Talk:Wedge strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Mistaken Reference

Ref. #13 quotes "The objective (of the Wedge Strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate ... " and links to Darwinism: Science or Philosophy (Phillip Johnson). I don't see those words in that paper - can't find where he did say that. --BAPhilp 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was said by Johnson in an article in the April 1999 issue of Church and State Magazine, as cited by [[1], [2], [3]. I'll fix the cite. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large deletions by joshuaschroeder

Large deletions should be discussed before effectuated. It is a fundraising letter that was intended for supporters. It can be misconstrued out of context. What I added was a factual statement about what the DI says about the context of the original document and about false allegations made. What the Discovery Institute says about it, and about the allegations made by others, is very relevant and important for balancing this article. There should be consensus before such massive deletions. --VorpalBlade 01:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This wasn't a large deletion, and even so removal of irrelevent or inconsequential material does not need to be discussed beforehand. We can talk about your grievances on the talkpage and I am certainly hopeful that we will come up with a solution that is a good NPOV presentation of the material. Joshuaschroeder 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So why do you think it is irrelevant? As noted above, I think it is. If you think I made what they said sound like fact, then we can make changes to make clear that it is their explanation. You can also add what others say about it, like B. Forrest, I think?--VorpalBlade 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think much of it was irrelevant because many of the quotes seemed to be fighting against an argument that wasn't made in the article. I will consider your new additions. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding the heading is a good solution. I left out some of the text you deleted, but adding a little more is appropriate in explaining the strategy.

One of the main problems I have with this is the the Wedge Strategy doc is not the best place to find out what the strategy is. That was a fundraising letter, but the best exposition was Johnson's book with the same name. That book explained it for all readers. The fundraising doc. assumes that the target audience is sympathetic and understands the context, the means, etc.--VorpalBlade 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you here. The assumption of the target audience needs to be mentioned (as we try to in the introduction), but just because the target audience isn't vetted for public consumption doesn't mean that it isn't a good source for finding out what the strategy is. To claim this would be akin to claiming that it would be better to find out about any company or country's policy from publications that they design to be released to the public rather than through internal memoranda. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main point of the strategy as Johnson lays it out is to stop the inappropriate domination of science by the a priori philosophy of naturalism. This doesn't come out in the article. This article is really about the Wedge Strategy document, not really about the strategy. --VorpalBlade 02:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it does. The philosophy of naturalism and its association with secularism seems very clear to me. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted reincorporation

Many of the quotes used that go on in length about the magnamity of the Discovery Institute with respect to not wanting to impose ideas are a bit of a stretch from a NPOV sense. We should stick to consistent arguments that are made rather than ones that require detailed explanation. I'm not sure how one can NPOV formulate the claim that the Discovery Institute opposes the imposition of any a priori assumption while only supporting ID projects. Joshuaschroeder 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the above contains absolutely nothing but vague personal opinion. please identify policy justifications for your edit. thank you. Ungtss 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not a personal opinion that the Discovery Institute sponsors only ID scientists. Joshuaschroeder 06:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not personal opinion that princeton sponsors only evolutionary scientists, either. what relevence? reverting until you provide a justification for your gutting. Ungtss 12:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The current article contains about 33 lines that for the most part selectively quote from one DI document. The explanation contains 17 lines that explains the larger context and explains the DI's position with respect to the way that doc. has been interpreted. I don't see how that is unreasonable. I cut down the explanation section somewhat in response to your objection. I think the first 33 lines give way more time than this one document deserves, but I have not deleted any of this section (just edits for accuracy). I don't think you should take out more of the last section before reaching a consensus here, so we do not end up in an edit war.
By the way, I appreciate Joshua's changes to the intro to make the context clearer, and your header for organization is good. I think the article needs a good neutral summary of how Johnson explains the Wedge in his book. --VorpalBlade 14:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for this, Vorpal. We should be explicit though that it is Johnson's take on the matter we are trying to describe and we should also be clear that his agenda as one of the "founding fathers" of the ID movement is apparent. I don't think it is relevant to count lines in the article. NPOV does not mean equal time is necessary. You may feel that there are irrelevant statements -- if so, remove them or rework them. As it stands, Ungtss is simply knee-jerk reverting rather than trying to work here. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, VorpalBlade. Joshuaschroeder 14:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As usual, the above contains nothing but personal opinion. you are deleting attributed and relevent material without justification. justify your deletion. Ungtss 14:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justified edit

Here is the version that Ungtss likes (version a):

"...It lists examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

"It stated that, far from trying to impose its worldview on science, one of its main aims is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy on the interpretive freedom of scientists. It "rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the practice of science, and challenges "scientific materialism--the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone." It articulates a "strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate."[4]"

Here is my version (version b):

"The Wedge strategy is claimed to be an opposition to the dominant a priori philosophy and a support of the interpretive freedom of scientists. The goal of the strategy is described as "influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate".

