History of virology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology 

 

Electron micrograph of the rod-shaped particles of tobacco mosaic virus that are too small to be seen using a light microscope

The history of virology – the scientific study of viruses and the infections they cause – began in the closing years of the 19th century. Although Louis Pasteur and Edward Jenner developed the first vaccines to protect against viral infections, they did not know that viruses existed. The first evidence of the existence of viruses came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria. In 1892, Dmitri Ivanovsky used one of these filters to show that sap from a diseased tobacco plant remained infectious to healthy tobacco plants despite having been filtered. Martinus Beijerinck called the filtered, infectious substance a "virus" and this discovery is considered to be the beginning of virology.

The subsequent discovery and partial characterization of bacteriophages by Frederick Twort and Félix d'Herelle further catalyzed the field, and by the early 20th century many viruses had been discovered. In 1926, Thomas Milton Rivers defined viruses as obligate parasites. Viruses were demonstrated to be particles, rather than a fluid, by Wendell Meredith Stanley, and the invention of the electron microscope in 1931 allowed their complex structures to be visualised.

Pioneers

Adolf Mayer in 1875

 

Dmitri Ivanovsky, ca. 1915

 

Martinus Beijerinck in his laboratory in 1921.

Despite his other successes, Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) was unable to find a causative agent for rabies and speculated about a pathogen too small to be detected using a microscope. In 1884, the French microbiologist Charles Chamberland (1851–1931) invented a filter – known today as the Chamberland filter – that had pores smaller than bacteria. Thus, he could pass a solution containing bacteria through the filter and completely remove them from the solution.

In 1876, Adolf Mayer, who directed the Agricultural Experimental Station in Wageningen, was the first to show that what he called "Tobacco Mosaic Disease" was infectious. He thought that it was caused by either a toxin or a very small bacterium. Later, in 1892, the Russian biologist Dmitry Ivanovsky (1864–1920) used a Chamberland filter to study what is now known as the tobacco mosaic virus. His experiments showed that crushed leaf extracts from infected tobacco plants remain infectious after filtration. Ivanovsky suggested the infection might be caused by a toxin produced by bacteria, but did not pursue the idea.

In 1898, the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck (1851–1931), a microbiology teacher at the Agricultural School in Wageningen repeated experiments by Adolf Mayer and became convinced that filtrate contained a new form of infectious agent. He observed that the agent multiplied only in cells that were dividing and he called it a contagium vivum fluidum (soluble living germ) and re-introduced the word virus. Beijerinck maintained that viruses were liquid in nature, a theory later discredited by the American biochemist and virologist Wendell Meredith Stanley (1904–1971), who proved that they were in fact, particles. In the same year, 1898, Friedrich Loeffler (1852–1915) and Paul Frosch (1860–1928) passed the first animal virus through a similar filter and discovered the cause of foot-and-mouth disease.

The first human virus to be identified was the yellow fever virus. In 1881, Carlos Finlay (1833–1915), a Cuban physician, first conducted and published research that indicated that mosquitoes were carrying the cause of yellow fever, a theory proved in 1900 by commission headed by Walter Reed (1851–1902). During 1901 and 1902, William Crawford Gorgas (1854–1920) organised the destruction of the mosquitoes' breeding habitats in Cuba, which dramatically reduced the prevalence of the disease. Gorgas later organised the elimination of the mosquitoes from Panama, which allowed the Panama Canal to be opened in 1914. The virus was finally isolated by Max Theiler (1899–1972) in 1932 who went on to develop a successful vaccine.

By 1928 enough was known about viruses to enable the publication of Filterable Viruses, a collection of essays covering all known viruses edited by Thomas Milton Rivers (1888–1962). Rivers, a survivor of typhoid fever contracted at the age of twelve, went on to have a distinguished career in virology. In 1926, he was invited to speak at a meeting organised by the Society of American Bacteriology where he said for the first time, "Viruses appear to be obligate parasites in the sense that their reproduction is dependent on living cells."

