So basically, this document surfaced which demonstrates that ID is meant to promote a Christian agenda. I'll highlight the relevant parts in the article below:
quote:
Posted on Mon, Oct. 10, 2005Intelligent design's big ambitions
Advocates want much more than textbooks.
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff WriterThe advocates of "intelligent design," spotlighted in the current courtroom battle over the teaching of evolution in Dover, Pa., have much larger goals than biology textbooks.
They hope to discredit Darwin's theory as part of a bigger push to restore faith to a more central role in American life. "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," says a strategy document written in 1999 by the Seattle think tank at the forefront of the movement.
The authors said they seek "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
Intelligent-design advocates have focused publicly on "teaching the controversy," urging that students be taught about weaknesses in evolutionary theory. The 1999 strategy document, though, goes well beyond that.
That "wedge document," outlining a five-year plan for promoting intelligent design and attacking evolution, has figured prominently in the trial now under way in federal court in Harrisburg. Eleven parents sued the Dover school board over a requirement to introduce intelligent design to high school biology students as an alternative to evolutionary theory.
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating... . We are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source," wrote the authors of the strategy plan for the Center for Science and Culture, an arm of the Discovery Institute and the leader of the effort to promote intelligent design. "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."
The center and the Discovery Institute, financed primarily by Christian philanthropists and foundations, have succeeded in putting evolutionary theory on the hot seat in many school districts and state legislatures. By sponsoring books, forums and research by a group of about 40 college professors around the country, they have made intelligent design a prominent player in the nation's culture wars.
Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified intelligent designer must be involved.
Its critics, including civil libertarians and the nation's science organizations, say intelligent design is not science, but creationism in a new guise. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that public schools could not teach creationism in science classrooms because it unconstitutionally promoted a particular religious viewpoint.
Advocates of intelligent design say it is a scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations, though they acknowledge its theological implications.
And they say the wedge document was written as a fund-raising tool, articulating a plan for reasoned persuasion, not political control. Critics, they say, have an agenda of their own - to promote a worldview in which God is nonexistent or irrelevant.
"The Center for Science and Culture does not have a secret plan to influence science and culture. It has a highly and intentionally public program for 'challenging scientific materialism and its destructive cultural legacies,' " the center says on its Web site.
John G. West, associate director of the center, said last week that those destructive legacies have included such things as defense of infanticide, the notions that ethics are an illusion and morality merely a reproductive survival tactic, support of eugenics, and the over-reliance on psychoactive drugs to control behavior.
The center was founded in 1996, with grants from conservative Southern California billionaire Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., and the Maclellan Foundation, which says that it supports groups "committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ."
The wedge document was written three years later and outlined a three-phase plan for advancing its goals: (1) scientific research, writing and publication, (2) publicity and opinion-making, and (3) cultural confrontation and renewal.
William Dembski, director of the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and a leading intelligent-design advocate, argues that "virtually every discipline and endeavor is presently under a naturalistic pall.
"To lift that pall will require a new generation of scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the world,"Dembski writes in his book, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. "The possibilities for transforming the intellectual life of our culture are immense."
The wedge document calls the proposition that human beings are created in the image of God "one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is built." It also says that thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud undermined the idea by portraying humans "not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment."
The wedge document was highlighted in the Dover trial in Harrisburg last week. One witness, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor who wrote Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, used the document to buttress her contention that intelligent design is creationism and that "it is essentially religious."
Defense lawyer Richard Thompson said the Dover school-board members had never heard of the wedge document when they changed the biology curriculum to include a mention of intelligent design.
The intelligent-design movement's activist approach has alienated some likely allies.
The John Templeton Foundation, of West Conshohocken, spends millions each year to explore and encourage a link between science and religion. But, except for a contribution to fund a debate forum in 1999, the foundation has declined to give money to the Discovery Institute.
Charles Harper Jr., senior vice president of the Templeton Foundation, said Discovery's involvement in "political issues" was troublesome.
