As the second installment of my continuing series exploring the backgrounds and positions of the leading Intelligent Design advocates, here is my exploration Stephen C. Meyer...
===============================================
Stephen C. Meyer, Co-Founder and Vice-President of the Discovery Institute, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
[Religion: Dr. Meyer is very careful in downplaying his own his own personal religious beliefs (understanding full well that this would discredit him in many quarters), and though I gave it several hours of online research I could not pinpoint his specific Church or denomination. Maybe someone in Washington State has some information to share?
Nevertheless, he is:
a) certainly a theist, as per his own comments before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_uscom.htm "I think the being was God and I think other arguments can be made for that. ... I think the best explanation is that God is the designer, but it could be different."
b) certainly a Christian, as noted by his Christian academic career in religiously-oriented schools frequent teaching of Christian Apologetics. (see below)
c) and actively propagates his Christianity, as evidenced by his work on training teachers on how to integrate Christian beliefs into their lesson plans. See, for example, President's Office
Excerpts from Mahanes' Report To The Board
http://www.pba.edu/president/htdocs/Excerptsfrom MahanesReport.htm " Dr. Meyer led a faculty workshop in which he challenged our faculty to see all of the academic disciplines through the lens of a distinctly Christian worldview. ..." &c.]
Unlike Bruce Chapman, Dr. Meyer is an academic as opposed to a politician. Further, regardless of what one thinks of Chapman's views, he has never been caught in any deliberate dishonesty (at least as far as I can tell), whereas Mr. Meyer most assuredly has (see below).
> B.S. in Physics/Earth Science, Whitworth College (affiliated with the Presbyterian Church), 1981
> Geophysicist for Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco Gasoline, now a wholly owned subsidiary of BP Petroleum) 1981-1985
> M.Phil. in the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge (UK), 1987 (including six hours of graduate applied mathematics, Southern Methodist University (TX), 1983-1984)
> Associate Professor of Philosophy, Whitworth College (affiliated with the Presbyterian Church), 1990-2002. Tenured 1996. (Courses taught included: History and Philosophy of Science, Reasons for Faith [Christian Apologetics] and Core [Western Civilization].)
> Co-founder of the Discovery Institute, Vice-President 1990-
> Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge (UK), 1991 (Thesis: "Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research.")
> Templeton Foundation Science-Religion Teaching Award, 1995. (The Templeton Foundation is a leading "Christian Science" formation and supporter of Intelligent Design although they have cut off all funding for the Discovery Institute because of its political agenda.)
> Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, 1996-
> Oleg Zinman Award, Best Essay in the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 1999.
> Co-author, DeWolf, D.K., Meyer, S.C. and DeForrest, M. (1999) Intelligent Design and the Public School Curriculum Science Curriculum.,(Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Dallas).
> Professor of the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Palm Beach Atlantic University (a Christian University) (He teaches an annual Christian Apologetics course for the University's School of Ministry, and "consults with faculties within the University on the integration of faith and learning."
> Co-author, Campbell, J.A. and Meyer, S.C., edts., (2004) Darwinism, Design and Public Education, Michigan State University Press: Lansing, Michigan.
I suppose that before we move on to Dr. Meyer's other opinions, first we should look at the "controversies" he has been involved with. First, and perhaps most importantly in that it has been repeated by elected officials and others with a vested interest in undermining U.S. educational standards is the "Santorum Amendment Deception".
Specifically, while arguing before the Ohio Board of Education, Dr. Meyer made the false claim that the "Santorum Amendment" to the "No Child Left Behind Act" [To quote: "The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment ] had passed into U.S. law and therefore that Ohio had an obligation to teach "alternative" origins theories.
This deception was caught immediately after it was made - in the same Ohio Board of Education hearing - by Dr. Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University. To quote from his "The Truth about the "Santorum Amendment Language on Evolution: The 'No Child Left Behind' Education Act does not call for the teaching of 'Intelligent Design.'" [ http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/santorum.html ]:
"During the March 11, 2002 panel discussion on evolution in front of the Ohio Board of Education, the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer claimed that two purportedly anti-evolution sentences known as the "Santorum Amendment" were part of the recently-signed Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was obligated to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. I answered Meyer's contention by showing, using my own computer, that the Santorum language was not in the Bill, a copy of which I had downloaded from the Congressional web site. The effect on the crowd in attendance was devastating. A proponent of "intelligent design" had been caught misleading the Board as to the content of the law. Ever since that day, they have been trying to pretend otherwise."
