Customer Reviews

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Is this a book where you get a definitive history and understanding of the intelligent design movement? Is it a fair and balanced treatment? No, not at all. This is a debunking treatment.

This book correctly places the intelligent design movement in its political and cultural context as an unfortunately successful attempt to discredit central elements of modern science ... in principle replacing the legitimate scientific tradition with a reformist theistic science as far as it succeeds.

Forrest and Gross do a superb job of showing why ID is not legitimate science according to the history and values that have driven science since its inception.

Yet in taking a scientific debunking approach and equating ID with "creationism" in general (and the "Scientific Creationism" of Henry Morris and Adventist literalism in particular) the authors also seem to miss some of the _non-scientific_ subtleties in their opponents' reasoning which make it as compelling and successful as it has been, even to many who aren't congenial to "Young Earth Creationism" and Seventh Day Adventism.

Forrest and Gross often discount rather than listening to their opponents, and in the process they often appear miss the internal logic and completely different way of thinking of the ID proponents. This results in arguments that must genuinely sound ad hominem and question-begging to ID enthusiasts, accusing the ID authors of deliberate fraud and deception of various kinds.

The ID movement has deceptive aspects to it, but then so does the marketing of evolutionary theory in the popular press. What Forrest and Gross do not consider, and should, is the extremely radical nature of the ID claims. They treat ID as bad alternative science, seemingly because the IDers present it as an alternative scientific paradigm to evolutionary biology and natural selection. They observe that it is neither conventional science nor speculative science ... concluding that it is therefore a fraud.

This doesn't quite seem to capture it. Leaders of the ID movement often claim that science has been mistaken *from its inception* about rejecting a Creator of some sort. In other words, they do not pretend to be doing naturalistic science and then sneak in a Creator, so much as they are claiming that science should have been theistic all along.

A Creator might possibly work through evolution, but with highly visible opponents like Richard Dawkins who often use natural selection as a reason to deny the existence of a Creator, IDers have little reason to split hairs between theistic and naturalistic evolution. Their (often hidden) point is the designer, not the design.

An early hero of the ID revolution, Michael Denton ("Evolution: A Theory In Crisis"), has no argument at all with natural selection, only with its use as an all-encompassing explanation of form and function throughout living things. His popularity among IDers reveals something important about the movement: their focus on making nature consistent with the presumed designer rather than worrying about the specific mechanisms used in design.

The rejection of Aristotelian purposes for all things was pretty clearly a positive step in the development of physical science, and this is a big part of what originally drove the rejection of teleology. The ID folks are not entirely wrong in claiming that the rejection of a Creator itself was the somewhat arbitrary result of opposing the medieval Church's tradition in general along with Aristotle's pervasive teleology. It was not a logical, empirical, or epistemic neccessity, but a cultural value associated with the Enlightenment faith in the autonomy of reason. The core reasoning of the IDers is consistent and reasonable, given their assumptions, so the tone of Forrest and Gross will likely come off as shrill to their IDer opponents.

In the end, Forrest and Gross are surely right to be alarmed at this movement, even though it is probably more sincere than they credit it. The problem with ID is not with its rather trivial observation of design in nature, but in the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) reinterpretation of scientific data in light of scripture and an unspoken but shared vision of the Creator as an alternate way of reasoning in competition with the scientific tradition.

IDers do end up confusing the issue by claiming to be doing science (or "real science,") when in fact they are proposing "a new kind of science" rooted in theistic belief completely outside of the tradition to which we give that name.

Even if many scientists and philosophers were wrong to deny possibility of a Creator and the role of the Creator in natural events (something half of Americans seem to defend) Forrest and Gross are *still* right to be suspicious of a movement that borrows the name of the scientific tradition while seeking to reform it completely to reshape biology in completely non-evolutionary terms against the epistemic values and evidentiary basis of the field.

Forrest and Gross are not fooled by the superficial similarity and pretended association of ID with scientific reformers and fine-tuners of evolutionary theory. They are at their best making it clear that scientific reform of biology and the non-science of intelligent design are two very different things.

This book is a splash of cold water to those who still may think of creationism in any form as something that belongs as a "theory" alongside biological science in a classroom. ID is not alternative science, but an alternative *to* science, a part of a "culture war" to redefine the public symbols of truth and meaning. Forrest and Gross provide the evidence of this, although in avoiding the internal logic of the opposing arguments and considering their opposition to be based mostly on fraud and ignorance, they don't seem to fully realize just how powerful their opposition's reasoning can be to many people.