"The defenders of the Discovery Institute point to examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations made with respect to the Wedge strategy, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state."

Now, first of all, the pronoun is not well-determined in version a. What is the "it"? Is it the Discovery Institute? Wedge document: so what? What is it? To say that one of the major aims of either the Discovery Institute or the Wedge strategy is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy is a bit misleading because DI sponsors solely ID researchers. It is important to point out that they oppose what they see as the dominant philosophy. More than this, the bit about the critique of scientific materialism is discussed above obliquely at least, but according to the wider goals of the Wedge strategy, it is only an oblique mention anyway. Johnson may talk more about scientific materialism in his book on the subject -- if so, that should be included in that bit there. But as it stands here, the mention of materialism above should suffice and it seems extremely redundant to reinclude it in the defense of the strategy. Other than that, everything else is included in a more stylized fashion, so Ungtss' objections mystify me once again. Joshuaschroeder 16:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, Vorpalblade? Ungtss 20:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Haven't had a chance to read the above carefully, or look at all the changes, but here are some observations: 1. after a quick read, the current article doesn't look too bad to me- joshua seems to have left in a lot in the explanation; 2. he seems to be making an effort to improve the article overall, rather than just deleting whole chunks with no explanation like some others have done. I don't have time at the moment to look more carefully, but I hope to. I think Ungtss makes very good points and I have found him to be very reasonable and constructive on other pages. I don't think he is being knee jerk at all. I definitely agree more with Ungtss' comments, but need more time to look at the current details. --VorpalBlade 21:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

Most of this is pretty biased, in my opinion. For example, the wedge document that is the basis for the whole thing is referenced on a man's website that is clearly against all that Discovery may be about, and, from what I've seen, largely misunderstanding them. This article does not generously provide counters to suspicion of ID and Discovery. I don't have the time go through it right now, but should someone else come across this, please provide your comments as well. I'll be back for more later.

