Instead of accusations, I’m just going to tell the truth about what I experienced at the Discovery Institute’s summer program (DISP), and what I’ve observed of IDists for 15+ years, as a sociologist who has watched the IDM since 2004, when I wrote my master’s thesis partly about it. Is that ok by you, Eric? I expect push-back from you because of this, and will treat any such attempt as “sport”, ready to “play” with you, having some familiarity with the “playing field” that IDists prefer to operate on.
What I experienced at the DI has a name in psychology: brainwashing. The first day of the event, they (John G. West, among others) laid on the audience a “persecution complex”. They openly told the students that they would be “persecuted” and “treated unfairly” simply because they were researching “ID theory.” Thus, if they wanted to protect themselves in their careers, they shouldn’t let anyone know they are an “ID proponent” … until they get tenure. And they made it clear that they thought we should seek to get tenure, and then “come out” as ID theorists. These are just facts of what happened there, not “accusations”, though hyper-defensiveness was part of the rhetoric we were taught to use at DISP. It’s known in sociology as a “self-fulfilling prophecy” - IDists believe they will be “persecuted”, so they act in such a way that guarantees it in their own eyes.
What I discovered was that many Abrahamic monotheists reject the DI’s “persecution complex” and find it unjustified. That’s what this thread is about - supposed “Academic persecution of ID proponents”, so I’ll try to stick to that, after giving some of the background for this above.
It turns out I contacted Caroline Crocker, who you mentioned above, EricMH. She was quite nice in our communications and even published a shortened version of an article I wrote on her site (it’s gone now, and I’ve forgotten the name of the initiative she started, which lasted no more than a couple of years). Crocker unfortunately made a mistake and paid for it, as should have been expected. People can read more about it here: Evolution Topic: Was Caroline Crocker expelled?
Crocker’s story is consistent with what I wrote above:
IDists are “persecuted”, meaning not treated with welcome in the Academy, mainly because they have acted stubbornly regarding their “design fetish” and “design universalism”. They flat-out refuse to adapt or to change their language, even when Christian leaders reject it and have asked them nicely, gently, patiently and fairly, to either make a change or simply shut down their over-heated rhetoric.
EricMH’s claims here fit with the DI’s admonitions to be relentless in their defense of “ID as a strictly scientific theory”. The problem arises when they are unapologetic about it, even to other religious believers. That kind of language and attitude unfortunately just doesn’t suit scholarship or academic research in teams, like what anyone familiar with working in a university would understand. Since he has given up the opportunity to join the “mainstream science” community by insisting that “ID theory is strictly scientific”, as opposed to really being “theistic science apologetics”, and entering the DI’s payroll via the new Bradley Center, it’s like Dembski’s “Waterloo” moment playing on re-run over and over again.
“Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.” - Dembski (For more, see here: etmcmull - Baylor U. Demotes Intellegent Design Theorist)
Here in Dembski’s “Waterloo moment” we see again what is rampant throughout the history of the IDM; the attempt to mask “Intelligent Design theory” with the term “design”, as if “design theory”, “design thinking” and “design history” are somehow not allowed to be studied. As if they are “persecuted” by “dogmatic opponents.” Yet “design” is both allowed to be studied and even welcomed, if done properly, working within the field, rather than trying to change it into something it’s not. What is not allowed, is “theistic science” parading as “natural science”, which unfortunately is the DI’s calling card.
If an IDst can’t or won’t openly acknowledge that “human design”, which is already well-established in “design theory” (which IDists have tried to co-opt as their own; this won’t succeed, as every “real design theorist” I’ve spoken with rejects ID theory), along with “design thinking” and “design history”, differs fundamentally from a “theistic science” theory about “Divine Design” that won’t identify the (engineering analogy by Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen) “Intelligent Designer” as part of the supposedly “strictly scientific” theory, then in my view that person simply isn’t credible or being honest in public. If they try to promote “design universalism”, as EricMH does, at a public university, then they should be denied a place at the dialogue table. The double-talking between “human design” and “Divine Design” by IDists simply has to stop. There’s no other way around this, yet here we see a PhD in computer and electrical engineering trying to claim that “humans are intelligent designers”, as if the DI’s ID theory encompasses vast realms of human-social thought, in addition to the “primarily in biology” approach as Dembski clarified. This illustrates the sad reality that for IDists trained by the DISP, no boundary or limit to IDism is possible, which is why “ID theory” is appropriately labelled as “design universalism”.
Yet no, I won’t “accuse” EricMH of anything here and instead wish him well and healing from the persecution complex that he experienced at DISP. It took me a couple of years to sort through what had happened at that event, which was a kind of “ideological shock”. May God help EricMH with his humility, given the over-the-top “revolutionary” claims he is making, combined with accusations of “persecution” as witnessed here in this thread. Otherwise, all further stubborn defense of IDist ideology as “Intelligent Design science” will likely lead to frustration. It’s not “persecution”, but rather protection of academic integrity, just as Jo Ann Gora at Ball State realized, leading her to made the right decision and remove the “wedge-attempt” at her university.