"Intelligent design" (ID) is a religious and political movement that claims that only a designing intelligence (the Christian deity) could be responsible for the order we see in the natural world. It seeks to overthrow "scientific materialism" (what everyone else just calls "science") and replace it with Christian doctrine.

Although its proponents claim ID is science, there are essentially no papers describing the "theory", testing it, or making predictions from it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Instead, its proponents publish popular books with religious or political presses.

ID books are full of self-praise and hype, but very little actual science. What little science there is is full of flaws (one crucial calculation in Dembski's _No Free Lunch_ is off by 65 orders of magnitude, a fact he has never publicly admitted).

This book is the first to document, in exhaustive detail, the religious and political motivations behind ID. Forrest and Gross show how the movement was conceived after a religious conversion by a law professor; how it is bankrolled by a Christian reconstructionist millionaire; how it is based on nonexistent science; and how it seeks to replace science at all levels, from grade school to the National Science Foundation, with Christian dogma.

Contrary to the claim by one reviewer (who did not dare give his name), there is essentially no name-calling in this book. Instead, the analysis is scholarly, impeccable, and sober; the endnotes alone run for 65 pages.

If you are concerned about how the Religious Right is hijacking science education in the United States, this book is essential reading. Be sure to take your blood pressure medication before starting, because the unrelenting duplicity that Forrest and Gross chronicle in the ID movement is sure to make you burst a blood vessel.

Will the scientific community heed this wake-up call? I certainly hope so.

I remember my astonishment, a little over eight years ago, when I read David Berlinski's article, "The Deniable Darwin," in Commentary magazine. After a few paragraphs, I wondered if I were reading a parody. I was shocked that Commentary had published something that merely substituted insults for facts and logic.

Of course, there were letters to the editor. Including a half-page one from Paul Gross. He rightly asked, referring to Berlinski's article, "How could Commentary not have let some biologist read it" (after which, one would hope, there was no way Commentary would have published it). He mentioned that he didn't have the space to refute all of Berlinski's unsupported or dead-wrong assertions in a short letter. I'm happy to report that he and Barbara Forrest have now taken the time and trouble to refute the Intelligent Designers in a full length book.

Still, as Forrest and Gross explain, the main problem is not with the content of the Intelligent Design arguments. It is with the lack of content. I was to discover this eight years ago when I read Berlinski's response to the letters to the editor. Berlinski spent over a page replying to Gross. No problem with that. The problem was that Berlinski didn't address the points Gross had made. And I finally realized that Berlinski had done this intentionally, simply writing down words that gave a vague appearance of having something to do with the topic but did not in fact counter any arguments.

The authors make this fundamental point about the "intelligent designers" (the "Wedge"). The Wedge has substituted public relations for facts and for logical arguments. As Forrest and Gross quite properly put it, "The issue is not Darwinism or science: the issue is the Wedge itself."

According to the authors, the Wedge seeks to do something other than challenge a debateable set of scientific assertions. It is trying "to overthrow the system of rules and procedures of modern science and those intellectual footings of our culture laid down in the Enlightenment."

I agree with Forrest and Gross that what we need is not so much a debate about Darwinian evolution: the authors answer the critics, but that topic was put to bed in any scientific sense of the term many decades ago. What we all need to address is what to do about the threat of public policy on scientific matters being determined on grounds which are entirely divorced from any semblence of scientific knowledge. And I hope this book will help us do that.

If you are a truly concerned parent of a public school child or if you are a public school board member or if you are a homeschooling parent trying to make the right choices for your child, this book is a MUST READ.

On December 20, 2005, the US District Court ruled in the Pennsylvania ID vs. Evolution court decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) that intelligent design is NOT science and IS essentially religious in nature and the school board's requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes IS unconstitutional on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The author directly contributed to the decision by speaking as an expert witness during the Dover Intelligent Design court case.

This book is not recreational reading (that is why I gave it only 4 stars). It is technical and detailed, but vital to understanding what is going on behind the latest creationist (Intelligent Design) "movement". The book is filled with details about the strategy and attempt to legitimize ID. It profiles the people and (religious) organizations behind the strategy with sources listed in 64 pages of notes. It is comprehensive and thorough, a massive collection of details that cut through ID's hype and spin. If you are REALLY interested in learning the truth about ID, this book should be on your MUST READ list.

If after reading this book you still think ID is a credible or even a possible alternative to evolution, or if you still think that ID is not religious in nature, then there is no hope for you. You are one of those who believes, even when you are being lied to.

