decision here, posted by Talk Origins, provides a thorough overview of intelligent design origins.

The Dover case illustrates the effectiveness of skilled persuasion techniques. To wit: Most of the pro-ID school board members had a very minimal grasp on what the heck ID is about, but they had a very good grasp on the emotive buttons it pushed in them, related to their faith and patriotism.

From Casey Brown, a Dover school board member who resigned after the board voted to insert ID:

There has been a slow but steady marginalization of some board members. Our opinions are no longer valued or listened to. Our contributions have been minimized or not acknowledged at all. A measure of that is the fact that I myself have been twice asked within the past year if I was 'born again.' No one has, nor should have the right, to ask that of a fellow board member. An individual's religious beliefs should have no impact on his or her ability to serve as a school board director, nor should a person's beliefs be used as a yardstick to measure the value of that service.

However, it has become increasingly evident that it is the direction the board has now chosen to go, holding a certain religious belief is of paramount importance.

Another board member who resigned, Wenrich, said:

I was referred to as unpatriotic, and my religious beliefs were questioned. I served in the U.S. Army for 11 years and six years on the board. Seventeen years of my life have been devoted to public service, and my religion is personal. It's between me, God, and my pastor.

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION & INTELLIGENT DESIGN: PART 1

Evolution in General

A relatively clear and concise explanation of evolution comes from Chris Colby, who, when he wrote Introduction to Evolution in 1996, was a graduate student in biology at Boston University. Highlights:

• Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
• Evolution is not progress.
• The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow.
• Organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies its own environment.
• Natural selection does not have any foresight. It only allows organisms to adapt to their current environment. Structures or behaviors do not evolve for future utility.
• An organism adapts to its environment at each stage of its evolution.
  

(Unfortunately, Colby's piece also includes an unnecessary and unhelpful aside about intelligent design proponents and creationists.)

Evolution and God

Deistic Evolution

Deistic evolution is the view that ... the universe was created by a God who then makes no further intervention in its affairs. (Source: Wikipedia)

A warmer view comes from Peace Dale Christian Deist Fellowship (whose website appears now to be defunct), via ReligiousTolerance.org:

We believe that God designed and created the world, and governs it through natural laws that can be discovered through reasoning, observation, and experience. We feel that God does not reveal himself to us through inspired or revealed texts or by supernatural means, but through creation itself.

Voltaire presented a rather harsh view of deism through the voice of the Turkish dervish in Candide, in this exchange:

"Master, we come to entreat you to tell us why so strange an animal as man has been formed?"

"Why do you trouble your head about it?" said the dervish; "is it any business of yours?"

"But, Reverend Father," said Candide, "there is a horrible deal of evil on the earth."

"What signifies it," said the dervish, "whether there is evil or good? When His Highness sends a ship to Egypt does he trouble his head whether the rats in the vessel are at their ease or not?"

Theistic evolution

Some definitions:

• The belief that God operates through the natural process of evolution.
• The term "theistic evolution" describes the theistic actions of God (as designer, sustainer, and guider) in evolution, while "evolutionary creation" describes evolution as God's method of creation. I use these terms interchangeably, and for me they have the same meaning. But some who hold this view prefer "evolutionary creation" because it places the emphasis on creation, with evolution describing the type of creation, while "theistic evolution" places the emphasis on evolution, with theistic describing the type of evolution. (Source: Evolutionary Creation)
• Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis. (Source: Theistic Evolution)

Charles Darwin's views, as evidenced by his letters, seem to have started with theistic evolution, moved to deistic evolution, and rested with agnosticism.

Creationism

WordReference.com defines creationism as the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; 'creationism denies the theory of evolution of species.

The above definition applies to some Christian creationists. Following are only two of a number of categories of Christian creationists:

• Young-Earth Creationists. Adherents fit the definition provided by WordReference.org above.
• Old-Earth Creationists. There are various sub-categories of old-Earth creationism. Please go here for elaboration. In general, however, each sub-category subscribes to the idea of an ancient Earth, but is still closely allied to a Biblical explanation for the workings of and the diversity of nature.

Intelligent design

According to the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer, in his 2005 article, Not By Chance:

... the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected. ...

