Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Michael Medved, newly named Discovery Institute fellow, lets the cat out of the bag in this interview with the Jerusalem Post:
The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
He's right, of course. ID is nothing more than a PR campaign against evolution, complete with marketing slogans and spin doctors.
Comments
Of course ID is not a theory, if it were they would have to be able to provide actual support for it. As for it being a challenge, the maze on the back of a box of Fruit Loops is more of a challenge.
Posted by: thethyme | August 8, 2008 9:44 AM
Thyme, didn't you know? The maze on the back of the Fruit Loops is a secret map the the DI Lair.
Medved never was all that smart, was he? I wonder if the DI is going to kick him out, now that he's spilled the beans - - wait, I suppose Bigfoot could always come to his rescue...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Boy, I knew that evolution was in trouble when the Discovery Institute landed such a great scientist as Michael Medved as a DI fellow. How can we mere mortals compete with such a genius? Natural selection will certainly favor him (except that he appears not to believe in it).
Posted by: Zeno | August 8, 2008 9:48 AM
thethyme: You beat me to the punch. Yes, these ID advocates need to look up the definition of "theory," because under the current one in Webster's, their's is unprovable.
Posted by: CHV | August 8, 2008 9:48 AM
Actually, if you hold your nose and go to the Discovery Institute Website, Medved is conspicuously absent from their list of fellows.
Posted by: carlsonjok | August 8, 2008 9:49 AM
DI fellow in honesty scandal!
Posted by: Rich | August 8, 2008 9:51 AM
How long until Behe walks up behind Medved and gives him the Moe three stooges style slap to the back of his head?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 8, 2008 10:21 AM
"Something ... they need to make more clear"? Good grief, has Medved no memory at all? The Disco Institute people have consistently claimed, both collectively and individually, that Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, though the more nearly honest of them had to twist the term "scientific theory" into knots to stomach making that claim. They have made it very clear that this was how they wanted it to be perceived, despite the fact that they couldn't back it up in any sense. It's just their tough luck that scientists and science devotees were not fooled by the attempt and didn't roll over.
THEY need to make it more clear? Heck, WE have been making this clear for years now while they explicitly denied it! Science mavens keep asking the DI crowd, "Where is your research?" They have had none. So it's about time that someone at the DI finally caved on at least that point; accidental or unauthorized though it may be, the honesty is quite refreshing.
At this rate, if we're lucky, in another 10 years someone at the DI will finally admit that the whole ID farce is just repackaged creationism, not science at all -- as we have known, and have made quite clear, all along.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | August 8, 2008 10:30 AM
Medved is not the first Discovery Institute person to make such a statement. George Gilder, co-founder of the DI, was quoted in The Boston Globe, July 27, 2005:
There's a good quote from Paul Nelson floating around as well.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 8, 2008 10:30 AM
I like Freiman's explanation of ID in Current Events, Conservative Outcomes the best. Freiman makes the case similar to Medved that ID is part of evolution and actually a logical jump due to such large gaps in evolution theory along with the randomness required within evolutionary theory. Yet he makes the point that ID will never be proven and we should not want it to be proven. It is the leap of FAITH that makes us Christian that God expects in his believers. www.gafreiman.com
Posted by: Pete | August 8, 2008 11:00 AM
Intelligent Design is basically an argument from pareidolia-- if it looks designed, then it's designed. Their supporting evidence for this conclusion is as follows: "Yes it is-- see? It is!"
Posted by: Gretchen | August 8, 2008 11:10 AM
...The staunch John McCain supporter has only harsh words for "fanatics."
He refers to those he claims have "manipulated" the "phony issue" of immigration that is reported to be dividing Republicans as "fringe neo-Nazi creeps, losers and demagogues."
Yes, those damn fanatics! Everyone knows that it is the evolutionary biologists who are the "neo-Nazi creeps, losers, and demagogues." Right, Ben Stein?
Medved is beyond a creep. Of course he won't criticize Israel in public. As the article states, that's perfectly consistent with his anti-evolutionary, anti-intellectual stance.
