Chapter I

Signaling perhaps the belief that their ID wave was quickly cresting to swamp evolutionary dogma once and for all, Johnson had begun a “Weekly Wedge Update” at the Access Research Network to chronicle relevant episodes—the “wedge” metaphor relating to the most current of his books, Johnson (2000a) on The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism, as well as the Wedge campaign metaphor at the Discovery Institute.

Mindful of every media account of their activities, the 7 May 2001 Weekly Wedge installment, Johnson (2001b), alerted followers to a CNN (2001) broadcast:

The big news this week was the CNN telecast overnight on May 3, on their CNN Newsroom Series show that is used in many public and private school classrooms.

The 7-minute segment (see transcript) featured the exposure of the peppered moth story and the faked Haeckel embryo drawings by Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution. The segment began with an interview with Joe Baker, a high school senior who has become skeptical of evolution and wants his school board to put labels in the textbooks warning students about the errors.

Tom Flannery (2001) also riffed off the CNN interview in a piece at the Amy Foundation (an organization devoted to presenting biblical truth to the secular world), noting that although “Baker admits that he is a Christian who believes in the biblical account of creation,” he was being falsely accused of “trying to sneak creationism into the public schools through the back door.” Baker only wanted “the evidence they have to be taught honestly,” quoted Flannery. And thus it must be so. Though whether Flannery was all that keen on recognizing evidence that fell outside his Kulturkampf framework is debatable: for World Net Daily a decade later (ironically enough, an April 1st posting) Flannery (2012) staked out a very wide perimeter cordoning off what he deemed to be leftist pseudoscience: evolution, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, global warming, birth control and green energy.

The presumption that Wells’ claims about textbook inaccuracies were in fact up to snuff may take a back seat at this point to focus on Joe Baker, and how the ID conception of evidence related to what Baker was doing in the Pennridge school district. Two weeks later Johnson (2001c) took up the Baker case again:

Since the publication of his splendid book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells has emerged as a popular lecturer. So far this month he has spoken to a large audience at the University of Washington, addressed a workshop on family issues in Washington, D.C., and lectured on the “icons” at Pennridge, Pennsylvania, where a high school senior named Joe Baker has been getting national media attention for challenging the errors in the biology textbooks.

Baker’s proficiency at repeating the arguments of Icons rendered him a mere appendage as Wells’ argument made headway—nothing else was offered about what young Baker thought on other points, or whether there were broader cultural factors going on behind the ID postcard. As if rearranging the same talking points somehow upped the wattage of the ID searchlight, Johnson returned to Joe Baker for his third (and final) time on 11 July, ending up sounding not unlike the creationists of Edwards v. Aguillard complaining of their not being given a fair chance at bat:

Today the Pennsylvania state House Education Committee is holding hearings on proposed new science education standards governing (among other things) the teaching of evolution. For the most part the standards are conventional. Students are to learn about natural selection, mutation and recombination, fossil evidence, the progression from early hominids to modern humans, and so on. Nothing to upset Darwinists in that. But there are two specific provisions to which Darwinist science educators are fiercely opposed.

First, teachers and students are supposed to Analyze evidence of fossil records, similarities in body structures, embryological studies and DNA studies that support or do not support the theory of evolution. Second, they are to Analyze the impact of new scientific facts on the theory of evolution. Either of these might open the way for critical thinking about evolution, rather than the desired passive acceptance of whatever is in the textbooks. After all, an intrepid Pennsylvania high school student named Joe Baker has been publicizing the textbook errors described by Jonathan Wells in his book Icons of Evolution. [See the Wedge Weekly Update for May 7, 2001.] Much of the public is suspicious of the expansive claims that are made for the creative power of natural selection, and the scientific materialists are pulling out all the stops to make sure that those suspicions are never given a fair hearing. Johnson (2001d).

Here Baker appeared as a supportive chip in what had now turned into a legislative game, where the stakes were much higher.