--Swmeyer 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your vigorous denials of the obvious in your campaign to return all ID-related articles to the Discovery Institute-approved content continues apace.
The Discovery Institutes's Steven C. Meyer has confirmed the Wedge document. Phillip E. Johnson is explicit in his statements about the Wedge strategy.
This is all in the article, and well-cited with supporting links to credible sources. The article is NPOV and factual.
You may want to reconsider your own strategy here though; going to every ID-related article with an ideological ax to grind is not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia. FeloniousMonk 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's a clearly POV statement: "First, because of the Discovery Institute’s successful public relations campaign to make "intelligent design" a household word, more people now also recognize it as the religious concept of creationism." The word 'recognize' is a success term. You can't recognize A as B unless A really is B. If it's not B, you can still perceive it as B, but you can't recognize it as B. That smuggles in an endorsement that intelligent design is the religious concept of creationism, which is just obviously false. Intelligent design is a philosophical argument that its supporters try to pass off as science and its opponents try to pass off as religious creationism. I can't see how the latter could more less immoral or deceptive than the former. Intelligent design arguments are simply classic teleological arguments for the existence of God and are not based on religious premises but are based on scientific observation. Those premises then enter into a philosophical argument that, regardless of whether it's a good argument, is simply not religious creationism but is classic philosophical argumentation. This article is clearly POV until that sort of thing is removed. You can't recognize something as religious creationism when it's demonstrably false that it's religious creationism. Parableman 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"...but are based on scientific observation" Which scientific observations would those be? do you have a source for this assertion? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no motivation to provide for you sources for things that almost the entire scientific community accepts without hesitation. No one really questions the evidence that things appear to be designed. The question is whether we should infer that they are designed. It's scientifically observable that the cosmological constants are in the very narrow range that would allow for human life. It's what you conclude from that that's controversial. Parableman 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"No one really questions the evidence that things appear to be designed." No, actually the vast majority of the scientific community has rejected that the universe appears designed; the teleological argument or the fine-tuned universe argument:The U.S. National Academy of Sciences says that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" i.e; the teleological argument, are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own:[5] The same majority of the scientific community has rejected rejected intelligent design specifically: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design, 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S. at 120,000 members firmly rejects design: [6] More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes: [7]. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism like the teleological argument: [8] The National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators views design as not science but pseudoscience: [9] Given the above evidence, I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that no one in the scientific community questions the evidence that things appear to be designed.
"I have no motivation to provide for you sources for things that almost the entire scientific community accepts without hesitation." Then there's no point in your commenting here, given that I've provided ample sources that almost the entire scientific community has severe reservations over the concept of "design." FeloniousMonk 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that everyone thinks things are designed. I'm saying everyone pretty much agrees that they appear designed. Many scientists, perhaps most, don't think there's any reason to conclude that that are designed. But they certainly think there are things out there that appear designed. Evidence that hardly anyone thinks you can prove design is just changing the subject. I'm saying that everyone believes that they appear designed, not that everyone thinks they are designed. Give me evidence against the claim I made, not the one you'd prefer me to have made. Since I never said anything about ID being science, that's also a subject change. Please deal with what I said, not what you want me to have said.Parableman 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Charitably, Parableman's comments have some merit if applied narrowly to biology, where things do at least have the appearance of being designed. Dawkins recognizes this and coined the term "designoid" to refer to those things which have that appearance but are in fact the product of the mindless, foresightless process of evolution.
Having said that, the argument from fine-tuning does not fair nearly as well, as it's based on some very questionable assumptions regarding the independence of the constants and the physical (and even logical) possibility of there being different values. In addition, the weak anthropic principle suffices to refute the argument.
In any case, as Dawkins shows, admitting to an appearance does not entail admitting that things are as they might initially appear. Al 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
All I said is that a piece of evidence is scientifically discoverable that serves as the foundation of the argument. That's true regardless of whether you choose to describe it as the appearance of design. In the cosmological constant case, the piece of observable evidence is the narrow range of constants that would allow rational life. As you say, the argument faces a difficulty when it assumes that certain probabilities apply to what constants there might have been. But that doesn't deny the point that there is a very narrow range of constants that would allow rational life, and that's the observable fact that the argument starts with. This is a philosophical argument that starts with a piece of observable scientific discovery. Whether it is a good argument is up to the philosophical literature to establish. That debate is ongoing. Some of the best peer-reviewed philosophy journals have published work on that issue. There's no question as to whether it counts as legitimate philosophy. Someone in my own Ph.D. program did a dissertation on this subject, and he's gone on to a successful career. It's a legitimate subject of study that is generally considered an open enough question to have continued work done on it. Most philosophers think the argument fails, but that doesn't mean it's a dead research area in philosophy. It certainly isn't. What's clear from that whole body of work, however, is that it's not just scientific creationism, which means that those who call it that are speaking falsely. And that means that it can't be recognized as scientific creationism, because you can't recognize something that isn't true. That, in turn, means that this entry is very much POV. Parableman 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goal

Currently the article states in its lead section,

This religious goal, advanced chiefly by means of the wedge strategy, seeks to establish that life was created as the result of intelligent design.

The Wedge Document on the other hand states,

However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

and

The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds.

The ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, is therefore to replace science. It does not state what should replace science, but probably they are thinking of a form of scholasticism. Markus Schmaus 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That simply doesn't follow. What they say is that they don't want scientific materialism as the dominant philosophical assumption. Materialism is a philosophical view. It is not science. Science is a discipline, not a view. You can do science whether you are a materialist or not. Plenty of scientists have not been materialists. Parableman 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative Intro?

The first sentence currently reads: '... Discovery Institute, an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on Intelligent design...'

I propose that the introduction as it stands is overly negative, since it introduces the concept of ID being criticized in the very first sentence. A introduction written in a purely flat, factual tone would be '... Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on Intelligent design...'