Posted by: Kristine | August 8, 2008 11:28 AM
There's Medved and Gilder, you can also add Phillip Johnson, another "founding father" of the ID movement:
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world. "
-Phillip Johnson
Berkeley Science Review, 2006
I love how a little problem with intelligent design theory is that there's no actual theory. Apparently it's on their "to-do" list.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 8, 2008 11:37 AM
It's like Christmas when the IDiots say among themselves what they vehemently deny in public.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 8, 2008 11:38 AM
And even here Medved is not being completely honest. ID is attempting to replace evolution with something--Biblical creationism couched in pseudoscientific terms. At least he is admitting to the vapidity of the movement and its ultimate doom to failure.
I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies foolish. And god granted it.--Voltaire
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 8, 2008 11:50 AM
Pete - sorry, the God of the Gaps argument is not a logical step.
Posted by: Taz | August 8, 2008 12:06 PM
Pete,
It's more than ID never being proven, it's that it can't be tested (since it invokes supernatural causation) and thus can't result from any scientific hypothesis. The design argument also results in a God of the Gaps scenario, as Taz said above - if some things "look designed," does that mean the ordinary-looking things like rocks and sand weren't designed? There would be far less conflict if people put God above all natural processes, processes that can be observed, measured, and analyzed regardless of one's faith or lack of faith.
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed.' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"
-Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision Of The Human Future In Space
Posted by: James F | August 8, 2008 12:14 PM
Back when we had no idea how insemination could result in the growth of a new human being, we many thought it a logical step to invoke supernatural intervention. Back before we understood the water cycle, many people thought the same thing about rain.
After accepting this line of reasoning for most of human history, we have now come to realize just how little invoking the supernatural has advanced our knowledge, and just how often it has been proven wrong. We have come to realize that plugging God into the gaps in our knowledge doesn't mean we know any more about a process than we did before; rather, it means we've stopped trying to learn.
Posted by: DaveL | August 8, 2008 12:18 PM
What a bunch of gibberish that was. God of the gaps indeed. Gaps that are there do not mean that they will not be filled. Cramming a supernatural explanation into the gap is just another argument from ignorance. I see no logic in that explanation.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 8, 2008 12:27 PM
I thought some scientists had provided some possible hypotheses where IDists could go off and perform some actual research. Given the money they've had available and guidance by authentic scientists, the fact they chose not to speaks volumes. Sorry I don't remember what the recommended research entailed, but I remember either Ed, PZ, or someone at Panda's Thumb publishing some recommendations.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 8, 2008 1:29 PM
Exhibit A in why ID belongs nowhere near science classrooms.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 8, 2008 1:33 PM
Gosh and golly. I knew Michael Medved was a huge planet on the "conservative" solar orbit, so to speak, but I had no idea at all, that he was a scientist! Or does the DI just pick huge planets on the "conservative" solar orbit to become their "fellows"? And is that their only qualification?
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | August 8, 2008 2:02 PM
Pete:
Why is the "randomness required within evolutionary theory" a problem for that theory?
The Ideal Gas Law relates to stochastic processes and it's no less valuable because of that fact.
Posted by: Tom Ames | August 8, 2008 2:40 PM
It is the leap of FAITH that makes us Christian that God expects in his believers. www.gafreiman.com
OKAY THANKS. HAVE A NICE DAY.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2008 2:58 PM
"It is the leap of FAITH that makes us Christian that God expects in his believers."
Ah faith. Believing what you are told because you are told to believe it. And who does the telling? Fallible humans. Demands of faith were my biggest reason for falling out with organized religion.
Posted by: jba | August 8, 2008 3:06 PM
Anne G:
I think the inclusion of Medved and other non-scientists in the DI speaks volumes about their motives. And here he is, oops, saying explicitly what was implicit in the DI's association with him - it's not science, it's politics.
Posted by: chancelikely | August 8, 2008 3:11 PM
Pete:
Why is the "randomness required within evolutionary theory" a problem for that theory?
His "randomness required within evolutionary theory" is not what you think it is. Neither is his "large gaps in evolution theory."
Think of the worst creationist "randomness" and "large gaps" arguments, and those probably will be pretty much what he's talking about.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2008 3:12 PM
Pete, you guys continuing to lie and say that there are gaps in the theory of evolution isn't going to make it true. The statement doesn't even make sense, given that evolution is USED by all of us who do biology, evodevo, biochemistry, paleobiology, stratigraphy, and paleontology every day.