The notion that viruses were particles was not considered unnatural and fitted in nicely with the germ theory. It is assumed that Dr. J. Buist of Edinburgh was the first person to see virus particles in 1886, when he reported seeing "micrococci" in vaccine lymph, though he had probably observed clumps of vaccinia. In the years that followed, as optical microscopes were improved "inclusion bodies" were seen in many virus-infected cells, but these aggregates of virus particles were still too small to reveal any detailed structure. It was not until the invention of the electron microscope in 1931 by the German engineers Ernst Ruska (1906–1988) and Max Knoll (1887–1969), that virus particles, especially bacteriophages, were shown to have complex structures. The sizes of viruses determined using this new microscope fitted in well with those estimated by filtration experiments. Viruses were expected to be small, but the range of sizes came as a surprise. Some were only a little smaller than the smallest known bacteria, and the smaller viruses were of similar sizes to complex organic molecules.

In 1935, Wendell Stanley examined the tobacco mosaic virus and found it was mostly made of protein. In 1939, Stanley and Max Lauffer (1914) separated the virus into protein and nucleic acid, which was shown by Stanley's postdoctoral fellow Hubert S. Loring to be specifically RNA. The discovery of RNA in the particles was important because in 1928, Fred Griffith (c. 1879–1941) provided the first evidence that its "cousin", DNA, formed genes.

In Pasteur's day, and for many years after his death, the word "virus" was used to describe any cause of infectious disease. Many bacteriologists soon discovered the cause of numerous infections. However, some infections remained, many of them horrendous, for which no bacterial cause could be found. These agents were invisible and could only be grown in living animals. The discovery of viruses paved the way to understanding these mysterious infections. And, although Koch's postulates could not be fulfilled for many of these infections, this did not stop the pioneer virologists from looking for viruses in infections for which no other cause could be found.

Bacteriophages

Main article: Bacteriophage

 

Bacteriophage

Discovery

Bacteriophages are the viruses that infect and replicate in bacteria. They were discovered in the early 20th century, by the English bacteriologist Frederick Twort (1877–1950). But before this time, in 1896, the bacteriologist Ernest Hanbury Hankin (1865–1939) reported that something in the waters of the River Ganges could kill Vibrio cholerae – the cause of cholera. The agent in the water could be passed through filters that remove bacteria but was destroyed by boiling. Twort discovered the action of bacteriophages on staphylococci bacteria. He noticed that when grown on nutrient agar some colonies of the bacteria became watery. He collected some of these watery colonies and passed them through a Chamberland filter to remove the bacteria and discovered that when the filtrate was added to fresh cultures of bacteria, they in turn became watery. He proposed that the agent might be "an amoeba, an ultramicroscopic virus, a living protoplasm, or an enzyme with the power of growth".

Félix d'Herelle (1873–1949) was a mainly self-taught French-Canadian microbiologist. In 1917 he discovered that "an invisible antagonist", when added to bacteria on agar, would produce areas of dead bacteria. The antagonist, now known to be a bacteriophage, could pass through a Chamberland filter. He accurately diluted a suspension of these viruses and discovered that the highest dilutions (lowest virus concentrations), rather than killing all the bacteria, formed discrete areas of dead organisms. Counting these areas and multiplying by the dilution factor allowed him to calculate the number of viruses in the original suspension. He realised that he had discovered a new form of virus and later coined the term "bacteriophage". Between 1918 and 1921 d'Herelle discovered different types of bacteriophages that could infect several other species of bacteria including Vibrio cholerae. Bacteriophages were heralded as a potential treatment for diseases such as typhoid and cholera, but their promise was forgotten with the development of penicillin. Since the early 1970s, bacteria have continued to develop resistance to antibiotics such as penicillin, and this has led to a renewed interest in the use of bacteriophages to treat serious infections.

1920-1940: Early research D'Herelle travelled widely to promote the use of bacteriophages in the treatment of bacterial infections. In 1928, he became professor of biology at Yale and founded several research institutes. He was convinced that bacteriophages were viruses despite opposition from established bacteriologists such as the Nobel Prize winner Jules Bordet (1870–1961). Bordet argued that bacteriophages were not viruses but just enzymes released from "lysogenic" bacteria. He said "the invisible world of d'Herelle does not exist". But in the 1930s, the proof that bacteriophages were viruses was provided by Christopher Andrewes (1896–1988) and others. They showed that these viruses differed in size and in their chemical and serological properties. In 1940, the first electron micrograph of a bacteriophage was published and this silenced sceptics who had argued that bacteriophages were relatively simple enzymes and not viruses. Numerous other types of bacteriophages were quickly discovered and were shown to infect bacteria wherever they are found. Early research was interrupted by World War II. d'Herelle, despite his Canadian citizenship, was interned by the Vichy Government until the end of the war.