This Frequently Asked Questions About Intelligent Design, by Mark Hartwig at Access Research Network offers a concise explanation of the scientific basis for the theory of intelligent design. (Mark Hartwig is also affiliated with the Discovery Institute.)

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION & INTELLIGENT DESIGN: PART 2

Intelligent Design and God

It is important to note that ID proponents distance their theory not only from "general" evolution, but also from creationism, deistic evolution, and theistic evolution. ID is careful to refer only to an unnamed and undefined "intelligent designer." ID is careful not to identify God as the intelligent designer.

ID and theistic evolution

On the surface, it would appear that ID and theistic evolution are the same, at least in the abstract if not the details, as theistic evolutionists believe God maintains a sustained interest and guiding hand in the evolutionary process.

However, this is not the case at all. Phillip E. Johnson, a Discovery Institute program advisor, has written often of theistic evolution. This article offers views that are typical in his (and others') work, in which he describes theistic evolution and evolutionists:

• Theistic evolution is self-contradictory.
• ...the compromise position called 'theistic evolution' ...
• ... the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting[ly] serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism.
• Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of the agenda of scientific naturalism.
  

ID and creationism

Officially, ID proponents distance ID from Christian creationism. At the same time, ID proponents strive to qwell the conflicts that creationists have among themselves, such as "young earth" vs. "old earth."

In a nutshell, ID proponents ask creationists - does it really matter how much time it took for God to create the heavens, the earth and life as we know it? Isn't the important thing that God did it?

ID proponents then ask that creationists present a united front to the rest of the world. As Gordon Lewis puts it in this article: With the increasing impact of secular humanism and Eastern pantheism, both recent and progressive creationists should expend less time and energy on the length of time between the creative acts and more on those mighty acts. Unless creationists concertedly present their philosophy of origins more effectively to the coming generations, the 21st century will be increasingly dominated by a materialistic evolution or a pantheistic emanation.

Answers in Genesis, a Christian creationist organization ("young earth") based in Australia, offers its own take on ID here. Answers in Genesis (AIG) acknowledges that ID offers benefits to the evangelical work of creationists, but also expresses concerns, two of which are:

• Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly-shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a ‘story of the past’, which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism—and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned).
• Some who are prominent in the IDM appear to be sympathetic to the Bible’s account of Creation. However, if the movement should ever make the strategic inroads it hopes for, then our concern would be that any of its leaders who might later identify themselves with Genesis belief would lay themselves open to charges of having been publicly deceptive. Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time. Were the IDM to partially succeed in its initial aims, some of the strongest opponents of literal Genesis may well arise from its recently-victorious ranks. ...
  

ID's target audience

Notwithstanding ID's official distancing from God (and, more specifically, from Christianity), ID's largest target audience - and the most receptive audience - is the Christian population. More specifically, ID's target audience is the Christian population that votes and/or influences decision-makers in their communities, in their states, and at the federal level.

But this population is only the spearhead audience. And ID itself is only the spearhead issue.

The ID architects have a much larger audience and a much wider agenda in mind.

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION & INTELLIGENT DESIGN: PART 3

Intelligent Design: A Theo-Political Tool

The Wedge Document

Circa 1991, Phillip E. Johnson and a handful of others formulated the Wedge Strategy, out of which later came the Wedge Document. The Wedge Document outlines a marketing plan to accomplish "the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." ID serves as "the thin edge of the wedge," which begins with ID in evolution and expands to other areas of science, psychology, ethics, politics, theology, philosophy, and the fine arts:

... in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. ... building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

In the ensuing 20 years, the goals of the Wedge Strategy were:

• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
  

The Wedge Document also outlines a public relations plan to influence the general public.

Philip E. Johnson, the Wedge Document author (and affiliate of the Discovery Institute and the Access Research Network), wrote a progress report on the Wedge Strategy in 2001. One excerpt notes the need to resolve the conflict between young-Earth and old-Earth creationists and another the reiteration of the intent to apply ID to areas beyond evolution:

... two related goals. ... The second was to make the critique of naturalism the central focus of discussion in the religious world, replacing the deadlocked debate over the Genesis chronology which had enabled the Darwinists to employ the "Inherit the Wind stereotype" so effectively. ...