Despite being caught red-handed misleading the Ohio Board of Education, trusting in the ignorance of the American public regarding the law, the Intelligent Design movement has continued to propagate this outright - and easily proven - lie across the country as the "Teach the Controversy Campaign". Despite the fact that other IDers and fundamentalist Christian politicians have "jumped on the band wagon", Dr. Meyer's was the first to stand up before a Board of Education and mislead it. Assuming that "acts speak louder than words", this incident clearly says something about Dr. Meyer's integrity, ethics, and "Christian morality."
A similar controversy is known as the "Sternberg peer review controversy" [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy ], whereby it appears that Meyer was allowed to circumvent the peer review process allowing him to publish an article in an actual scientific publication. Another deliberate tactic to present the "Intelligent Design" case in a manner where it cannot be questioned (or cross-examined by science advocates) include efforts to testify by filing Amicus Curiae briefs with those boards discussing the ID issue [See, for example:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/dover_judge_str.html ].
As the director of the Discovery Institute's "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture", he has overtly defended the "Wedge Strategy" [See: "Transcript of Nightline Interview with
Dr. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute", released 8/11/05, on the Discovery Institute website at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=489 ] To quote notable excerpts of the strategy, as presented at:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html : [Any bold emphasis added]
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. ... Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions. ... However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. ... 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. ... Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. ...
Governing Goals:
> To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
> To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Twenty Year Goals:
> To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
> To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
> To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
While Dr. Meyer has primarily stayed focused on his Christian ID agenda, not surprisingly - as a "Senior Fellow" of a Christian think-tank, he has also expressed his opinions on other Christian Conservative issues as well:
On a woman's right to control her body:
Excerpts from " A Pro-Life Case for the Daschle Bill" (6 June 1997), The Wall Street Journal [
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1251 ]
"... If Mr. Daschle’s bill becomes law, the politics of abortion will irreversibly change. Political debate, not judicial fiat, will increasingly determine what does, and does not, justify killing a human fetus. The debate will be about how much, not whether, to limit abortion. With this in mind, the pro-life Republicans in Congress must raise their own sights and recognize how far "incrementalism" could take them on the abortion issue. ... Pro-life legislators have the votes and the political support to begin to challenge thirty years of libertine abortion policy. They should not fear short term compromises that establish long term points of principle—and create opportunities for future political and judicial victories. When liberal Democrats offer imperfect solutions to problems they have long refused to acknowledge, conservatives have made progress. Prudence dictates that in such situations conservatives first secure what has been offered and then press for more. Where abortion is concerned, conservatives have little to lose from such an incrementalist strategy, and far more to gain than they have probably imagined."
Excerpts from "Fully Formed: The Discoveries of Fetology" (1 June 1985), Eternity [
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1768 ]
" ... A recently developed science called fetology has greatly enhanced knowledge of the human unborn, and harbors an implied challenge to the legal practice of abortion. ... While advancing methods of monitoring fetal brain waves may soon allow a more quantitative verification of pain, currently available knowledge certainly shatters the popular conception of abortion as a humane and an antiseptic practice. The most common of first-term abortion, suction, systematically dismembers the child's body. The head, referred to euphemistically by the abortionist as "number one," must be crushed with forceps before it can squeeze through the suction tube. ... Such subjective reveries reveal a movement motivated not by the intricacies of individual moral calculations, but instead by the demands of personal convenience. Those who have heard the silent scream may no longer justify convenience with ignorance."
On Human Rights, presumably the same held so sacred by Bush, Cheney and freinds...
