Center for Science and Culture

In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard against creation science being taught in United States public school science classes. In reaction, the term intelligent design was coined as a substitute in drafts of the textbook Of Pandas and People, which was published in 1989, beginning the campaigning of the intelligent design movement under the leadership of Pandas editor Charles Thaxton.[5] The Edwards v. Aguillard ruling also inspired Phillip E. Johnson to begin anti-evolution campaigning. He met Stephen C. Meyer, and through him was introduced to others who were developing what became the Wedge strategy, including Michael Denton,[6] Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, with Johnson becoming the de facto leader of the group. By 1995, Johnson was opposing the methodological naturalism of science in which "The Creator belongs to the realm of religion, not scientific investigation", and promoting "theistic realism" which "assumes that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God" and expects "this 'fact' of creation to have empirical, observable consequences."[7]

In December 1993, Bruce Chapman, president and founder of the Discovery Institute, noticed an essay in The Wall Street Journal by Meyer about a dispute when biology lecturer Dean H. Kenyon taught intelligent design creationism in introductory classes.[8][9] Kenyon had co-authored Of Pandas and People, and in 1993 Meyer had contributed to the teacher's notes for the second edition of Pandas. Meyer was an old friend of Discovery Institute co-founder George Gilder, and over dinner about a year later they formed the idea of a think tank opposed to materialism. In mid-1995, Chapman and Meyer met a representative of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. Meyer, who had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science, recalls being asked "What could you do if you had some financial backing?"[8]

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, as it was originally named, grew out of a conference called "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture" that the Discovery Institute organised in mid-1995. It was founded in 1996 by the Discovery Institute with funding provided by Fieldstead & Company, the Stewardship Foundation, Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and the Maclellan Foundation.[7][8][10] The evolution of the center's name in 2002 reflects its attempt to present itself as less religiously motivated in the public's eye.[11] The evolving banners on the CRSC/CSC's website pictorially parallel these verbal efforts to disassociate the site from its overtly religious origins.[12] The "renewal" in its name referred to its stated goal of "renewing" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in religion as outlined in the Wedge Document.

An internal CSC report dating from 1998 which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID was leaked to the public in 1999. This plan became known as the Wedge strategy. The Wedge Document explained the CSC's key aims are "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

The document sets as "Five-Year Goals" "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory" and notably "To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda." This was seen in the following years, with public debates over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms taking place in many states as part of the Teach the Controversy campaign.

If the CSC's strategy is successful, within twenty years the goals are "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." The CSC has responded to controversy regarding the Wedge Document, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document..."[25][26]

CSC publishes the blog Evolution News & Science Today (formerly Evolution News & Views), which is often shortened to Evolution News (EN).

In May 2005, the Discovery Institute donated $16,000 to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and by museum policy, this minimum donation allowed them to celebrate their donation inside the museum in a gathering. The Discovery Institute decided to screen The Privileged Planet.[41] The video was also a production of Illustra Media,[42] which has been identified as a front for a creationist production company.[43][44] Upon further review, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History determined that the content of the video was inconsistent with the scientific research of the institution.[45] As a result, they refunded the $16,000, clearly denied any endorsement of the content of the video or of the Discovery Institute, and allowed the film to be shown in the museum as per the original agreement. Editorials have decried as naïve and negligent the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's failure to identify the Discovery Institute as a creationist organization, exclude the video with its review process in the first place, and identify the entire incident as an example of Wedge strategy in action.[46]

The center also funded research for the controversial book From Darwin to Hitler (2004) by Center fellow Richard Weikart.[47] Weikart claims that Darwinism's impact on ethics and morality played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.

On September 6, 2006, on the center's Evolution News & Views blog, Discovery Institute staffer Casey Luskin published a post titled "Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries". In the post, Luskin reprinted a letter from a reader complaining that English Wikipedia's coverage of ID to be "one sided" and that pro-intelligent design editors were censored and attacked. Along with the letter, Luskin published an English Wikipedia email address for general information and urged readers "to contact Wikipedia to express your feelings about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design".[48]

Most criticism of the CSC and the Discovery Institute is that the institute intentionally misrepresents many facts in the promoting of its agenda. A wide spectrum of critics level this charge: from educators, scientists, and the Smithsonian Institution to individuals who oppose the teaching of creationism alongside science on ideological grounds. The following are the most common areas in which the institute is accused of intentionally misleading:

• Teach the Controversy Mainstream scientific organizations maintain that there is no controversy to teach, in the sense that the theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community. Such controversies that do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the overarching theory of evolution, and the controversy alleged by the Discovery Institute is manufactured.
• Santorum Amendment Despite the amendment lacking the weight of law, consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy, the amendment's inclusion in the conference report of the No Child Left Behind Act is constantly cited by the Discovery Institute as evidence that "federal education policy" calls for a "teach the controversy approach."[49]
• Wedge strategy and the Discovery Institute agenda A common allegation often leveled at the CSC by critics is that it is conducting a campaign, the ultimate goal of which is to reshape American culture by influencing public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. The Wedge Document bolsters this claim. They claim that the center's dismissal of the document and strategy is disingenuous, as when the center's actions in the political sphere, such as its Teach the Controversy campaign, are taken into account it becomes apparent that the Wedge strategy is indeed being followed.
• Peer review Though the CSC often claims that articles and books asserting intelligent design are published in the peer-reviewed scientific press, no pro-ID article has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,[50][51] with the exception of the one that had been quickly retracted by the publisher. That article, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", was by the institute's Stephen C. Meyer and was published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. One month after its publication, the journal's publisher issued a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and as having sidestepped peer review (see Sternberg peer review controversy).[52]

Intellectual dishonesty, in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence; and a lack of rigor are the most common criticisms of the center.[53] Critics have also stated that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Its critics, such as Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock, and Barbara Forrest, claim that the CSC knowingly misquotes scientists and other experts, deceptively omits contextual text through ellipsis, and makes unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials.

Barbara Forrest, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and Glenn Branch say that the CSC uses academic credentials and affiliations opportunistically.[11] In 2001 the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications (The New York Review of Books, New Republic and Weekly Standard) to proclaim the adherence of approximately 100 scientists to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Such statements usually refer to the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.

Alongside the allegation that the center intentionally misrepresents facts, Eugenie Scott and other critics say there is a noticeable conflict between what the CSC tells the public through the media and what they say before conservative Christian audiences. They contend that this is a studied and deliberate attempt at the obfuscation advocated by Wedge strategy author Phillip E. Johnson.[54]

Critics can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has voiced First Amendment concerns over Discovery Institute's activities. He described the approach of the teach the controversy movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry":

"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God."[36]

In 2004, Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross published Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design documenting the history of the intelligent design movement and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture as well as critiquing ID research.[55] Forrest and Gross referred to the group as an outgrowth of Johnson's religious mission and explored its plans for "a rigorously God-centered view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism."[56]

The center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which is largely underwritten by grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups, such as Howard Ahmanson Jr., Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the Maclellan Foundation.[36][57][58][59]

Published reports place the Discovery Institute's budget for ID-related programs at over $4 million per year. The center's expenditures can be assumed to be substantial based on the scope and quality of the center's extensive public relations campaigns, materials and contributions to local and regional ID and Teach the Controversy efforts.

CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, admits most of the center's money comes from wealthy donors from the Christian right.[36] Howard Ahmanson Jr., who provided $1.5 million in funding that established the center, has said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[60] The Maclellan Foundation commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."[36] Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the George W. Bush campaign. Until 1995, Ahmanson sat on the board of the Christian reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation,[61] and funds many causes important to the Christian right, including Christian reconstructionism.

• Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

• Official website