The importance of this intellectual movement is by no means limited to science. Scientific naturalism has done its greatest damage in the arts and humanities.

"Materialism" and "naturalism"

Materialism

In the context of ID and also the Wedge Strategy, materialism is not about commercial goods or wealth.

In the context of ID and the Wedge Strategy, materialism is:

• From Southern Utah University: The doctrine that the only reality is matter; that the universe is not governed by intelligence or purpose but only by mechanical cause and effect; or
• From University College Dublin: Everything in nature, including the human mind consists of matter and obeys laws of physics. Hence, there are no supernatural entities.

Naturalism

From apologetics.org: Contrasted with "supernaturalism," naturalists insist that the universe is a "closed system," i.e. there is no God who intervenes in the universe and in human affairs. . Naturalists presuppose "evolution," and believe that science is the only way to come to an understanding of truth.

According to a 2000 Harris Poll, 94% of Americans believe in God and 86% believe in the resurrection of Christ. Nevertheless, the Wedge Document adherents allege that America is in the thrall to the "stifling dominance of the materialist worldview" and it must be "overthrown."

Wedge Strategy adherents had to create an enemy to conquer and for people to rally against. The non-existent regime of materialism and naturalism serve this purpose, with evolution serving as a specific example of materialism and naturalism, and as the Wedge Strategy's first target.

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION & INTELLIGENT DESIGN: PART 4

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A THEO-POLITICAL TOOL, CONTINUED

The Wedge Document: So What?

In 2005, the Discovery Institute published The "Wedge Document": So What? to respond to criticisms of the original document. So What? attempts to dissociate ID (and the Wedge Document) from any particular theological view (or agenda). However, the So What? authors are not as transparent as they would lead readers to believe.

Some excerpts from So What?:

Section 2, page 3: "Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute actively supports pluralistic democracy. For several years during the 1990s, Center associate director Dr. John West sponsored a seminar for college students, The George Washington Fellows Program, that advocated religious freedom and the separation of church and state."

The George Washington Fellows program was "... seminar on religion and politics ... . designed to give Fellows an in-depth understanding of the role religion can play in a free society. .... examine the public role of religion from the ancient world to the present. Readings will likely include selections from the Bible, Aquinas, Martin Luther, Calvin, Locke, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, De Tocqueville, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others."

The Program's financial sponsors included, in addition to the Discovery Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute ("relies on the moral and cultural traditions that are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage and rooted in Western Civilization"), the Shuv Institute (self-defined as a Christian think tank), the Mustard Seed Foundation (a "Christian family foundation"), and the Mercer Island Covenant Church.

Strictly speaking, the Discovery Institute's denials about promoting a "union of church and state" and "advocating religious freedom" are accurate. A more dubious claim is that it advocates for separation of church and state.

In reviewing the writings and affiliations of Discovery Institute fellows, along with institutions affiliated with the Discovery Institute, certain trends appear:

In general, the Discovery Institute folks do not promote a state religion or state church. In that regard, the denial that they promote a "union of church and state" is technically accurate. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest they - as a group - do advocate for government grounded in Old Testament laws. More on this later.

"Religious freedom" is promoted in the sense that a number of Discovery Institute principals want to be able to exercise more of it than they believe is currently possible, in all aspects of civic life. "Religious freedom" is also a rallying cry against the alleged materialistic/naturalistic regime.

Section 2, page 4: "At the time the "Wedge Document" was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery Institute's Board was Jewish. The present Chairman says he is "not religious," and our various officers and fellows represent an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian to agnostic - hardly a fundamentalist cabal!"

The Discovery Institute is very careful in the language it uses in this document.

Darwinist. In the context of ID, a Darwinist is someone who practices the "religion" of Darwinism, which is presented as a flawed, but dominant theory that is atheistic, materialist, and naturalistic. ID proponents often link Karl Marx to Darwinism.

Theocracy. There are a number of ways to define theocracy. I think the definition that most of us think about when we hear the word comes from Houghton Mifflin via answers.com: A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law.

Using this definition, the Discovery Institute is technically accurate when it pooh-poohs allegations that its agenda is to shape the U.S. into a theocracy. But there is another concept that the Wedge Document alludes to, and that is theonomy. More on theonomy later.

