Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In my address to the West Michigan Freethought Association (see the video here) I began by describing what I characterized as the first three phases of an anti-evolution movement that began about 30 seconds after Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Those phases represented the evolving legal and political stratagies used to oppose evolution and to diminish its acceptance and influence. Phase one, which lasted until 1968, was simply to ban the teaching of evolution; Epperson v Arkansas brought that phase to an end by overturning such laws as unconstitutional. Phase two was the "dual model" approach, laws requiring equal time for "creation science" and "evolution science"; Edwards v Aguillard brought that phase to an end in 1987 by overturning such laws. Phase three, of course, was to relabel creation science as "intelligent design" and try to sneak it past the courts; Kitzmiller v Dover, though only a district court ruling, may well have brought phrase three to an end.
During the Q and A session after that talk, I was asked what phase four would look like and I answered that it will likely just be another label for the same thing, something even less religious. The anti-evolutionists have shown enormous creativity in their ability to pour old wine into new skins and hope that no one notices that it tastes the same. But what would that new label be? During the Dover trial we heard the term "sudden emergence theory" and speculated that perhaps that would be the next label used, but it appears that may be wrong. So what is the new buzzword, the new label being attached to creationism to pretend it is something other than it is? Would you believe "evolution"?
PZ Myers has the scoop on it and I think he's on to something. He quotes this statement from the contemptible Dinesh D'Souza:
In my forthcoming book "What's So Great About Christianity" I will show why, contrary to the claims of Dawkins and company, Darwinian evolution does not undermine the design argument for God. On the contrary, the latest findings of modern science have greatly strengthened that argument. Paley was right and Dawkins is wrong.
And analyzes it:
Note the sleight of hand: he's babbling about "design", Paley, the common creationist lie that modern science supports belief in God, his book is about Christianity, and he's calling that "Darwinian evolution". If you've been wondering what the new name for repackaged Intelligent Design was going to be after the drubbing it took in Dover, look no further: it's going to be called "evolution". The new textbook from the gang at the DI, intended to replace Of Pandas and People is going to be titled "Explore Evolution".
By jove, I think he's got it. Rhetorically, it's brilliant. Keep using the term "evolution" over and over again to mean something quite different from what it actually means and you will eventually change the meaning of the word in the popular culture. It allows them to say, "We're not against evolution, we're only against the atheistic interpretation of evolution", which is of course nonsense; non-atheist evolutionary biologists - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus - all share precisely the same definition of evolution as common descent. There is no atheistic interpretation of evolution, there is only the theory of evolution as common descent. And I agree with this statement from PZ completely:
It's a cunning plan to sow confusion, which is ultimately all the Intelligent Design creationists are good at. If state education standards mandate instruction in evolution and if the laws of the land make teaching Intelligent Design creationism illegal, well, they'll adapt and teach "evolution" ... it's just that this version of "evolution" flouts the ideas of experts, ignores the evidence, misrepresents the theory, and promotes a role for design in "evolutionary" history.
It's quite clever; it's also incredibly dishonest. And of course, we will be here to point out that dishonesty every time this new meme rears its ugly head.
Comments
So, how this fits into the 'Magic Man done it' theme (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMEkCHU2KtA ) will be something like "Magic man designed evolution".
Posted by: Heart | May 9, 2007 9:57 AM
It also won't work. Their entire base believes that evolution is a lie, and unless the big-wigs at the DI explain to the people who donate to them that this is all a ruse (which they can't), the creationists will never get behind it, and it will fail.
Or so it seems to me.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | May 9, 2007 10:14 AM
I'm not so sure, Ed. It looks to me that this fourth stage is not redefining evolution at all, but redefining design.
I've long noted that there are two completely different styles of design argument. One style is that proposed by Dembski and his ilk; natural processes are inadequate for explaining complex entities; therefore the entities were designed instead.
The other turns this on its head; natural processes are spectacularly good at explaining complex entities; therefore the natural processes were designed to facilitate this.
I don't find either argument persuasive; but the latter at least involves no redefinition of evolution. It is not a part of the definition of evolution that there was no God involved in setting up a world where evolution can occur.
The second style is proposed by enthusiasts of cosmological fine tuning. The natural world is so good at giving rise to complexity, by processes such as evolution just as it is conventionally defined, that a designer must have tuned the very laws of nature themselves to facilitate this kind of process. It's an argument that some deists appreciate.
I've got a couple of blog articles on this as well. I've considered taking D'Souza at his word that he accepts evolutionary biology as defined by scientists; and charging that he distorts Paley by suggesting Paley is consistent with such a view, and that he does have some common over-simplified notions on evolution. Not redefinitions, but the kind of misunderstandings to which a non-expert is prone.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 9, 2007 10:16 AM
I've seen this line from creationists at PT: it's all a lot of brown fog and word games, even more vacuous than ID, but refuting it is a rather laborious process. So yeah, I think we're seeing a new tactic here.
There's also the "look how many smart people don't actually USE evolution in their daily activities" line, of which Dr. Egnor seems to be the chief proponent (after Larry was exposed as a nutcase, that is).