Thank you Ms. Forrest for providing the resource that we all needed to make "Intelligent Choices" about Intelligent Design. Knowledge is power, and you have given us the power to put ID back where the Supreme Court Case of Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) put creationism - back in church where it belongs, and out of our public schools!

I give the book high marks for detail and the authors for doing their homework on the principal proponents of the Intelligent Design movement, their history, and their motivations. It is clear from the depth and breadth of the information provided, including numerous quotes from Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson and others, that the central premise of the book is well-supported. ID really is a Trojan Horse for creationism.

I did not give the book five stars because, even though I agree that ID is not really science and that many of the proponents use questionable tactics in pursuing their public relations agenda of making ID a "legitimate" scientific movement, the authors do seem to go overboard in their rhetoric at times.

Yes, the Discovery Institute folks seem to care much more about spin than about truth. However, this does not mean that people of faith should be denigrated, simply because they are people of faith. At some points, the usually implicit but occasionally explicit tone is that many of the ID leading lights and their supporters are religious fanatics, and that simply because of this fact, we should be wary of them. The book would have been better, I think, without this occasional underlying tone.

Having said that, I think their characterization of the motives and tactics of the CSC (Center of Science and Culture) and wedge proponents is valid. I visited the CSC website today, and found lots of sanctimonious complaining about PBS and others trying to gag or censor ID ideas. Most of this seemed to mischaracterize ID opponents, and of course, there is never any acknowledgement that there might be legitimate reasons to believe that ID is bad science (or not even science at all) and that it deserves to be ignored. Here is Robert Crowther complaining about an article on ID in a Pittsburgh newspaper.

*************
" . . . . Let's start at the beginning. The lead begins:


"The flap over "intelligent design," the latest terminology behind the old theory that the universe and its organisms developed at the discretion of a supernatural creator, ..."
Rather than report about something interesting --such as the vast difference between how some scientists critical of design theory use this definition and the definition used by scientists who support design theory-- Toland merely adopts the definition of the ACLU and others as the defacto proper definition. It is not.

Furthermore, journalistic integrity requires that you attribute a claim such as this to the person or group that made it. Only critics of design claim this is the definition. Design scientists disagree. . . . . . "

***********************

Is Crowther justified in complaining about a lack of journalistic integrity? Perhaps, but more likely his indigination is calculated to create the false impression that the only thing wrong with the ID movement is that their is some kind of conspiracy against it.

The problem is most of the behaviours the ID folks complain about on the part of their opponents are ones they themselves are guilty of, usually to a much greater degree. The creationist movement is unfortunately known for a lack of journalistic and intellectual integrity, and the ID movement, although it tries to distance itself from earlier creationists, unfortunately employs many of the same disingenuous tactics.

"Creationism's Trojan Horse" documents these well. It does serve as a wake up call that those who value science and education cannot just sit idly by and hope the CSC PR machine disintegrates on its own. It is unfortunate but true that poor arguments and bad ideas can gain political sway among vast segments of the population.

There's no questioning that Creationism's Trojan Horse will be the definitive source on the Intelligent Design sham for a long time to come. Its great gift is that it digs as deeply as it can into the public pronouncements of the creationists, and pieces everything together into a rock-solid argument. It demonstrates a few things quite clearly:

1. ID is nothing more than recycled creationism, updated a bit so that it doesn't get lumped in with the new-earth creationists (i.e., those who believe the Bible is literally true and that the earth is 6,000 years old).
2. ID's proponents have absolutely no scientific evidence on their side.
3. William Dembski is the supposed intellectual at the root of the ID movement. His notion of irreducible complexity (IC) is supposed to be a rigorous, information-theoretic foundation to the old Paleyan argument from design. Irreducible complexity and its brethren have been heralded since the mid-1990's as signaling the end of natural selection. Dembski, at least, would like a bit of scientific respectability, so he tries to engage with his critics when they show that his arguments are nonsense. Irreducible complexity was supposed to provide a simple proof of god's existence, but engagement with critics has forced Dembski to release update upon update; IC is still no closer to making any predictions about anything, yet it gets continuously more complicated. The final nail in Darwin's coffin is always waiting in the next book.
4. ID is crypto-Christianity with a scientific face. The latter part is only there to make it respectable to non-Christians.
5. The world in which intelligent-design advocates want to live is a theocracy. They view evolution as a fundamental contributor to the "culture war," and view themselves as its warriors.
6. ID can only thrive in a society where science education is as abysmal as it is in this country.
7. ID advocates say they just want to "teach the controversy." There's no good reason to do this, when schools hardly have the resources to teach solid science. There's a resource-allocation problem, and no reason to allocate them towards an intellectually bankrupt system.
8. It is crucial for the movement to gain a foothold in elementary and high schools, where students are the most impressionable and science faculty are least competent to present arguments fairly.