"Our various officers and fellows represent an eclectic range of religious views ranging from ... to - hardly a fundamentalist cabal!"

The so-called "eclectic range of religious views" is not all that eclectic and not all that wide a range. I was surprised to discover how many Discovery principals hail from Presbyterian (and, in particular, orthodox Presbyterian) and other denominations that share Calvinist, Wesleyan and Pietist roots. And where there are disparities (such as accounting for agnostics and Jews among the fold), I will explain further down.

Below are fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture who have professional or public advocacy interests in theology. I do not include fellows just because they profess a particular faith or just because they teach at a faith-based university. For instance, Paul Chien is a Christian, and he has presented at Leadership U, which is a Christian program, but thus far, I've found nothing to indicate he has a professional or public advocacy interest in theology.

Howard Ahmanson. His goal is, according to this Washington Post story (evidently affirmed by Discovery Institute principal Steve Meyer), "the total integration of biblical law into our lives." He is a major financial contributor to the Institute. According to this 2004 OC Register article, Rich in Faith, "The Ahmansons describe themselves as followers of Calvinism, the theology created by John Calvin in the 16th century that emphasizes predestination and the literal truth of the Bible." For many years, Ahmanson contributed to and served on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, an organization founded by R.J. Rushdoony, an orthodox Presbyterian. The Chalcedon Foundation believes "the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and ... we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, ... we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God's glory."

Francis Beckwith. Associate director and associate professor at J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, a Baptist school. Co-author of To Every One an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview. President-elect (2005) of the Evangelical Theological Society. The Evangelical Theological Society is "a professional society of Biblical scholars, teachers, pastors and others involved in the evangelical scholarship serving Christ and His Church."

Raymond Bohlin. President of Probe Ministries.

William Dembski. Carl F.H. Henry Professor of Science and Technology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Has a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. [November 2007 update: No longer Carl F.H. Henry Professor; now research professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.]

Jack Collins. On the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary and an ordained Presbyterian minister. Covenant Theological Seminary is home to the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute. Francis A. Schaeffer was the author of The Christian Manifesto. Here is a speech Mr. Schaeffer presented at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in 1982, which elucidates some of the points from his book. Mr. Schaeffer's philosophy is similar, though not identical, to that espoused by the Chalcedon Foundation. Both derive from Calvinist - or "reformed church" - origins, which subscribes to theonomy or theocracy, depending on the particular "reformed church" branch. Some "theonomists" are careful to make a distinction between theonomy and theocracy, while others use the terms interchangeably. Other related terms include Christian reconstructionism and dominionism.

Robin Collins. Dr. Collins is a professor at Messiah College's Department of Philosophy, where he "specializes in philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophical theology." According to Messiah College: "Our faculty are all caring, committed Christians who would like to see our students graduate with a well-reasoned, coherent Christian worldview that can be a positive force in the marketplace of ideas."

William Lane Craig. On the faculty at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Biola University, originally the Baptist University of Los Angeles: "Our business is to inspire student's learning so that they are empowered to think and practice from a Christian worldview in their fields of service."

Phillip E. Johnson. Principal architect of the Wedge Document. He is affiliated with numerous organizations and activities dedicated to intelligent design and Christianity. Mr. Johnson refers directly to theonomy when he says, in this 2000 interview, Berkeley's Radical, by the magazine Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity: "The third millennium has to be the millennium of reconstitution—from the bottom up. It’s about recapturing the sense of the mystical union of the Body of Christ at the grassroots level." Theonomists frequently distinguish themselves from theocratists by noting that their new order will not be from the top down, but from the "bottom up."

Michael Newton Keas. Associate professor, natural science, at Oklahoma Baptist University. Past participant at John Templeton Seminars on Science and Christianity.

Robert C. Koons. Philosophy professor at University of Texas. Teaches, among other courses, philosophy of religion and contemporary Christian philosophy. Author of numerous articles on theology and apologetics. Cited writings of Francis Schaeffer as strong influence as a youth. (See notes on Francis Schaeffer in Nancy Pearcey's blurb below.) B.A., Philosophy and Theology, Oxford University. Board member, Society of Christian Philosophers.