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 9, 2007 11:07 AM
I agree with you: the Discovery Institute has been trying to confuse and obfuscate the design/evolution boundaries in a weak attempt to make Intelligent design sound legit. Here's a Dembski quote that I think fits in nicely with this topic:
"To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by gradual accrual of change. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved, but what was responsible for their evolution."
This is so... SLIMY!! Intelligent design proponents have been attacking the science behind evolution for years. Now, they are trying to support their contradictory theory by using evolution's credibility and the massive scientific literature behind it.
Intelligent Design is so poorly defined and ambiguous that it's easy to 'morph' when the going gets tough. The discovery institute has done it before, and they'll do it again.
(I pulled the dembski quote from this site, if anyone is interested: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/wikipedia_intelligent_design_e.html)
Posted by: Brad | May 9, 2007 11:58 AM
Stuart Coleman -
I think you would be surprised. If it was based on the assumption that your average layperson (as in theological layperson) was the only one they had to convince, I think your right. The problem is that while a good many Christians lack the background to understand and buy into it, many of their church leaders are not. Indeed, this might just turn around some of them, who have serious issues with the dishonesty of the current ID movement (my pastor among them).
Chris -
Your second style, as it were, is a pretty good descriptive of what I believe. What I find incomprehensible, is how anyone would believe that this notion belongs in the science classroom. Whether it is a belief that some God was the intelligence behind it or not, it is either a religious belief or a philosophical position - science has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 9, 2007 12:34 PM
It also won't work. Their entire base believes that evolution is a lie, and unless the big-wigs at the DI explain to the people who donate to them that this is all a ruse (which they can't), the creationists will never get behind it, and it will fail.
Oh some of them will get behind it because it sounds good to them. They don't have to know that it's a ruse. All they have to do is fall for the ruse. That's plenty good enough. But they'll keep acting like creationists, so therefore people will eventually figure out what's going on. Hell, even the Discovery Institute people themselves can't stop acting like creationists.
Posted by: 386sx | May 9, 2007 12:40 PM
Stuart Coleman -
I think you would be surprised. If it was based on the assumption that your average layperson (as in theological layperson) was the only one they had to convince, I think your right.
It also might be based on the assumption that the people who donate to the DI don't mind partaking in a ruse. I'm not so sure if that would be a valid assumption. :-)
Posted by: 386sx | May 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Can we now dare hope that the creation museum will fold sometime soon?
Posted by: twincats | May 9, 2007 2:31 PM
I thought Phase IV was when the ants take control.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | May 9, 2007 2:50 PM
Contemptible ghoul, Dinesh D'Souza.
C'mon, Ed, get it right! :-)
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | May 9, 2007 4:19 PM
Bee Raged thusly: There's also the "look how many smart people don't actually USE evolution in their daily activities" line, of which Dr. Egnor seems to be the chief proponent (after Larry was exposed as a nutcase, that is). /
Perhaps I am blinkered, but I take solice that they are resorting to such inane arguments. I doubt the good Doctor uses algebra, quantum theory, or macroeconomics much in his practice, at least not consciously. It hardly makes them untrue. And of course the big point they miss with these stupid arguments is that everything they do is consistent with these scientific theories, whether they are conscious of it or not.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 9, 2007 10:37 PM
The term is "Theistic Evolution". For example, just today:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/gop_candidate_romney_professes.php
Rgds,
-drc
Posted by: David Conrad | May 10, 2007 12:56 AM
Stuart: I have no doubt that most fundies would "fall" for it. The primary argument agaisnt evolution from the ID crowd is an argument from final consequences (evil atheism!!!). Change the consequnces and everthing changes.
Besides which, that's what memory holes are for ;)
Posted by: James | May 10, 2007 2:23 AM
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they need do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, because today they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about the contents of the so-called 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, 'according to the evolutionists,' and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Posted by: James Collins | May 10, 2007 10:09 AM
Deja vu ?? Again??
How many times has Collins' rant been posted AND refuted over the past two weeks?
I bet he's just copy/pasting and never reading back to see what the responses are.
Either that, or he's too stupid to realize how misguided his rant is... even AFTER reading up on the science we're providing.
....Nice trolling here James C...
Posted by: doctorgoo | May 10, 2007 3:30 PM
The term is "Theistic Evolution". For example, just today:
D'Souza's thing does not really look the same as theistic evolution to me. It actually sounds a lot like Hugh Ross or whoever's style of OECism, only with some terminology changes.
As for the Mitt Romney quote you provide, I can't tell if it's theistic evolution or not. Frankly it appears to be literally gibberish.
Posted by: Coin | May 10, 2007 3:53 PM
it seems the selection pressure on the creationist memes have forced them to use a form of batesian mimicry.
Unfortunately for them, there are some boundaries they can't cross; the main one being the unambiguous acceptance of the common ancestry of humans and apes. It will be interesting to watch them try to balance their attempt at mimicry and maintain the support of the YEC's in their big tent.
Posted by: Fross | June 7, 2007 10:24 AM