Modern era

Knowledge of bacteriophages increased in the 1940s following the formation of the Phage Group by scientists throughout the US. Among the members were Max Delbrück (1906–1981) who founded a course on bacteriophages at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Other key members of the Phage Group included Salvador Luria (1912–1991) and Alfred Hershey (1908–1997). During the 1950s, Hershey and Chase made important discoveries on the replication of DNA during their studies on a bacteriophage called T2. Together with Delbruck they were jointly awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the replication mechanism and the genetic structure of viruses". Since then, the study of bacteriophages has provided insights into the switching on and off of genes, and a useful mechanism for introducing foreign genes into bacteria and many other fundamental mechanisms of molecular biology.

Plant viruses

In 1882, Adolf Mayer (1843–1942) described a condition of tobacco plants, which he called "mosaic disease" ("mozaïkziekte"). The diseased plants had variegated leaves that were mottled. He excluded the possibility of a fungal infection and could not detect any bacterium and speculated that a "soluble, enzyme-like infectious principle was involved". He did not pursue his idea any further, and it was the filtration experiments of Ivanovsky and Beijerinck that suggested the cause was a previously unrecognised infectious agent. After tobacco mosaic was recognized as a virus disease, virus infections of many other plants were discovered.

The importance of tobacco mosaic virus in the history of viruses cannot be overstated. It was the first virus to be discovered, and the first to be crystallised and its structure shown in detail. The first X-ray diffraction pictures of the crystallised virus were obtained by Bernal and Fankuchen in 1941. On the basis of her pictures, Rosalind Franklin discovered the full structure of the virus in 1955. In the same year, Heinz Fraenkel-Conrat and Robley Williams showed that purified tobacco mosaic virus RNA and its coat protein can assemble by themselves to form functional viruses, suggesting that this simple mechanism was probably the means through which viruses were created within their host cells.

By 1935, many plant diseases were thought to be caused by viruses. In 1922, John Kunkel Small (1869–1938) discovered that insects could act as vectors and transmit virus to plants. In the following decade many diseases of plants were shown to be caused by viruses that were carried by insects and in 1939, Francis Holmes, a pioneer in plant virology, described 129 viruses that caused disease of plants. Modern, intensive agriculture provides a rich environment for many plant viruses. In 1948, in Kansas, US, 7% of the wheat crop was destroyed by wheat streak mosaic virus. The virus was spread by mites called Aceria tulipae.

In 1970, the Russian plant virologist Joseph Atabekov discovered that many plant viruses only infect a single species of host plant. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses now recognises over 900 plant viruses.

20th century

By the end of the 19th century, viruses were defined in terms of their infectivity, their ability to be filtered, and their requirement for living hosts. Up until this time, viruses had only been grown in plants and animals, but in 1906, Ross Granville Harrison (1870–1959) invented a method for growing tissue in lymph, and, in 1913, E Steinhardt, C Israeli, and RA Lambert used this method to grow vaccinia virus in fragments of guinea pig corneal tissue. In 1928, HB and MC Maitland grew vaccinia virus in suspensions of minced hens' kidneys. Their method was not widely adopted until the 1950s, when poliovirus was grown on a large scale for vaccine production. In 1941–42, George Hirst (1909–94) developed assays based on haemagglutination to quantify a wide range of viruses as well as virus-specific antibodies in serum.

Influenza

A woman working during the 1918–1919 influenza epidemic.

 

Main article: Influenza

Although the influenza virus that caused the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic was not discovered until the 1930s, the descriptions of the disease and subsequent research has proved it was to blame. The pandemic killed 40–50 million people in less than a year, but the proof that it was caused by a virus was not obtained until 1933. Haemophilus influenzae is an opportunistic bacterium which commonly follows influenza infections; this led the eminent German bacteriologist Richard Pfeiffer (1858–1945) to incorrectly conclude that this bacterium was the cause of influenza. A major breakthrough came in 1931, when the American pathologist Ernest William Goodpasture grew influenza and several other viruses in fertilised chickens' eggs. Hirst identified an enzymic activity associated with the virus particle, later characterised as the neuraminidase, the first demonstration that viruses could contain enzymes. Frank Macfarlane Burnet showed in the early 1950s that the virus recombines at high frequencies, and Hirst later deduced that it has a segmented genome.