James P. Moreland. On the faculty at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Served with Campus Crusade for Christ for 10 years.

Nancy Pearcey. Currently a Francis A. Schaeffer Scholar at the World Journalism Institute, whose mission is to "recruit, equip, place and encourage journalists who are Christians in the mainstream newsrooms of America."

Pattle Pak-Toe Pun. Professor of biology at Wheaton College. At Wheaton College's Department of Biology, "emphasis is placed on integrating biology with a Biblical worldview in a way that encourages service to Christ and His Kingdom." Wheaton College's founder was Jonathan Blanchard, a Presbyterian minister. An excerpt from a Wheaton College biography about Blanchard: "Ultimately, Blanchard wholeheartedly believed that 'society is perfect where what is right in theory exists in fact; where practice coincides with principle and the law of God is the law of the land.'"

John Mark Reynolds. Director, Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University; associate professor of philosophy at Biola University. Torrey Honors Institute is "unique among programs in classical education for several reasons. First, the inclusion of first-rate Christian thinkers in the Protestant tradition, along with extensive study of the Bible, makes Torrey unique in the area of classical education. Writers such as Calvin, Luther, and Wesley are rarely studied in most 'great books' programs."

Jay W. Richards. Degrees from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was a teaching fellow. Was executive and associate editor of The Princeton Theological Review for two years, and president of the Charles Hodge Society at Princeton Theological Seminary. From Evangelical Tracts, on Charles Hodge: "... an American Presbyterian theologian, ... taught at Princeton for almost his whole life. ... His most important works are ... What is Darwinism? (1874). He was an outstanding defender of Calvinism..."

Wolfgang Smith. Professor of mathematics, retired. In addition to mathematics and physics, educated in philosophy. Has a strong interest in metaphysics and theology; according to his biography, he "began his career as a Catholic metaphysical author." An essay of his is included in the book The Betrayal of Tradition: Essays on the Spiritual Crisis of Modernity.

Charles Thaxton. Also studied under Francis A. Schaeffer at L'Abri Fellowship. He and his wife founded the KONOS Connection. According to Mr. Thaxton's website, KONOS comes from the "Greek word for cone, and it is a way of representing the Biblical world view with God at the apex of all knowledge." Before founding KONOS, Mr. Thaxton worked with Probe Ministries. In this Leadership U archive article on civil disobedience (in which the Probe Ministries director cites Francis A. Schaeffer), Probe Ministries purpose is described: "Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity." This purpose statement is no longer present on the Probe Ministries site.

Jonathan Wells. Ph.Ds in theology and in molecular and developmental biology. Currently writing a book. Wells is an adherent of the Unification Church ("Moonies"). He teaches on occasion at the Unification Theological Seminary. A mission of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's is: "This country desperately needs a God-centered president, senators and congressmen. America's intellectual establishment is liberal, godless, secular, humanistic, and anti-religious. We are declaring war against three main enemies: godless communism, Christ-less American liberalism, and secular-humanistic morality. They are the enemies of God, the True Parents, the Unification Church, all of Christianity, and all religions. We are working to mobilize a united front against them." (Source: www.unification.net) Wells writes in his article, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Ph.D., "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. ... I am one of a growing number of highly-educated and articulate critics of Darwinism, located in universities all over North America, who stay in touch via the internet and occasionally join forces at academic conferences. These critics include embryologists, paleontologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, medical doctors, philosophers, and even lawyers. Unfortunately, the North American science-and-religion establishment has largely turned a deaf ear to these critics, preferring instead to abandon classical theology and embrace metaphysical materialism and moral relativism. But I see the situation as analogous to the last years of Soviet communism. A small, powerful elite controls all the official information outlets while the evidence against the official position swells quietly, like a wave building offshore. Someday soon, to the surprise of many people in academia and the media, the wave will break. I predict that the Darwinist establishment will come apart at the seams, just as the Soviet Empire did in 1990."

Benjamin Wiker. Professor, part-time, in Theology Department, Franciscan University of Steubenville. Has a Ph.d. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University.