Yes, criticism does indeed exist regarding the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document in particular, however this is amply covered deeper within the main article, as those who choose to read that far will soon discover. But in the opening sentence, the criticism angle doesn't feel appropriate. Comments welcome... Jgarth 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and wonder about using the term Neo-Creationist. Do any of those who wrote the wedge document, or the wedge document itself refer to themselves as Neo-Creationist or is this merely a pejorative term used by critics? If it is a perjorative term it should be removed as POV.Bagginator 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats a good point -- I don't think any of them do. Its just a pejorative term. Alethos Logos 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing pejorative about the term neo-creationist. Neo implies new or modern or recent, I trust everyone already knows what creationism means. Whether or not people like being recognized or identified as a neo-creationist is irrelevant. Mr Christopher 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another problem with the intro

This line;

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.

Should have a cite. After reading through the wedge document and the other linked information here I don't think this statement is accurate. Opposed to materialism and naturalism yes, but those who wrote the wedge document claim that Intelligent Design is a part of evolution. So they would not propose removing evolution from how science is conducted, that doesn't make sense, unless there is a cite for this statement? Perhaps change the word evolution to "darwinian evolution" or something a little more narrow than the very general term evolution.Bagginator 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, ID proponents present ID as a superior alternative to evolution, not as part of evolution.[10] And just so we're clear, those are the very same ID proponents who wrote the Wedge document.
How anyone can read in the Wedge document

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. [11]


and

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. [12]


and claim with a straight face it does not support

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.


all while insisting that ID is compatible with evolution is beyond me. Again, as at Talk:Intelligent design, your lack of knowledge of the subject is telling. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, in reading the testimony from Kitzmiller, as well as from the Kansas Board of Ed hearings, it is quite clear that IDists do not support evolution.
As for the suggestion of changing the term to "Darwinian evolution", that is simply absurd -- the other form of evolution would be, what? theistic evolution? Notice that the latter requires an adjective as it is the newer form. Wow, just like neo-creationism versus creationism....there was no need to relable creationism "paleo-creationism", was there? •Jim62sch• 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
How about Lamarckion evolution? Evolution was around prior to Darwin.Bagginator 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, you are reading your POV into the Wedge Document. Could you quote the portion of the Wedge Document that mentions evolution? If there is not citation supporting the claim
'''Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.
then that claim needs to be removed as POV. So please give me a citation, any citation, demonstrating that wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to the removal of evolution from how science is conducted and taught. If you give me a citation then i'll no longer support the removal of the word evolution from that sentence.Bagginator 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That link that FeloniousMonk gives to the Discovery Institute is very instructive in this regard. They specifically preface each use of the word evolution with the word natural, or naturalistic. They make their position quite clear that they do not oppose evolution, only the materliastic or naturalistic version of evolution. Which is why the sentence is incorrect as it is currently written. Unless someone can give a citation that shows otherwise.Bagginator 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even more instructive from the link that FeloniousMonk gives is evidence that supports my position;
This essay will examine the in principle case against the scientific status of intelligent design. It will examine several of the methodological criteria that have been advanced as means of distinguishing the scientific status of naturalistic evolutionary theories from nonnaturalistic theories such as intelligent design, special creation, progressive creation and theistic evolution
Notice here they claim to support what they call nonnaturalistc theories one of which they call theistic evolution. If you do not support changing the term to Dawinism, or Darwiniam evolution, then there should be a sentence added with this very citation that FeloniousMonk gives showing that the supporters of the Wedge Strategy believe themselves to be supporters of nonnaturalistic or nonmaterialistic form of evolution.Bagginator 01:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The most current edit represents what the proponents of the Wedge Strategy believe and I gave FeloniousMonks citation as evidence. Would could also add more citations, if you prefer, of the proponents of the Wedge Strategy talking about evolution and how they support evolution with the exception of materialistic and naturalistic versions. Also, if there are citations that have critics views which are more in line with FeloniousMonk or Jim62sch we might want to think about changing it to something else, but not before we have citations to demonstrate the position.Bagginator 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're once again failing to take into account that all ID proponents reject what they see as "unguided" evolution (IOW, the mainstream scientific view), and those that accept evolution only accept a form that incorporates their own notion of evolution that was "guided" by an intelligent designer. As long as you continue to conflate the two separate, mutually exclusive definitions of evolution, you'll continue to make this same mistake again and again. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it difficult to understand how you can agree with me and yet change my edit. You agree with me that the proponents of the wedge strategy support evolution as in "a form that incorporates their own notion of evolution" so what? The point remains that they support evolution and so the current form of the article is inaccurate and gives too much weight to your view and not to the proponents view, which it is claiming to define.Bagginator 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Note the use of the word "guided". Syntactically speaking, the adjective negates the noun in this case. •Jim62sch• 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle baseless objections and calls for cites

Bagginator has repeatedly objected to the passage "Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal." claiming it was uncited, unsupported and meant the single item "materialistic, naturalistic, evolution," not the three separate items that ID proponents reject. So, now the passage is supported by nine (!) cites. Despite originally being supported by the Wedge document itself and going unchallenged for years here, thanks to Bagginator the passage is now the most well supported sentence in the article. Perhaps overly supported.