Poliomyelitis

Main article: Poliomyelitis

In 1949, John F. Enders (1897–1985) Thomas Weller (1915–2008), and Frederick Robbins (1916–2003) grew polio virus for the first time in cultured human embryo cells, the first virus to be grown without using solid animal tissue or eggs. Infections by poliovirus most often cause the mildest of symptoms. This was not known until the virus was isolated in cultured cells and many people were shown to have had mild infections that did not lead to poliomyelitis. But, unlike other viral infections, the incidence of polio – the rarer severe form of the infection – increased in the 20th century and reached a peak around 1952. The invention of a cell culture system for growing the virus enabled Jonas Salk (1914–1995) to make an effective polio vaccine.

Epstein–Barr virus

Denis Parsons Burkitt (1911–1993) was born in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Ireland. He was the first to describe a type of cancer that now bears his name Burkitt's lymphoma. This type of cancer was endemic in equatorial Africa and was the commonest malignancy of children in the early 1960s. In an attempt to find a cause for the cancer, Burkitt sent cells from the tumour to Anthony Epstein (b. 1921) a British virologist, who along with Yvonne Barr and Bert Achong (1928–1996), and after many failures, discovered viruses that resembled herpes virus in the fluid that surrounded the cells. The virus was later shown to be a previously unrecognised herpes virus, which is now called Epstein–Barr virus. Surprisingly, Epstein–Barr virus is a very common but relatively mild infection of Europeans. Why it can cause such a devastating illness in Africans is not fully understood, but reduced immunity to virus caused by malaria might be to blame. Epstein–Barr virus is important in the history of viruses for being the first virus shown to cause cancer in humans.

Late 20th and early 21st century

A rotavirus particle

The second half of the 20th century was the golden age of virus discovery and most of the 2,000 recognised species of animal, plant, and bacterial viruses were discovered during these years. In 1946, bovine virus diarrhea was discovered, which is still possibly the most common pathogen of cattle throughout the world and in 1957, equine arterivirus was discovered. In the 1950s, improvements in virus isolation and detection methods resulted in the discovery of several important human viruses including varicella zoster virus, the paramyxoviruses, – which include measles virus, and respiratory syncytial virus – and the rhinoviruses that cause the common cold. In the 1960s more viruses were discovered. In 1963, the hepatitis B virus was discovered by Baruch Blumberg (b. 1925). Reverse transcriptase, the key enzyme that retroviruses use to translate their RNA into DNA, was first described in 1970, independently by Howard Temin and David Baltimore (b. 1938). This was important to the development of antiviral drugs – a key turning-point in the history of viral infections. In 1983, Luc Montagnier (b. 1932) and his team at the Pasteur Institute in France first isolated the retrovirus now called HIV. In 1989 Michael Houghton's team at Chiron Corporation discovered hepatitis C. New viruses and strains of viruses were discovered in every decade of the second half of the 20th century. These discoveries have continued in the 21st century as new viral diseases such as SARS and nipah virus have emerged. Despite scientists' achievements over the past one hundred years, viruses continue to pose new threats and challenges.

Modern paganism and New Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism_and_New_Age 

 

Miriam "Starhawk" Simos has been involved in both Wicca and New Age.

Modern paganism and New Age are eclectic new religious movements with similar decentralised structures but differences in their views of history, nature, and goals of the practitioner. Modern pagan movements, which often have roots in 18th- and 19th-century cultural movements, seek to revive or be influenced by historical pagan beliefs. New Age teachings emerged in the second half of the 20th century and are characterised by millenarian ideas about spiritual advancement. Since the counterculture of the 1960s, there has been interaction, mutual influence, and often confusion in the popular mind between the movements.

Among their commonalities, modern pagan and New Age movements have similar relationships between academic study and practice, take interest in aspects of European culture and history that were marginalised before the 20th century, and often incorporate older scholarship in their teachings. Although both movements are diverse and without central dogma, scholars have described major differences in their general tendencies. Whereas modern pagans commonly attribute wisdom to past cultures, New Agers believe in the coming of an improved human consciousness. Modern pagan theology is typically immanent and connects the natural world to the divine, whereas New Age proponents favour transcendence of the physical existence. Modern pagan practices tend to be ceremonial and focus on community, whereas New Age practices are concerned primarily with the personal growth of the individual.