I can only assume that your "gap" in a scientific theory is equivalent to an observation that the theory cannot explain. If there is an observation that the theory can't explain, then the theory is adjusted to deal with that observation if it can be adjusted (e.g., atomic theory when electrons were discovered), or it is thrown out in favor of a theory that does explain the observations (e.g., the land bridge theory that Africa and South America were once connected via land bridges being thrown out in favor of plate tectonic theory).
There are no "gaps" in evolution using that definition of "gap" (or any other one that I can think of). We have yet to falsify the theory. It works fine, thank you very much. Are there incomplete data? Sure. There ALWAYS WILL BE. Get over it. Or at least learn how science is done before you start whining about what we do (while simultaneously using the benefits of evolution research in your daily life). There are incomplete data in the theory of gravity, too. And germ theory. Why aren't you screaming about those?
If there is an observation that a theory can't explain, then we don't use that theory anymore. Incomplete datasets do not constitute "gaps" in the theory. Pretty much all datasets are incomplete. This is like ninth grade science, people. To say that there are gaps in the theory is as foolish a statement as saying that scientific theories evolve into scientific laws after repeated testing. They don't. Get over it.
Continuing to assert this foolish IDiot talking point removes any credibility you have to offer a comment on the issue. The statement is false. Let it go. If you were trying to have a serious discussion with someone about football, wouldn't you expect them to know what a first down was? Either you're so ignorant about how science is done (and about evolution in particular) that you don't realize how silly you sound, or you're lying.
If you're speaking out of ignorance, then let me help you--that particular criticism of evolution doesn't work because the statement is meaningless.
If you're aware of the falseness of the statement you made, well, ok, but we're not the only ones who know you're lying. Wasn't Jesus not particularly fond of liars? I guess disappointing him doesn't matter to you any more than the truth does.
Posted by: Josh | August 8, 2008 3:25 PM
It is the leap of FAITH that makes us Christian that God expects in his believers.
If it's a leap of FAITH, then how come you don't say:
It is the leap of FAITH that makes us Christian. We have FAITH that there is a God, and furthermore we have FAITH that it is a Christian God. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!! We also have FAITH that this God expects its BELIEVERS to have leaps of FAITH.
You make a big point out of FAITH, and then you go on with the rest of the sentence like you don't have FAITH, because the sentence would look really DUMB and LAME if you did.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2008 3:33 PM
I haven't seen it, but I'd love to know if anyone has more info.
Posted by: James F | August 8, 2008 4:15 PM
I'd like to see it, too, if someone has actually come up with a way to test the untestable.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 8, 2008 7:34 PM
It's so sad to see Christians propagating the false "Faith requires no evidence" meme. Maybe your faith requires no evidence (in which case I don't have all that much esteem for it), but don't speak for me, thanks very much.
As for Medved, I have to concur with most of the points made here: 1) that the DI would make Medved a fellow doesn't speak very highly of their purposes, since Medved has even fewer scientific qualifications than even Casey Luskin; 2) it's worse yet that the DI can't even communicate their official policy on ID to their fellows, who presumably represent the organization.
But Medved's statement is even stupider than just letting it slip that ID is meant to undermine evolution; when he says that ID is not an explanation, then he alienates a large group of people whom an Intelligent Designer is in fact an explanation of the things which evolution purportedly cannot explain. What's the point of calling it Intelligent Design if design is not the explanation that evolution supposedly cannot provide? Even when I was more sympathetic to the ID movement (sympathy which has all but vanished), I would have found this statement highly unacceptable.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 8, 2008 7:56 PM
Medved: No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true.
Aaahhhhh, now I get it! ID is just an argument ... or is it a contradiction
Posted by: natural cynic | August 8, 2008 9:18 PM
TCC "It's so sad to see Christians propagating the false "Faith requires no evidence" meme."
I'm curious, what evidence do you have for your faith? This is an honest question, I'm not trying to bust chops. I have just never met someone who says they have any, it's always "I have faith in faith", "you can't question my beliefs", "It's what I have always believed", "I get a happy feeling when I think about my religion" or some such thing that implies they never think about it, don't want to think about it or are simply relying on the fact that it makes them feel better.
