CHALLENGING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
RECONCEPTUALIZING THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE FROM A COMMUNICATIONS PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/eph.v19i1.73Keywords:
humanism, science, religionAbstract
In this analysis I argue that the Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design’s primary advocate, is more appropriately conceived of as a think-tank, and I attempt to broaden the discussion by identifying issues left unexamined when Intelligent Design (ID) is challenged as a scientific theory or treated as a sectarian religion. I propose an analytic framework that can be deployed to provoke controversy about ID by those who seek to protect society from the penetration of religious ideology into secular institutions. Using concepts from Actor Network Theory (ANT) enhanced with theoretical insights from public relations and risk communications, I argue that the Discovery Institute’s communication strategies include attempts to disrupt the translation of evolution into education and the cultural arena by establishing public trust using appeals to religion and morality, and exploiting anti-science sentiments.
References
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. 2002. The key to success in innovation part I: The art of intéressement. International Journal of Innovation Management 6 (2): 187- 206.
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. 2002. The key to success in innovation part II: The art of choosing good spokespersons. International Journal of Innovation Management 6 (2): 207-225.
Bhattacharjee, Y. 2010. NSF Board draws flak for dropping evolution from Indicators. Science 328 (April 9): 150-151.
Botan, C. & Taylor, M. 2004. Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communications 54 (4): 645-661.
Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, ed. Law, J., 196-223. London: Routledge.
Condit, C. M. 1998. The rhetoric of intelligent design: Alternatives for science and religion. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 1 (4): 593-602.
Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why evolution is true. New York: Penguin Group.
Coyne, J. A. 2010. NCSE becomes BioLogos. Retrieved from http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/.
Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth. New York: Free Press.
Discovery Institute. 1999. The Wedge. Retrieved from http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 .1987. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=578.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578. 1987). Affidavit of Dean Kenyon. Retrieved from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=97.
Forrest, B. 2008. Still creationism after all these years: Understanding and counteracting intelligent design. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48 (2): 189-201.
Gallup, Inc. 2010. Four in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx.
Giere, R. 2008. Cognitive studies of science and technology. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 259- 278. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holdon, M. 2010.. God did not create the universe, says Hawking. Reuters, September 2. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-britain-hawkingidUSTRE6811FN20100902.
Holton, G. 2004. Robert K. Merton. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148 (4): 505-517.
Homchick, J. 2007. Imitation, intelligent design and the case of Pandas and People. Conference Papers – National Communication Association: 1-23.
Johnson-Sheehan, R. and L. Morgan .2008. Darwin’s dilemma: Science in the public forum. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 38 (1): 53-73.
Kidd, A. . The limits of dissensus: The case of “intelligent design.” In Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, ed. H. V. Hansen, et. al.Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2007. CD-ROM.
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing science: The case against creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
Krauss, L. 2008. Fake debate. Index on Censorship 37 (4): 82-87.
Kuhn, T. 1977. Second thoughts on the paradigms. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change ,293-319. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2005. Introduction: How to resume the task of tracing associations. In Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory 1-17. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. 2008. A textbook case revisited – knowledge as a mode of existence. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 33-62. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf.
Law, J. 2009. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. Turner, B., 141-158. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Leiss, W. 1995. “Down and dirty:” The use and abuse of public trust in risk communication. Risk Analysis 15 (6): 685-692.
Leiss, W. 2004. Effective risk communication practice. Toxicology Letters 149: 399–404.
Lewens, T. 2005. Realism and the Strong Program. British Society for the Philosophy of Science 56:559–577.
Lyne, J. 2005. Science controversy, common sense, and the third culture. Argumentation and Advocacy 42: 38-42.
Myers, P. Z. 2010. The battle over NCSE. Retrieved from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/the_battle_over_ncse.php.
National Center for Science Education 2010. Webcast: Evolving Christianity. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/news/2010/11/webcast-evolving-christianity-006330.
Park, H. J. 2001. The creation-evolution debate: Carving creationism in the public mind. Public Understanding of Science 10: 173-186.
Pigliucci, M. 2010. Science by think tank: The rise of think tanks and the decline of public intellectuals (excerpt from Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk). Skeptic 16 (1): 19-27.
Rosenhouse, J. and G. Branch 2006. Media coverage of “intelligent design.” BioScience 56 (3): 247-252.
Ruse, M. 1998. Response to the commentary: Pro judice. In Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, ed. Curd, M. & Cover, J., 54-61. New York: W. W. Norton & Company (Original work published 1982).
