Conservatism's Unintelligent Design

[marmar]

from TPM Cafe:



Conservatism's Unintelligent Design
By Greg Anrig, Jr. | bio



Last night, PBS aired a superb Nova documentary about the Dover, Pennsylvania “intelligent design” case. My 11-year twins were as riveted as I was as the story unfolded from the suspicious burning of a student’s mural depicting man’s evolution from apes, to a school committee member’s questioning of how the high school’s science teachers approach evolution, to raucous board meetings, through the trial. Throughout, both Darwin’s theory and the arguments made on behalf of intelligent design were presented carefully, engagingly, and clearly enough so my kids (and even I) could fully understand them.

Ultimately, of course, Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design is grounded in theology rather than science, and thereby would be unconstitutional to teach in public schools. He was subsequently subjected to death threats. After the town’s voters ousted the school committee members who had tried to introduce intelligent design, Pat Robertson issued a warning: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city."

In watching the documentary, I was struck by the parallels between the Dover story and movement conservatism generally. The selling of “intelligent design,” and the idea itself, has much in common with Social Security privatization, supply-side economics, the invasion of Iraq, school vouchers, and other half-baked causes that the right has relentlessly been pushing in recent decades.



For example, central to the selling of the intelligent design idea was the creation in 1996 of The Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, initially funded by the Ahmanson family and the MacLellan Foundation (which supports organizations committed to “furthering of the Kingdom of Christ”). The Center housed and otherwise supported an eclectic mix of people, usually affiliated with universities, who in one way or another tried to come up with examples that would reinforce their claims about intelligent design.

It developed an internal game plan called the “Wedge Strategy,” which states as an overarching goal the replacement of science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” What the center was most effective at was developing a soft-sell marketing pitch intended to minimize the opposition that would arise against a creationism hard-sell. So, for example, it advocated that biology classes “teach the controversy” as a means of incorporating its attacks on Darwinism into lesson plans, rather than insisting that intelligent design replace evolution.

Basically, the Discovery Institute’s Center was in the business of marketing—not research. It had a product to sell – intelligent design -- and was focused on doing whatever it could to sell that idea. Even the name of the idea itself was changed from creationism to make it more palatable. Much like the unobjectionable moniker “Center for Renewal of Science and Culture,” later changed to simply Center for Science and Culture, which is about as perverse as the right’s Center for Equal Opportunity.

Now think about the role played by the Cato Institution and the Heritage Foundation in selling Social Security privatization. Akin to the “Wedge Document,” they developed the 1983 game plan “Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy.” For years they honed a pitch aimed at reassuring everyone that, far from phasing out Social Security, they actually wanted to bolster it. They even softened the lingo from “privatization” to “private accounts.” When confronted with fundamental flaws with the concept, such as the massive additional federal debt it would create while imposing added risks on Americans, the think tanks came up with lame excuses while steaming full speed ahead with the same ill-conceived idea that would advance their broader agenda. Just as some intelligent design advocates outright lied in saying religion had nothing to do with their motivations, many privatization advocates lied in saying they wanted to strengthen Social Security.

One other parallel: at the end of the Nova program, Judge Jones said that the debate over the teaching of evolution in the schools will continue for generations to come, despite the one-sidedness of the factual evidence against “intelligent design.” So, too, the debate over the other lame-brained agenda items of the well-financed, relentless conservative movement.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/nov/14/conservatisms_unintelligent_design