Posted by: jba | August 9, 2008 12:12 AM
Look, what we can and should expect of Christians is that they be good neighbors; that they leave us alone and not to try to convert us; certainly, God forbid, that they not kill us or burn down our businesses. But we cannot expect of Christians that they change their faith.
I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: soboco | August 9, 2008 12:19 AM
Herod the Freemason quoted:
What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.
Of course! This is what Ron Okimoto at (talk.origins) likes to call the "bait-and-switch scam". The DI rank-and-file (and they are really rank) pumps up the evolution-deniers with "DI is a theory" during church sponsored meetings, and encourages the school board to change the biology curriculum. And when the board has comitted to changes the DI big-wigs come back and say "Oh no. We have no theory yet. BUT you can do 'critical analysis' of Darwinism".
Plausible deniability all the way!!
Martin
Posted by: MartinDH | August 9, 2008 11:22 AM
James F, got a solid citation for the Sagan quote? I'd like to use it.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 9, 2008 2:40 PM
James F-I don't remember what PZ and Ed recommended as far as research,but one Idiot answered; "Oh goody a real Id test. Let me go grab my crayons."
Posted by: big kahuna | August 9, 2008 3:52 PM
It's so sad to see Christians propagating the false "Faith requires no evidence" meme. Maybe your faith requires no evidence (in which case I don't have all that much esteem for it), but don't speak for me, thanks very much.
Oh his faith has evidence. If you want to say that what you have is evidence, then his faith has evidence, even though he says it isn't evidence. He uses pretty much the same evidence as you do.
Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2008 4:13 PM
Wow, 386sx, you must have some amazing psychic powers, being able to read the minds of two separate people who haven't given you any indication what evidence they have used to support their beliefs (especially when one has explicitly denied that there is any evidence to back it up)! But I'm still somewhat skeptical: tell me what I had for breakfast this morning, and I'll be really impressed.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 9, 2008 4:36 PM
(especially when one has explicitly denied that there is any evidence to back it up)!
How would they know that there is even a "faith" to have if they didn't have any evidence of it? At the very least, someone must have told them!
You guys both have the same evidence except one calls it evidence and the other doesn't.
Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2008 5:08 PM
Congratulations, you managed to miss the whole point of my comment. Bravo, good sir, bravo.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 9, 2008 5:26 PM
The other guy who said they have no evidence for their faith will agree with any evidence you say you have for your faith, and will say that your evidence is their evidence too!
Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2008 5:30 PM
Ed,
I don't have the book handy, but according to Wikiquote it's on page 50.
Posted by: James F | August 9, 2008 7:16 PM
The following is an excerpt from the Dover trial. The questions are being asked on direct examination by the lawyer for the pro-ID side. The witness is Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute Fellow. "Mr. Miller" is Ken Miller, a biologist who testified against the ID side:
Q. Sir, what is intelligent design?
Behe: Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of design in life is real and not just apparent.
Q. Now Dr. Miller defined intelligent design as follows: Quote, Intelligent design is the proposition that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been evolved and, therefore, must have been produced by an outside creative force acting outside the laws of nature, end quote. Is that an accurate definition?
Behe: No, it's a mischaracterization.
Q. Why is that?
Behe: For two reasons. One is, understandable, that Professor Miller is viewing intelligent design from the perspective of his own views and sees it simply as an
attack on Darwinian theory. And it is not that. It is a positive explanation.
(Cross posted by me from the "Raytractors" site)
Posted by: geoff | August 10, 2008 4:16 PM
In both the intelligent design argument and the "atheists can't have morality" argument, IDiots see the major defect in their argument as a virtue. The fact that they have no evidence for design is a virtue, because it requires faith, and faith is (to them) a good thing. The fact that their morality depends on "my imaginary friend told me so" is seen as a virtue, and moral systems that aren't imposed by sky fairies are seen as defective.
It's really hard to have a conversation with people whose worldviews are so bass-ackwards. Never mind expecting them to make any sense.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 10, 2008 5:50 PM