Nineteen out of the 45 fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture - or 42% - have professional or public advocacy interests in theology. An additional three (Jonathan Witt, Cornelius G. Hunter, and Dean Kenyon) are borderline between this category and simply being men of faith personally (rather than engaging in public advocacy).

Obviously, there is nothing objectionable in having professional or public advocacy interests in theology. It is objectionable for the Discovery Institute to deny that it - and ID - has a decided Christian worldview.

PROPAGANDA

WHAT IS PROPAGANDA?

We Americans tend to assign a very narrow and negative definition to propaganda.

Here's an example of such a definition: False or partly false information used by a government or political party intended to sway the opinions of the population. (Source: Florida Center for Instructional Technology)

When we think of government propaganda, we tend to think in the context of Nazi Germany (which is the context of the above definition) or other repressive governments.

Or we tend to think of propaganda in the context of cults and brainwashing.

Here are some more neutral definitions:

Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause (Source: wordreference.com)

The systematic dissemination of a doctrine, aimed to win people over to a certain idea. (Source: Community Cultural Development in Australia)

Most students of the subject agree that propaganda has to do with any ideas and beliefs that are intentionally propagated. They agree also that it attempts to reach a goal by making use of words and word substitutes (pictures, drawings, graphs, exhibits, parades, songs, and similar devices). (Source: American Historical Association)

WHAT ABOUT IT?

We are vulnerable to propaganda.

This is because:

• We Americans don't really believe propaganda is widespread in the U.S.

• To the extent we believe propaganda does reside in mainstream America, we believe it emanates from "special interest groups;" that is, from those whose views differ from ours.

• When we receive information from sources we consider to be friendly, trustworthy - or at least neutral - we do not recognize propaganda from such sources as propaganda. We are predisposed to believe what these sources tell us.
  

• We tend to believe that Americans who "fall for" propaganda are not as well educated as we are, not as sophisticated, not as informed. Therefore, if we believe what we're hearing, then what we're hearing must be true.
  

We are the prize.

If we are members of groups that vote, donate money or consume products and services, then we comprise the commodity called Public Opinion. We are the targets of propaganda every day by individuals and groups who want our attitudes, votes, and money.


NOTES

A post from the Christian Science Monitor blog: How 'Propaganda' Lost Its Good Name.

Thorough discussion of propaganda and its history from Wikipedia: Propaganda.

A laid-back, reader-friendly primer on propaganda: The Propaganda Critic.

From Quackwatch.org: Propaganda Techniques Related To Environmental Scares.

ACTIVIST JUDGES

The Charge

The Christian Science Monitor offers a fine introduction to the instant case in its April 13 article, Bringing the Case Against Judges.


The Prosecutors

Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration

Court Watch, affiliated with the Eagle Forum

Judicial Amendment Coalition

National Resources Defense Council

Law Enforcement Alliance of America


Amici curiae for the defendant

Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, a partnership of People for the American Way, the Leadership Council for Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), and the Communications Consortium Media Center.

Statement from the president of the American Bar Association

An Independent Judiciary: Report of the Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence (1997), American Bar Association


The Defense

I've known a few judges. Some were liberal; some were conservative. Regardless of their political persuasion, all enjoyed holding court, both literally and figuratively. Consequently, I predict the judicial community will not suffer in relative silence for too much longer before reaching out and taking some mighty slaps at those who have been abusing them so sorely. Here's one:

Letter to the NY Times editor from the president of the National Association of Women Judges (source: American Judges Association)


Sidebars

On the definitions of activism and an analysis of the Rehnquist Court: A Hand in the Matter, by Cass Sunstein in Legal Affairs

A calm consideration of judicial activism, including decisions that may look activist but are not, and decisions that don't appear to be activist, but are: On Judicial Activism: Judges and the Constitution Today, by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, in Open Spaces Quarterly

Point and counterpoint re: conservative judicial activism, from the Federalist Society


Sentencing proposals

Constitution Restoration Act (proposed)

Judicial Accountability Amendment (being petitioned)

LIBERAL MEDIA

Media biased?

It's rare to hear the word "media" without the word "liberal" in front of it.

In trying to find facts about media bias, I have thus far been unable to locate a media watch group without its own bias. Those that are liberal reject the idea of a liberal bias in the media. Those that are conservative assume a liberal bias. Both offer evidence to support their positions. Here are two examples:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal)

Accuracy in Media (conservative)

Does it matter?