"We want to advance real scientific research," Harper said. "Discovery Institute has never done - has never moved forward - any scientific research. On these deep issues, they've done absolutely nothing."
The push for cultural change has not distracted intelligent-design advocates from their core education mission: to change the way biology is taught.
The intelligent-design textbook at the heart of the Dover case, Of Pandas and People, is being rewritten and updated by Dembski and is slated for publication later this year by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, a Christian organization in Texas. It will be renamed The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems.
What we knew all along finally appears in writing. With any luck, this will be the death of ID as a challenge to evolution.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Oh if only.
quote:
Mortious must think they're pretty smart:
This just in: God discovered to control evolution, ID and Evolution theories get married and live happily ever after.Oh if only.
God controlling evolution is what ID is.
quote:
Blindy. said:
God controlling evolution is what ID is.
Shhhh..
*shifty*
Oh, if only.
quote:
Pvednes said:
How about public floggings for anyone who refers to ID as a "theory"?
BLIND HEATHENISTIC FOLLOWER OF HERETICAL SCIENCE, YOU DOOM US ALL TO THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL.
There we go.
Zaza fucked around with this message on 10-14-2005 at 06:23 PM.
quote:
Zazaing:
Liberal media bias shows its true face again.
Wait huh?
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Wait huh?
I don't really think anyone here is going to come to ID's defense, so I just threw in a quip about an actual line that ID supporters are running - that the liberal media are casting them in a bad light and "trying to make them look like Creationist Christians". Zaza fucked around with this message on 10-14-2005 at 06:29 PM.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Zaza:
Liberal media bias shows its true face again.
If by "liberal bias" you mean being biased towards intelligence, then yes, this is the work of a liberal media bias.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Noxhil2 got a good feeling!
If by "liberal bias" you mean being biased towards intelligence, then yes, this is the work of a liberal media bias.
If by you mean biased towards sarcasm, then yes, this is the work of sarcasm.
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
<Lawyer for Evolutionism> "Your Honor, we would like to call GOD to the stand..."
If He shows up, then ID wins. If He doesn't show up, the Darwin wins.
Quid Est Demonstratum.
quote:
Cavalier- enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Quickest way to settle this debate:
<Lawyer for Evolutionism> "Your Honor, we would like to call GOD to the stand..."
If He shows up, then ID wins. If He doesn't show up, the Darwin wins.
Quid Est Demonstratum.
Would he show up as a burning bush?
First burning bras....
..now burning bush...
quote:
Trillee had this to say about Captain Planet:
Would he show up as a burning bush?
If only this thread had other rules, I'd build on that :-P
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Cavalier-:
Will feminism never end??First burning bras....
..now burning bush...
Aahhaa.. funny man! 
Open my mouth and steer this thread into the wrong direction.. 
quote:
Demos spewed forth this undeniable truth:
If only this thread had other rules, I'd build on that :-P
Your fingers say no no... but your avatar says yes yes.
(Sorry... couldn't resist. I'll go back to the bu.. lurking)
Because, you know, we Catholics are a humble, sacrificing people until we're put into power...then we start the inquisitions.
quote:
Trillee was listening to Cher while typing:
Would he show up as a burning bush?
That would be cool. New elections and everything.
Oh, if only.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
It'd be nice if people could respect religion and not automatically declare religious belief and intelligence as being two mutually exclusive concepts.Because, you know, we Catholics are a humble, sacrificing people until we're put into power...then we start the inquisitions.
That's why I think a philosophy class would be good. Beyond belief, Christianity does have a reasonable philosophy backing it. The "Golden Rule" may not cover all scenarios, but no philosophy does. Helping people develop an functioning philosophy regarding how they want to live their lives could only be a good thing.