Excerpts from "Human Rights: Blessed by God or Begrudged by Government?" (27 December 1987), Los Angeles Times [
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=153 ]
"... In response to such absurd but seemingly inescapable conclusions, some have hoped that merely reiterating the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation will restore the grounds for preserving human dignity. But no doctrine can give man dignity, let alone one that is no longer believed. No "useful fiction" can rescue man from his current moral dilemma; for fictions remain useful only as long as they are not regarded as such. Even so, Judaism and Christianity do not teach that the doctrine of man's creation in the Divine image establishes his dignity. They teach that the fact of man's creation has established human dignity. Only if man is (in fact) a product of special Divine purposes can his claim to distinctive or intrinsic dignity be sustained. Indeed, if dignity is built into man by his Creator, then certain rights are "inalienable." Moreover it follows that if man's dignity is a fact of his origin, human rights are independent of his religious or philosophical convictions, just as they are independent of the state. In short, if the traditional view of man's origin is correct, people have human rights whether they believe they do or not. ... Public, and especially political, references to this heritage can doubtless offend the sensibilities of a secular age. Yet if the traditional understanding of man is correct, if it is not only doctrinal but factual, then governments can derive human rights from a dignity that actually exists. But if the traditional view is false and the modern scientific view prevails, then there is no dignity and human rights are a delusion, not only in Moscow but here in the West as well."
On George W. Bush and political honesty:
Excerpts from " What's the difference?" (21 October 2000), World, [
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1670 ]
"With two debates down and three weeks to go, George W. Bush will soon face a media disadvantage. The debates have allowed many voters to hear his words directly. But on the campaign trail, he is at the mercy of liberal journalists. To prevent the media from filtering his message, as they did in the weeks after the Republican convention, Mr. Bush must implement a new strategy. He must find ways not only to state, but also to dramatize, his message and his central differences with Al Gore. ... Mr. Bush has staged some "photo-ops" to emphasize his positions, but these events have lacked the drama and risk that demand media attention. The media can ignore a positive feel-good photo-op, but attacks require reporters to elicit a Gore reaction and then report the fight. ... George W. Bush's stump speech shows that he recognizes the need to draw sharp differences with Al Gore on the central issues of the campaign. Nevertheless, merely stating his differences with Mr. Gore will not position him to benefit from the natural conservative sympathies of the majority of the electorate. He must ensure that the electorate perceives these differences during the last weeks of the campaign. To do that, he must pierce the media's electronic curtain by dramatizing his differences with Mr. Gore in ways the media can't filter or ignore. If he does, he will win the only debate that matters."
Economic ideas...
Excerpts from "A plan for recovery of the iffy economy" (28 December 2000), Seattle Times, [
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=576 ]
"... Tax cuts now: Bush can emphasize that reducing marginal income tax rates in the past not only benefited individual taxpayers (both rich and poor), ... By stimulating growth, tax cuts have consistently increased government revenues. Ironically, Bush can argue that tax cuts may prove the best way to protect the government surplus, especially if they are combined with other fiscally responsible measures. ... Increase energy exploration: Recent increases in energy imports and energy costs have suppressed domestic economic growth. Bush should announce his decision to open a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration. ... Stop the over-regulation of business and restrain Justice Department suits. As a first clear signal, Bush should halt the government's assault on Microsoft. The stock market, and especially the sensitive NASDAQ, began its long slide right after the Justice Department's successful anti-trust suit against the software giant."
[FYI: Microsoft is a major financial contributor to the Discovery Institute: See, "Intelligent Donation?" by Farhad Manjoo, (26 August 2005), Salon.Com,
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/26/gatesfoundation/index_np.html]
"Push ahead on Social Security reform: If the next boom is to be sustainable we must aspire to reach all segments of society, not just the tech-savvy participants in the New Economy. To ensure that no workers are left behind, Bush should insist on his plan to permit voluntary partial privatization of Social Security. ... Polls suggest that many of Bush's specific economic policies already enjoy popular support. A recent Fox News poll shows that 61 percent of the public favors his tax cut plan. Many polls have shown a 60 percent consensus favoring smaller government and fewer services. Others show his Social Security plan has achieved considerable acceptance, while Gore-style environmentalism remains politically unpopular--especially during cold winters and energy shortages. ... "