A comparison by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (2000) of the 1998 Pennsylvania standards with the proposed revisions showed a lot of tactical terminological insertions, especially “analyze”—as in “Analyze the impact of new scientific facts on the theory of evolution.” Though references to radioactive dating and plate tectonics remained in place, another of the insertions was to “Analyze the Big Bang Theory’s use of gravitation and nuclear reaction to explain a possible origin of the universe,” Pennsylvania State Board of Education (2000), suggesting the revisionists were homing in on selected hot spot target phrases rather than comprehensively weeding out troublesome naturalistic sore spots.

Which only highlighted the unspoken methodological concern: what would be the content of all that analyzing? Supporters of the changes were not always reticent about what they had in mind, as covered by Pamela Winnick (2000a) for the Post-Gazette. Diane Snyder, vice president of the Butler Area school board declared: “Our demographics are very Christian-oriented. Why shouldn’t we teach creationism in addition to evolution?” And Dennis Wert, chairman of the Creation Science Fellowship in Pittsburgh: “All we’re trying to do is raise legitimate problems with the standard model [of evolution] and suggest that the dating of the Earth is not as precise as [evolutionists] believe.” Not that Wert (1998) would stop at just dating the Earth: there’s the age of the Universe, and the reality of the Flood, and any aspect of human history that failed to reflect his YEC beliefs, while were about it.

Even Phillip Johnson could have known what was going on here, though, since his own reference to the “proposed new science education standards” contained a link to exactly one resource: GetEquipped.org. Johnson did not elaborate on what pot of gold was to be found at that Internet rainbow (perhaps he never bothered to look)—nor did Winnick in her article when she mentioned the website when interviewing its operator, Steve Sobek. As of 2014 this was a dead address, but fortunately my practice of making hard copies of website content allows me to share with you the “Purpose Statement” of GetEquipped (2001a), including their dire tidings about certain (conspicuously unnamed) opponents:

Welcome to GetEquipped.org. This web site is an outreach of the Pittsburgh-North chapter of Citizens for Excellence in Education, which is based in Gibsonia, PA. Our site will help you find tons of information and resources that will help you protect and nurture the minds of your children in a society that is often hostile to a Christian world view.

Whether your child attends public school, private school, or is homeschooled, there is something here for you. Though we sell nothing ourselves, this site has links to all of your favorite Christian sites (like Focus on the Family), and important education sites where books, audiotapes, and videos can be ordered.

The information that you find here will not only help you with your children, but will also equip you to make a positive impact on our society. Whether you’re writing a newspaper editorial, conversing with elected representatives or school personnel, these resources will help you better articulate your position.

Several national organizations, as well as the national news media, try to intimidate Christians and dissuade them from exercising their rights as citizens of this country. These groups sometimes claim to be champions of tolerance and ardent proponents of diversity, but in practice they only tolerate those who agree with them and viciously attack those with oppositional points of view. When other minority groups, including other religious groups, express a concern, they appropriately support their right to be heard and they encourage sensitively and tolerance. On the other hand, when a Christian expresses a concern, say with curricula in a public school, immediately the compassion and tolerance disappears. Rather than rationally discussing the issues, they try to intimidate the Christian into silently acquiescing. An alert goes out to warn the community that, “Christians are trying to force their agenda on public schools.” It seems that non-Christian views are welcome are welcome, but Christians are treated like lepers or nonentities, that must be shunned and silenced. Although the courts have ruled that public schools are to be neutral toward religious views, some believe that neutrality is best exercised with rapid animosity and they insist that Christian views have no place in the public square.

Don’t allow these groups to silence you. Christians are citizens and taxpayers like everyone else. If you click on “Links to the best Christian web sites,” you will find links to legal organizations like the Rutherford Institute and Home School Legal Defense Organization. Don’t hesitate to seek legal advise [sic] from them. These groups are more than willing to defend religious liberties protected by our constitution.

Christians are also humans and make mistakes. Sometimes they have good ideas and sometimes bad. But school officials should have an open ear to your concerns and should not pre-judge you because of your religious background. Your suggestions should be heard and evaluated like those of anyone else—they should be judged by the legitimacy of your arguments.