Considering our recent experience with Bagginator at Talk:ID repeatedly dismissing all evidence while ceaselessly raising tendentious objections, I think we need to be polite but firm with how much nonsense in the form of pov campaigning the community needs to tolerate here. Arguing just for the sake of arguing when one has no real idea about the subject, dismissing or twisting evidence and campaigning off this page are all unacceptable and fall under the category of tendentious editing, disruption, and need not be tolerated indefinitely. Our patience has been worn thin by his behavior at Talk:ID and on dozens of user talk pages over the last few weeks.

While were on the subject of being knowledgeable, anyone who has read even only smattering of ID writings, not to mention the subject of this article, the Wedge document, would already know that ID proponents reject all three, materialism, naturalism, and evolution. They'd also know that there's no shortage of sources available in which they do this. We now have nine. How many more does Bagginator think we need before accepting the passage is accurate?

So, along with being reasonable and not tendentious, being current and well-read on the topic at hand is something every editor is expected to be if he's going to be participating at the intense level Bagginator has chosen to. FeloniousMonk 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the continued ad hominem let's take a look at your cites and the sentence as you wish it to be.
Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[3][4][5] naturalism,[4][6] and evolution,[7][8][9][10] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal
The first cite given, #7, says, "Darwinian evolution" which supports my initial idea of the change to Darwinian evolution instead of just plain old evolution. Your second cite makes my case again;
It would have been one thing if Johnson had raised doubts about Darwinism and then gestured at some ways of supplementing or reinterpreting evolutionary theory to take the materialist edge off. But Johnson was convinced that Darwinism had become a corrupt ideology that was being enforced by a dogmatic and authoritarian scientific elite, and that the proper course of treatment for Darwinism was not refurbishment or reformation but removal and replacement.
which clearly shows that they want to remove and replace Darwinism, not evolution, with their version of evolution. Here again from the cite #8 put the qualifier "naturalistic" before the word evolution
This may seem unfair and mean-spirited, but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age.
As a matter of fact not a single one of your cites support the notion that the proponents of the wedge strategy support removing evolution from how science is conducted and taught. They do however support that the proponents of the wedge strategy support the removal of Darwinian forms of evolution which they apparantly disagree with. But let's not just criticize your cites, let's look at what the proponents of the wedge strategy themselves have to say. William Dembski wrote here that;
Insofar as intelligent design is a theory of evolution, it is a theory of technological evolution, and technologies evolve by taking advantage of existing technologies.
Other cites can be found at the Discovery Institute which is where the Wedge strategy came from
The "all or nothing" character of Darwin's theory is often glossed over (if not explicitly denied) by many proponents of evolution. Yet, as Wolfson acknowledges, Charles Darwin understood this dimension of his thought all too well. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down,"
Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species.
In effect, Darwin invited a challenge to his own understanding of evolutionary theory. In recent years, that challenge has been taken up by the proponents of Intelligent Design, whose central argument is that the complexity of the cosmos cannot possibly be explained by the blind and purely accidental process Darwin described.
The proponents of the Wedge strategy do not want to remove the teaching of evolution as an explicit goal, but specifically, Darwin's version of evolution and the version of those who come at it from a materialistic or naturalistic perspective.
Or how about here
In contrast to earlier opponents to Darwin, many proponents of intelligent design accept some role for evolution--heresy to some creationists.
Written in Time magazine and reposted by the Discovery Institute. How much clearer can it get that support some role for evolution, just not Darwins version of it?
Or how about this again posted at the Discovery Institute site written by the Salt Lake Tribune;
Now comes a movement known as "intelligent design.
It was launched in the mid-1990s by a group of physicists, chemists, biologists and philosophers to challenge Darwin's view that everything in the natural world came into being by an undirected process of natural selection and random mutations. These scientists accept evolution within species, but believe that because of their highly ordered complexity, some things like human eyes or cells are best explained as a product of an intelligent intent.
I find it difficult to understand how you can accuse me of not being well read when it comes to this controversy and yet you are unaware of the position of the proponents of the Wedge strategy. To repeat in a succinct way, it is not evolution they are opposed to, it is specifically Darwin's version of it, or that of materialists/naturalists version that they are opposed to.Bagginator 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably because you repeatedly insist on arguing for easily disproved factual inaccuracies and operate from assumptions that fly in the face of all evidence, and you have yet to drop an issue when you've been shown to be wrong. Not to mention your proposed "leading proponents" at Talk:ID that turned out to be utterly without merit, something for which there is wide consensus on both sides.
Now you're having a go at dismissing sources of ID proponents in their own words too? By all means, please carry on. The passage is accurate, and as I've said before, there is no shortage of evidence to support it. I have literally dozens more sources when you're done with these. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Baggy, are you sure you don't mean the Sir Charles Lyell version ("The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution, were improved into those inhabiting the land"), or the Herbert Spencer version of it ("Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all")? After all, they were among the first to use the word in its current context. Darwin, who put foward a full theory of evolution noted in 1859 (drawing as do all good scientists on the work that preceded him), "At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form". Of course, there's also the comment by Edward V. Neale four years later, that, "The diversity of species has arisen by the evolution of one species out of another". So, are we talking Lyellian evolution, or Spencerian evolution, or Darwinin evolution, or Nealean evolution, or are we really just talking evolution? As I pointed out elsewhere, the need for adjectives like "theistic" or "guided" point to a very different version of evolution, not really in keeping with the scientific definition. •Jim62sch• 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This don't make no sense. Darwin founded evilution, and its all his fault. God created everything, so Darwin is just an athiest. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be about the truth (that what my user =name means by the way, my pastor suggested it). Whats going on here? Alethos Logos 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of the Wedge Strategy In Action

