How is misinformation spread about intelligent design? In some cases, it’s a simple pathway going from lawyers working with the NCSE and ACLU right into the willing hands of the media.
First, attorneys cooperating with the NCSE and ACLU during the Kitzmiller v. Dover case invented text from the “Wedge Document,” wrongly stating in their “Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitting during the Kitzmiller trial that, “The Wedge Document states in its ‘Five Year Strategic Plan Summary’ that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with ‘theistic and Christian science.'” Next, Judge Jones copied and pasted this misinformation directly into his Kitzmiller ruling, stating: “The Wedge Document states in its ‘Five Year Strategic Plan Summary’ that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with ‘theistic and Christian science.'” Lastly, Miami Herald reporter Mark Caputo read the Kitzmiller ruling and copied this misinformation into his recent article:
“The ACLU and the judge noted that the Intelligent Design backers, the Discovery Institute, had written something called the ‘Wedge Strategy’ document, which laid out a multiyear plan to introduce ‘theistic and Christian science.'”
The problem for all of them of course is that the “Wedge Document” nowhere says “theistic and Christian science.” Instead, it calls for a “science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” There is a world of difference between these two phrases. The actual phrase merely seeks for science to be “consonant with” (i.e., harmonious with) theistic beliefs and this view in no way offends the scientific method. While atheistic Darwinists like Richard Dawkins might find this view objectionable, such Darwinists are hypocritical because they claim that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Dawkins’ words). Moreover, many people besides modern ID proponents would agree that science and faith can be harmonious. Indeed, this was the view of many of the founders of modern science, and this is even the view of many theistic evolutionists today.
Now I won’t blame Mr. Caputo for unknowingly trusting a judge’s error-filled ruling. And to Mr. Caputo’s credit, after being challenged on this bogus second-hand quote, he quietly corrected his article. As for Judge Jones, the errors he copied into his opinion will remain forever, enabling future reporters to promote further misinformation about intelligent design.