Creationism's Trojan Horse approaches the ID movement from every relevant angle: where it gets its money, the background of its founders, their religious affiliation, the things they say when they're speaking to conservative Christians rather than to scientists, their political moves (including a fight over an Ohio school board), and the actual science that ID claims to have overthrown.

Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross have a difficult line to toe: they're required to answer Dembski's and Behe's scientific arguments, even if they believe those arguments are beneath contempt; Dembski and Behe cannot be left alone with the microphone. But neither can they be treated with respect. Under the circumstances, Forrest and Gross do the best that could be expected: they briefly touch on the science, just long enough to show that the science is irrelevant to the ID folks' aims, then move on to the real problem -- namely the politics.

If Forrest and Gross are awfully repetitive, it can be forgiven. They are clearly outraged. And they want no one to be left with a shadow of a doubt about the threat we're facing.

The barbarians are at the gates, threatening to destroy all that is noble and just in Western Civilization, especially America's preeminence in science and technology. In his new book "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller contends that we are embarked upon a titanic struggle for America's soul; a desperate intellectual struggle with advocates of Intelligent Design creationism and their sycophantic supporters, who are, indeed, the very barbarians lurking before the gates of reason, seeking to supplant the centuries-old scientific method with their own peculiar, more expansive, "definition" of science, that would represent nothing less than an instant return to the superstition and sorcery of the Dark Ages. How have these advocates for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design succeeded in gaining the sympathy and support of many Americans? In their exhaustive, extensive overview of the origins and history of Intelligent Design creationism and especially, its infamous "Wedge Strategy" document, philosopher Barbara Forrest and biologist Paul R. Gross have rendered the most authoritative account yet on the Intelligent Design movement, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", and one that deserves to be read by a broad readership, if only to emphasize the political, cultural, as well as scientific, dangers to American - and indeed, all of Western - Civilization which this movement poses. While Forrest and Gross don't answer directly my question - one that is also an underlying theme of Miller's book - their superb scholarly account suggests some possible reasons for this sympathy and support.

"Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" is noteworthy for these reasons. Forrest and Gross do an admirable job "dissecting" the "Wedge" document, discussing its scientific "interest" in the context of its underlying political and cultural values. They also provide an extensive examination of leading Intelligent Design advocates Michael Behe and William Dembski's reluctance to publish their "work" in long-established mainstream scientific venues, most notably in peer-reviewed scientific journals, demonstrating instead an utter contempt for longstanding scientific practice. Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, they also observe how, especially in Dembski's case, these advocates do not shy away from the Christian religious implications of their "work" on Intelligent Design. Forrest and Gross also document a compelling history of lies and other obfuscations practiced by Intelligent Design advocates like biologist Paul Chien's "examination" of the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", as well as a well-documented trail of extensive ties between the Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design's "think tank" - and various Fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups, again casting doubt on the claims of Intelligent Design advocates that their "theory" is a genuine scientific alternative to evolution that lacks any religious connotations, period. Much to their ample credit, Forrest and Gross ask whether Intelligent Design is truly a valid, superior, alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the history of life on Planet Earth; not surprisingly, the answer is a resounding "No". There is of course extensive discussion on the political battles waged by Intelligent Design advocates towards injecting Intelligent Design into American science classrooms, including a new closing chapter devoted to the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial (in which Barbara Forrest's testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs proved to be most important) and some other, more recent developments. Anyone who reads "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" should be impressed by the extensive scope of the Discovery Institute's crypto-Fascist agenda as defined within its "Wedge" document, and the substantial commitment that it has still towards seeing its agenda become an important part of American culture, and thus, ultimately, of all of Western Civilization too; truly theirs is a clarion call in defense of reason and the scientific method which should not fall upon deaf ears at all.