And a philosophy class is the place to do it. No one's suggesting you give communion in class. But right now, to be frank, schools pretend there IS no religion out there. Then they handle things like Yom Kippur and Ramadan badly (there was something on NPR about how there aren't allowances made for the October standardized testing for Jewish and Muslim kids in most states). And to be honest, parents may disagree on the surface but if a kid is going to rebel, better to get the religion thing under control before he ends up like that Lynch asshole.
So a philosophy class. NOT a religion class, necessarily, but a class that covers the assorted classical forms of philosophy (stoicism, etc), and also covers the broad mentality of not only the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious arc, but also Hindu, Buddhist, and eastern philosophies too. You could have frank and open conversations about the whole thing, and deal with it at that level, giving no one aspect more coverage than any other.
And it would keep religion from competing with science. The biggest problem with the Intelligent Design concept is that I guarantee you that they wouldn't talk about Buddhist beliefs (despite the fact it has some interesting implications with five-dimensional physics), Hindu beliefs (nature works in cycles, so to Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva), or the like.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
It's not something people hear about.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
quote:
We were all impressed when Brahmin Bloodlust wrote:
Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
That quote stopped being funny years ago.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Ruvyen wrote:
That quote stopped being funny years ago.
Says who?
quote:
Ruvyen obviously shouldn't have said:
That quote stopped being funny years ago.
now now... its not the funniness of the quote... but the relevance.
But now I withdraw from this thread, because I don't like dabbling in these types of threads to much.
quote:
Bacon369's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Says who?
It's been on the Internet for years. Honestly, it was really funny in Hitchhiker's Guide. It was pretty funny when people on the Internet started using it, but it got annoying after everyone started spouting "BABELFISH > GOD LOLLOL".
The joke was not only killed, it was completely annihilated.
Except that joke was never funny to begin with.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Sean was all like:
For once, Ruvyen is mostly correct.Except that joke was never funny to begin with.
Yay! 
quote:
Ruvyen thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
It's been on the Internet for years. Honestly, it was really funny in Hitchhiker's Guide. It was pretty funny when people on the Internet started using it, but it got annoying after everyone started spouting "BABELFISH > GOD LOLLOL".The joke was not only killed, it was completely annihilated.
Hmmmm .. there an official committee that decided this? I found it funny, still do, and will.
Now get the fuck out, minority, you grandma.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Trillee was naked while typing this:
Would he show up as a burning bush?
No, he will show up as an old man smoking a cigar.
quote:
Sean was naked while typing this:
We are driven by the will of the majority.Now get the fuck out, minority, you grandma.
feeble minds think alike eh? what does grandma have to do with it?
Are we not hostile enough towards these drains on society? I submit that anyone calling for the open-arms acceptance of useless bandwidth like this jackbag is a fucking Communist sympathizer and should be shot.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Where do these rejects come from?Are we not hostile enough towards these drains on society? I submit that anyone calling for the open-arms acceptance of useless bandwidth like this jackbag is a fucking Communist sympathizer and should be shot.
Like most of your posts?
quote:
Bacon369 had this to say about Duck Tales:
Like most of your posts?
Hey. Fuckwit.
This isn't a flame thread. Politics threads have enforced civility laws. Stop trying to pick a fight. That quote isn't funny anymore and it won't be ever again.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Bacon369 said:
Like most of your posts?
Thank you for proving my point. 
edit Quote added for context, way to go fucking it all up, Parcelan. Sean fucked around with this message on 10-15-2005 at 12:32 PM.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
It'd be nice if people could respect religion and not automatically declare religious belief and intelligence as being two mutually exclusive concepts.Because, you know, we Catholics are a humble, sacrificing people until we're put into power...then we start the inquisitions.
But religion and rationality are mutually exclusive concepts. Calling ID irrational, baseless, illogical, and a deliberate attempt to force religion where it has no place is not an attack on religion or religious people, but the plain, objective truth. It's not insensitive to want to preserve the integrity of our education system. It's not insensitive to expose ID for what it is: a blatant attempt to subvert the very basis of science and rationality.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