In the abstract, we seek The Truth. In the abstract, we want our media to reveal The Truth. Alas, we do not enjoy consensus on what constitutes The Truth. And even if we did, a favorite quote of mine comes in handy: The truth is a shady spot where we eat our lunch before moving on. (E.G. Williamson) That is, agreement on The Truth - like Love - is not always enough.

Setting aside the abstract of The Truth, then:

Decrying the media as liberal or conservative benefits some of us all of the time and most of us some of the time.

The media serve as a convenient scapegoat for groups interested in establishing a Them Against Us construct.

We ordinary folks find it convenient to assign bias to a news source when we disagree with or cannot process the information the news source provides on an issue that triggers us emotionally.

Thus it may not matter so much if the media have a political bias. What may matter more is our political bias as news consumers.

But anyway ...

Here is a thoughtful essay on the subject of media bias by Dr. Andrew Cline in his Rhetorica Network. An excerpt from the essay:

Is the news media biased toward liberals? Yes. Is the news media biased toward conservatives? Yes. These questions and answers are uninteresting because it is possible to find evidence--anecdotal and otherwise--to "prove" media bias of one stripe or another. Far more interesting and instructive is ...

Hopefully, my contrived cliffhanger will entice you over to the full essay.

FILIBUSTER

Senatorial filibusters against judicial nominations are against people of faith?

Please.

A filibuster is merely a procedural tool that a person or group uses in an attempt to block an undesirable decision.

Some would have us believe that filibusters are only the latest in a conspiracy against "people of faith." Others want us to believe that the filibuster is a fundamental right handed down to us from the Founding Fathers. Neither is true.

What's the real story about filibusters?

A Fictional View of the Filibuster, from factcheck.org.

The Ongoing Controversy Over Judicial Nominees What Will It Mean if the GOP "Goes Nuclear" On The Filibuster Rules?, an article by John Dean at findlaw.com.

Filibuster and Cloture, from the U.S. Senate's Powers and Procedures site.

From wikipedia

Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster, by Brian Naylor and Ron Elving, National Public Radio

PERSUASION

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

From the beginning, there were those like the serpent who worked their wiles on the wills of others in order to achieve their own ends.

It is no different today.

One approach is persuasion.

What is persuasion?

From Dr. Kelton Rhoads at workingpsychology.com's definition page, here is an excerpt :

Persuasion attempts to win "the heart and mind" of the target. Thus persuasion must induce attitude change, which entails affective (emotion-based) change.

What are typical persuasion techniques?

From Steve's Primer of Practical Persuasion and Influence:

1. Intent. Forewarned is forearmed. Therefore, simply present the persuasive message without warning.

2. Organization. Structure produces comprehension. Chaos produces confusion. Therefore, make the message clear and organized.

3. Examples versus statistics. Examples are easier to comprehend and generate greater thoughtfulness than statistics. Therefore, prove your points with examples your receivers find compelling.

4. Sidedness. There are two sides to every issue. Messages which defend one side and attack the other are more effective. Therefore, support your position, but make sure you point out weaknesses in other views.

5. Repetition and redundancy. The frequency with which a message is given enhances influence to a balance point. Past that point repetition will annoy and frustrate receivers. Redundancy will delay reaching the balance point, but will not prevent it. Repetition works to improve comprehension. Therefore, expect to repeat your messages several times to make sure everyone gets the word and understands the word.

6. Rhetorical questions. Statements hidden as questions work well when given in advance of the main message. Rhetoricals serve to enhance attention and message processing. Therefore, use rhetoricals to get or regain attention before you make you major points.

7. Fear appeals. Fear also leads to more thinking about the persuasive message. More fear leads to more thinking (except perhaps in extreme, real-world situations). If you feel comfortable with it, use fear appeals to get the attention of your receivers.

8. Evidence. Something created by another person that you use is evidence. Evidence may be the most powerful message variable there is. It produces a simple equation: More good evidence, more influence. Therefore, always include the best evidence for your receivers.

Steve Booth-Butterfield teaches communications at West Virginia University.