If ID represents such superior science, why do its advocates devote their efforts almost exclusively to political and religious activism, while doing virtually nil actual science? Why do they continually conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism, or abiogenesis with modern evolutionary theory? Forrest and Gross provide a meticulously documented history of the modern ID movement, and forcefully lay to rest any notion that ID has anything to offer science, if it ever did. They lay bare the particular religious motives of ID's principle advocates who, it seems, don't really care about science at all (if they did, one might think they'd roll up their sleeves, get into a lab somewhere, and do some actual research). Instead, they merely dredge up the usual, well-worn anti-Darwinian Creationist canards, repackage them in spiffy new & improved ID wrappers, and solicit politicians and other policy-making bodies for support... demanding equal time for ID in the name of "fairness." If ID means to be taken seriously as science, and if its advocates really want to be fair, is it too much to ask that they provide actual evidence for their assertions?

I could assert that there are pink teapots orbiting Pluto until I'm blue in the face, but if I can't provide empirical evidence to back my claim, why should anyone (let alone scientists) take me seriously? So, without evidence, why should the claims of ID be regarded any differently?

By the way, I can't help but notice that the "review" from a reader in Sunnyvale (now San Jose, I see), CA is repeated, word for word, in a "review" of Mark Perakh's "Unintelligent Design." Has the Sunnyvale/San Jose reader actually read either of these books? Or is this merely vacuous boilerplate blather?

Several prior reviews say that this is a book that needed to be written. I agree, but I also add - what a pity! Yes, what a pity it is that serious scientists doing serious work, some of them Nobel prize winners, have had to take time away from their tasks to deal with this religious rubbish. The ID folks have been slugging away for over ten years, and so far have nothing to talk about from a scientific standpoint. Not one single new idea, proof, method, experiment, or design. Nothing! Nothing at all!

But it was never really about the science anyway, and that is one of the things this book does a very fine job of explaining. It is about the wedge, and the wedge is about establishing a theocracy. It sounds so innocent on the surface, as many others have noted, and the appeal to "fairness" is indeed a master stroke. Their whole strategy is well conceived, and so far, with the exception of the science part, is being beautifully executed. The science part, unfortunately, doesn't matter, because they have successfully created the illusion that evolutionism is falling apart. They are convincing the politicians and the general public that the foundations of biology are crumbling before the onslaught of new "scientific" principals.

Although the ID "scientific" arguments are trivial and easily defeated, it is difficult if not impossible to frame the truth in such a manner as to be comprehensible to the general public, and therein lies their greatest strength. I am not a scientist by trade, but my knowledge of science is probably a bit above most of the general public, and yet I have a hard time following some of the rebuttals to the ID arguments. The arguments themselves, however, are simple enough for those with even no scientific background to follow, and yet are extremely difficult to see through without the requisite scientific knowledge.

In my opinion, it does not matter how many thousands of reputable scientists are lined up against the few that ID can muster, this issue will not be decided by a preponderance of the evidence, but by politics and spin. They are winning because they have chosen the issues, determined the scope, and set the agenda for the conflict. As Creationism's Trojan Horse clearly states, the stakes couldn't be higher.

If the purpose of writing Creationism's Trojan Horse was to have it serve as a "wake up call" to those of us who want to continue teaching scientific truth in our nation's classrooms, it does an admirable job. Most of America does not understand what is going on and why. It is up to those of us that do, and we are not all, nor do we have to be practicing scientists, to do whatever we can whenever we can. Monitor what is going on in our communities. Write and respond to letters-to-the-editor. Join The National Center for Science Education, an organization dedicated to science education in our schools.

In short, it is going to take all of us to prevail in this thing. Just because you don't have letters after your name, don't think you can't get involved. You do think, after all, and that's why you are considering the purchase of this book.

This long awaited book does an excellent job dealing with the Intelligent Design movement's political and religious activities. Forrest and Gross make it crystal clear that this movement is not about science; it's about culture wars and Religious Right politics.

The book is engaging and thoroughly covers the movement's activities. Something I would like to have seen more of is how organizations opposed to creationism are handling the political challenge - such as Ken Miller's presentation to the Ohio school board.

The part of the book I found least satisfying (although still good) was the section dealing with the specific "scientific" arguments made by people like Wells, Dembski and Behe. "Creationism's Trojan Horse" is deliberately not a thorough refutation of ID creationist arguments (see Pennock's Tower of Babel or Miller's Finding Darwin's God for detailed arguments). Of course, in a book about ID, they had to deal with the inane 'scientific' debate at least partially, but this section of the book did not flow as smoothly as the rest. The writing suffered in the attempt to briefly touch on some complex arguments.

The book is very effective in it's main goal - showing the ID movement for what it is and serving as a wakeup call for people who care about the integrity of science education in this country. Don't miss this book!