Always be courteous and respectful of school officials, politicians and even those who disagree with you. Be well informed. Know the facts. Never allow yourself to be dragged down to the level of those who try to oppose you with methods like ridicule and personal attacks. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. Behave in a way that allows others to see the love of Christ in you.

I hope that these suggestions and the resources on this web site will be helpful in that endeavor. Now go back to our home page and start getting equipped.

Disclaimer—GetEuipped.org does not necessarily agree with every position held by many organizations that can be accessed through this site.

A bundle of mixed messages were conveyed in this extraordinary and revealing polemic. By referring to “other religious groups” only in relation to their opponents and reserving the adjective “Christian” exclusively for their audience, GetEquipped was playing into the false impression that their views represented Christianity (an attitude that crops up in school board and legislative battles where Christian opponents of creationism or Intelligent Design are accused of being non-Christian or even atheists). At the same time, the seemingly generous appeal to “Know the facts” presupposed that any of the resources they recommended were actually conveying facts to be known—and which their own disclaimer disingenuously belied (though GetEquipped was too vague on content to tell what positions they might agree with or not)—or whether those resources could prepare antievolutionist followers to accept any judgment on “the legitimacy of your arguments” that disagreed with them.

“Creationists will need to help equip science teachers who are not aware of the evidence against evolution,” GetEquipped (2001b), and should the revised standards pass, “we will need to contribute books and video to public school teachers so they are aware of the evidence against macro-evolution.” GetEquipped suggested Wells’ new Icons of Evolution, showing not the slightest inclination to critically analyze its content (or link to any resources likely to do that). Icons may have been just a fortuitous nod to the flexing design movement, since Steve Sobek (1998) showed no awareness of any ID resources when proposing “Students should be familiar with the scientific rebuttals to evolutionary arguments in the fields of paleontology, homology, vestigial organs, embryology, thermodynamics, and molecular biology.” The inclusion of the YEC favorite of thermodynamics was not unexpected given that “informative web sites that deal with origins are www.icr.org and www.AnswersInGenesis.org” (no Discovery Institute!) and Sobek’s “Suggested reading” consisted solely of Jonathan Sarfati’s Refuting Evolution, with Of Pandas and People the single “Suggested supplemental text to help educators” in their task.

The fully creationist roots of Sobek’s thinking governed the 2001 website Phillip Johnson was implicitly recommending. A whole page was devoted to David Menton of the Missouri Association for Creation, GetEquipped (2001c). Menton (1991) on “Teaching Origins in Public Schools” disingenuously recommended “that Biblical creation not be taught in our public schools” for two reasons: that supernatural interventions are “outside the scope of the scientific method” and evolution is “the only explanation for origins currently being seriously considered within the ‘mainstream’ of science.” Menton didn’t note a third more telling reason: that Edwards v. Aguillard rendered that approach unconstitutional. But Menton went on to repeat the varied creationist arguments against evolution, meaning that any “critical analysis” of the subject relying on him for guidance would only be teaching creationism by subterfuge. Menton’s own article linked directly to the 1998 Creation Science website (still operating at www.bestbiblescience.org) where one can find further YEC nuggets like Jason Browning (1997) offering a single page of “World-wide Flood Evidence” without a source to check in sight. Menton’s oft-cited Kulturkampf take on Inherit the Wind was on the GetEquipped list as well (noted back in section 1.6), along with pieces on “What about those ape-men?” and “Dating methods and the age of the earth.” A blatant scholarly warning flag regarding reliability would be the Menton (1991; 1994) articles GetEquipped explicitly offered, spooling out the monotonous creationist litany of authority misquotes rather than honestly addressing the relevant data directly, including the hoary Gould “trade secret of paleontology” statement (covered back in section 1.3).