Should the Kansas evolution hearings be included in that section? Mr Christopher 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add it, I'm happy to discuss if anyone feels it is not a bi-product of the Wedge Startegy. Mr Christopher 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. •Jim62sch• 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV para

I have removed the following words, but am placing them here as a resource: Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism. The statements when viewed in the light of the Wedge document show ID and the ID movement is an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief.

Before someone simply reverts them back in, please consider that it is contrary to Wikipedia's goals to express an opinion on whose views have been "validated" in respect of matters of contentious political debate. The para as it stands takes a strong point of view on who is correct in this controversy. There are some other sentences that are borderline and need some cleaning up (I may tamper with some of them in a minute), but this is the clearest example. If we really must have this para, try to rewrite it so it is less POV, or find someone else who has publicly made an assertion along these lines and attribute it to them. This and other such examples are currently marring what could be an excellent article.

And before anyone draws conclusions about my agenda, I am far from being a supporter of the Discovery Institute or its strategies. Quite the contrary - I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins and have some connection with the brights. However, I don't need this article to express my point of view; I just need it to present the facts, which really speak for themselves. Metamagician3000 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some notes regarding recent changes

[edit] Lead

The Wedge document states:

  • ... 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. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are 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.

This was rendered in the lead as:

  • whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[1]

This was not in keeping with the quoted source, so I changed it to read:

  • whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by the theory of evolution, "... reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[1]

Please discuss. AvB ÷ talk 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed paragraph

FeloniousMonk restored a paragraph deleted by User:Metamagician3000 (who is currently having a wikibreak). I can see why Metamagician found this para POV so I've added the citation needed tag. I'm not sure I support the deletion but I do think that it's mere editorializing if it does not have an acceptable source. AvB ÷ talk 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FM suppplied an acceptable source (page 26 of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). I changed it to page 29 which, I think, is a bit stronger in this context. AvB ÷ talk 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban legend?

FeloniousMonk reverted this edit (without giving a rationale). In my opinion, DI are clearly (see quoted web page and the So What document introduced there) not claiming that the document itself is an urban legend. Please discuss. AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like FM's edit (which goes one step further than mine). AvB ÷ talk 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct quotes

I've also fixed several direct quotes that were off. See edit summaries. Please do not revert without reading the actual source(s). AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate material

I've reworked two instances where material was mentioned twice. If I've inadvertently lost anything, please say so or repair. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/d/Talk%7EWedge_strategy_17c9.html"