Scott, H. 2007. Stephen Jay Gould and the rhetoric of evolutionary theory. Rhetoric Review 26 (2): 120-141.
Stewart, N. 2007. Resistance to social movements: The potential of inoculation to aid oppositions. Conference Papers – National Communication Association: 1-19.
Williams-Jones, B. and J. E. Graham. 2003. Actor-network theory: A tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genetics and Society 22 (3): 271-296.
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. 2002. The key to success in innovation part II: The art of choosing good spokespersons. International Journal of Innovation Management 6 (2): 207-225.
Bhattacharjee, Y. 2010. NSF Board draws flak for dropping evolution from Indicators. Science 328 (April 9): 150-151.
Botan, C. & Taylor, M. 2004. Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communications 54 (4): 645-661.
Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, ed. Law, J., 196-223. London: Routledge.
Condit, C. M. 1998. The rhetoric of intelligent design: Alternatives for science and religion. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 1 (4): 593-602.
Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why evolution is true. New York: Penguin Group.
Coyne, J. A. 2010. NCSE becomes BioLogos. Retrieved from http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/.
Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth. New York: Free Press.
Discovery Institute. 1999. The Wedge. Retrieved from http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 .1987. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=578.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578. 1987). Affidavit of Dean Kenyon. Retrieved from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=97.
Forrest, B. 2008. Still creationism after all these years: Understanding and counteracting intelligent design. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48 (2): 189-201.
Gallup, Inc. 2010. Four in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx.
Giere, R. 2008. Cognitive studies of science and technology. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 259- 278. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holdon, M. 2010.. God did not create the universe, says Hawking. Reuters, September 2. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-britain-hawkingidUSTRE6811FN20100902.
Holton, G. 2004. Robert K. Merton. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148 (4): 505-517.
Homchick, J. 2007. Imitation, intelligent design and the case of Pandas and People. Conference Papers – National Communication Association: 1-23.
Johnson-Sheehan, R. and L. Morgan .2008. Darwin’s dilemma: Science in the public forum. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 38 (1): 53-73.
Kidd, A. . The limits of dissensus: The case of “intelligent design.” In Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, ed. H. V. Hansen, et. al.Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2007. CD-ROM.
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing science: The case against creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
Krauss, L. 2008. Fake debate. Index on Censorship 37 (4): 82-87.
Kuhn, T. 1977. Second thoughts on the paradigms. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change ,293-319. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2005. Introduction: How to resume the task of tracing associations. In Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory 1-17. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. 2008. A textbook case revisited – knowledge as a mode of existence. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 33-62. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf.
Law, J. 2009. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. Turner, B., 141-158. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Leiss, W. 1995. “Down and dirty:” The use and abuse of public trust in risk communication. Risk Analysis 15 (6): 685-692.
Leiss, W. 2004. Effective risk communication practice. Toxicology Letters 149: 399–404.
Lewens, T. 2005. Realism and the Strong Program. British Society for the Philosophy of Science 56:559–577.
Lyne, J. 2005. Science controversy, common sense, and the third culture. Argumentation and Advocacy 42: 38-42.
Myers, P. Z. 2010. The battle over NCSE. Retrieved from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/the_battle_over_ncse.php.
National Center for Science Education 2010. Webcast: Evolving Christianity. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/news/2010/11/webcast-evolving-christianity-006330.
Park, H. J. 2001. The creation-evolution debate: Carving creationism in the public mind. Public Understanding of Science 10: 173-186.
Pigliucci, M. 2010. Science by think tank: The rise of think tanks and the decline of public intellectuals (excerpt from Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk). Skeptic 16 (1): 19-27.
Rosenhouse, J. and G. Branch 2006. Media coverage of “intelligent design.” BioScience 56 (3): 247-252.
Ruse, M. 1998. Response to the commentary: Pro judice. In Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, ed. Curd, M. & Cover, J., 54-61. New York: W. W. Norton & Company (Original work published 1982).
Scott, H. 2007. Stephen Jay Gould and the rhetoric of evolutionary theory. Rhetoric Review 26 (2): 120-141.
Stewart, N. 2007. Resistance to social movements: The potential of inoculation to aid oppositions. Conference Papers – National Communication Association: 1-19.
Williams-Jones, B. and J. E. Graham. 2003. Actor-network theory: A tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genetics and Society 22 (3): 271-296.
Published
2013-10-09
Issue
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Shellska, C. M. (2013). CHALLENGING INTELLIGENT DESIGN: RECONCEPTUALIZING THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE FROM A COMMUNICATIONS PERSPECTIVE. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, 19(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1558/eph.v19i1.73