With blithe disregard for the headaches they were proposing for dedicated teachers striving to present factual topics with as little classroom fireworks as possible, a sidebar on the Menton page at GetEquipped (2001c) advised:

This page provides links to several short articles that are very well written and understandable to the average parent. You should print these and mail them to your child’s science or history teacher. Don’t mail them all at once. Perhaps one a week would increase the chances of them being read. Be patient with teachers. They’ve probably been indoctrinated in evolution ever since their youth. They never new [sic] that cogent, scientific rebuttles [sic] existed. It will take time for them to realize that evolution is a false religion that has been disguised as a scientific theory. Send us an e-mail to let us know what you think of Dr. Menton’s articles.

But would any amount of time be enough for a science or history teacher to explain to a parent reprinting Menton’s articles (or any of the material at the creationist sites) what was wrong with it? The very fact that such information was circulating (and continues to) meant that believers in it weren’t going to be giving up on it. That’s what “critical analysis” means in the real world of antievolutionary thinking, which Intelligent Design promoters like Phillip Johnson do not get to because they don’t get to it. A happy link to operations like GetEquipped is sufficient to exhaust their scholarly curiosity.

And lest we forget, there is GetEquipped’s parent organization to consider. Founded by Robert Simonds (noted in section 1.6 above regarding the Vista, California case and the idea that Creation Science could be taught in public schools despite Edwards v. Aguillard), it was carefully named to sound as innocuous as possible for outsiders, and remains active as Citizens for Excellence in Education (2013), albeit with its sails well-stowed to avoid disclosing what resources might be mailed off to educators these days. They have still earned their Kulturkampf cred at Conservapedia (2013i) though: “a conservative religious organization dedicated to restoring classroom prayer and public school bible reading, banishing sex education, and stopping ‘the homosexual/lesbian invasion’ in public education.”

All of which does put something of a “you’ve got to be kidding” damper on Michael Behe’s letter of recommendation Johnson (2001d) quoted: “I strongly support the proposed changes in the Pennsylvania Department of Education science and technology education standards,” which Behe insisted simply injected a healthy skepticism into teaching about evolution. Behe concluded:

I realize that you are receiving much mail opposed to the proposed changes, from people concerned that the revised standards are a “smokescreen for creationism.” In my opinion that is patently untrue. But even if it were true, opposing critical thinking in science class is a dangerous, emotional overreaction that threatens to throw the baby out with the bath water. One simply must not discourage students from asking questions simply because they might ask the “wrong” questions, or draw the “wrong” conclusions. Science can tolerate wrong thinking; it can’t tolerate putting limits on thinking.

But this wasn’t a proposal to loosen up debate at some science convention or technical journal, but whether the standards for what constituted sound evidence were to be relaxed for the purpose of school teaching, opening up a very squirmy worm can whereby students and teachers would be invited to thrash out controversies in lieu of learning about the current state of scientific thinking—or rather, issues certain interest groups deemed to be controversies, on their terms, with their “evidence” (courtesy of the likes of creationists Menton and Sarfati, however much Behe might not have wanted to ponder where Johnson’s Weekly Wedge fossil link actually led to).

After opposition from science educators, and despite Michael Behe throwing his weight into the ring, the State Board of Education rejected the revisions, Winnick (2001a-b) and PADNET (2001).

Just what could have gone wrong with the proposal of the Pennsylvania chapter of Citizens for Excellence in Education was noted by Judith Weis (2001), President of the American Institute for Biological Sciences, in an editorial for their BioScience journal: “Controversy over Evolution Is Not Scientific—It’s Political.” It was evolution alone that was singled out for this obligation to have evidence presented for and against it, after all, and Weis raised this counterpoint: “Imagine if physicists had to give evidence ‘for and against the theory of gravity’!” For Weis, the choice of target and the terminology of the Pennsylvania proposal represented “merely a code phrase that opens the door to teaching creationism.”

However much a conventional scientist protested that there was no substantive evidence against evolution or gravity (or heliocentrism, while we’re about it) in the way the ideologue might desire it, the opponent can always take this as further confirmation of how the evolutionists or gravity-mongers (or moving earthers) had barricaded the doors against open-minded inquiry. Aren’t they afraid to teach the controversy, or hear those many questions that Behe would (from a safe distance) encourage them to ask, right or wrong, with no concern about the potentially flaring tempers as the school system is ordered to pay attention to issues guaranteed to inflame just about everybody’s religious or scientific sensibilities?

This is exactly the tack Phillip Johnson (2003) took at Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint (the venue again showing the Kulturkampf frame for who the target audience was in all this), affirming apropos evolution education “that the public’s suspicions are soundly based upon fact” which he framed exclusively within the ID talking points (micro-evolution only, fossil record inadequacy, and embryological misrepresentations) resting squarely on the foundation of Icons of Evolution. Johnson concluded with this populist appeal:

We know that in any fair and open-minded consideration, the Darwinian alternative to design will collapse of its own inadequacies. The Darwinists know that too, and that is why they fought so desperately against the Santorum amendment.

The public can be sure that we in the intelligent design movement are right, and the Darwinists are wrong, just by thinking about why the Darwinists are afraid to allow the real issues to be discussed even in the controlled environment of a science classroom. If the Darwinists had the evidence on their side, they would not be so fearful of what will happen if students learn to distinguish philosophical claims that are made in the name of science from testable theories. They would not fear allowing students to ask questions and become informed participants in public discussions regarding the theory of evolution. The party that has the evidence to back its case is never afraid of a fair hearing. That is why the Darwinists are afraid of freedom, and we are not.

As someone who has been told by Johnson what it is I am supposed to have in my own head as a belief (at the Whitworth Creation Week), I get a tittle bilious at Johnson’s willingness to define both sides of a dispute on his terms. But behind this assertion lay an obvious parallel that Johnson refused to consider: couldn’t the creationists back in Edwards v. Aguillard have said exactly the same thing regarding the strength of their argument—in fact, they did, as we saw in section 1.6 above, and remain so, such as Jon Dougherty (2001) editorially wondering “What do evolutionists fear about creationism?” at WorldNetDaily, or Henry Morris (2002, 3) sounding so much like Phillip Johnson in divining what motivates evolutionists: “Why are they so fearful of creation science? The obvious answer is that they are men and women of strong faith in evolution, but that it is a religious faith, not able to overcome the waves on the sea of scientific facts that support creation.”

And, just as in the Balanced Treatment case twenty years earlier, no one in the defense of the Santorum amendment approach ever explained what the standards of evidence and proof were to be, apart from apparently the a priori rejection of natural explanations for natural phenomena. The Pennsylvania antievolution lobbyists were still drawing on the parochial presentations of Young Earth Creationists, only this time poking them through the Intelligent Design curtain first, where proponents like Johnson and Behe could do their public relations for them, restricting everything to the Darwin’s Black Box and Icons talking points. Like John Robbins fifteen years earlier regarding the Bible-free veneer on the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act (section 1.6 above), Carl Wieland (2002b) at AiG had similar misgivings about the refreshed ID approach, since it “would preclude public expression of support” for Biblical authority (the only thing that really matters in the end for doctrinal creationists).

In the Breakpoint piece Johnson let slip that he knew full well just who might be shuffling around behind the drapery, regarding his advice that school boards and administrators should stick precisely to the language of the Santorum amendment (which he had drafted):

Well-meaning citizens sometimes think that this language does not go far enough, and so they insist on petitioning the authorities to give classroom time to some theory other than evolution. This is a mistake, because whatever they say just gives biased journalists something to ridicule and distort.

Whatever could he be referring to here if not the strenuous lobbying of Young Earth Creationism? Simultaneously acknowledging the 800-lb. gorilla in the room, while wanting them to stay back in the shadows and listen to their betters without making a fuss—not because what they might be saying wasn’t true or maybe even a bit scientifically questionable, but only that “biased journalists” might “ridicule and distort” their beliefs.

At this moment Johnson was operating fully in the new disingenuous ID mode, as a de facto stalking horse for Young Earth Creationism, where you can be an opponent of evolution without having to abandon your YEC beliefs—just stick to our script, hunker low, and everything will be just fine. No matter what you say or believe or do, no one at the Discovery Institute is ever going to even mention it, let alone criticize you for it. Just make sure you do it behind the scenes.