Some hybrids between modern paganism and New Age have emerged, especially in the United States where they tend to overlap and be connected to the same social change movements. The presence of the modern pagan movement Wicca in popular culture since the 1990s has contributed to the creation of individualistic and commercialised hybrid forms focused on witchcraft. Differing views of the natural world and spirituality sometimes create friction between the movements. Modern pagans often seek to distance themselves from New Age identity and sometimes use the term New Age as an insult. New Agers commonly criticise modern pagans for their emphasis on material concerns. In the 1990s, several scholars studying New Age movements placed modern paganism under the umbrella of New Age, a classification which has been contested by scholars of modern paganism.

Definitions

Modern paganism

Main article: Modern paganism

See also: Ethnic religion

 

Ancient Christians described other religions as pagan (pictured: libation scene from an Attic cup interior, c. 480 BC).

The word pagan comes from the Latin paganus, which was used by ancient Christian writers, notably Augustine of Hippo, as a religious category that included ancient Greek and ancient Roman religions. It overlaps with the Germanic-language word heathen which carries on the meaning of the Greek word ethnikós, meaning "of a [foreign] people". Discourses about surviving or returning paganism have existed throughout the modern period and explicit attempts to re-establish pagan religions in Europe have taken place since at least the 15th century. Positive self-identification with the term pagan has frequently been combined with criticism of Christianity and of organised religion in general, and became more common in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many modern pagan new religious movements have roots in the cultural revival and national independence movements of these centuries.

There is no universally accepted definition of modern paganism; it is often understood as distinct from ancient religions, although some scholars have categorised paganism as a generic religious category. The religious studies scholar Michael York advocates the latter approach and says that despite the diverse interpretations of modern paganism, there are general traits that can be summarised as an ideal type. Modern pagans typically attribute wisdom and insight to past cultures, especially those of pre-Christian times. Modern pagan theology is characterised by immanence and thus connects the divine to the natural world. Religious practices vary in origin and execution, but typically revolve around ceremonies and have a focus on community.

New Age

Main article: New Age

See also: Self religion

 

New Age teaches that human consciousness will undergo a significant change, typically coinciding with the Age of Aquarius.

New Age is an umbrella term for an eclectic set of beliefs and techniques that emerged or became more prominent during the counterculture of the 1960s. It receives its name from the idea that human consciousness has changed with the passage of astrological ages, and that the arrival of the Age of Aquarius, which is believed to be the next or current age, will result in a renewal of human spirituality. The term New Age was first used in Theosophical literature and was picked up by post-war UFO religions and other movements that held millenarian beliefs in a coming advancement in human consciousness and understanding. A broader use of the term, based on shared interests, milieus and historical links, became established in the 1970s and 1980s. The main precursors and sources of inspiration to concepts within the New Age movement are Theosophy, New Thought and Carl Jung. Other precursors mentioned by scholars include Joachim of Fiore, transcendentalism, Swedenborgianism and Christian Science. Like several of their precursors, New Agers are often interested in Eastern religions.

Among the basic tendencies of New Age, as described by Wouter Hanegraaff, are the millenarian idea of a new age, the mixing of psychology and religion, evolutionist beliefs in regards to teleology, pedagogy and creativity, a quest for "wholeness" and weak reliance on worldly experiences. New Age teachings generally favour transcendence of the physical existence and de-emphasise material concerns. Adherents often combine and mix practices according to individual needs and interests: they may use techniques such as channeling, visualisation, positive thinking, alternative healing methods and meditation. Some practices are based on a belief that a divine self can be discovered within each individual. General aims are self-growth, physical healing and success in helping people to reach a higher consciousness, both in regards to the individual and to the collective unconscious.

General commonalities

Commonalities between modern paganism and New Age can be found in their shared eclecticism and absence of central authorities and dogma, something that makes them atypical among new religious movements. Instead of being led by a charismatic leader and wanting to separate themselves from their surrounding society, both movements exist through decentralised networks of people, organisations, media projects, events and small communities. They have some terminology in common, tend to value creativity and imagination highly, and adherents may share interests in subjects like Native American and aboriginal cultures, reincarnation or shamanism.

Modern paganism and New Age have similar dynamics between the emic and etic—the perspectives of the practitioner and the outside observer. The religious studies scholar Kocku von Stuckrad attributes this to the second half of the 20th century, when many European and North American intellectuals were sceptical of narratives that held modern Europe as superior and tied European culture to Christian values. This created both academic and popular interest in marginalised and ambiguous parts of European culture, history and identity, which became widespread as the counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s. A complex relationship continues to exist between academic study and practice in modern paganism and New Age. Older scholarship such as the Great Goddess hypothesis and Jung's psychological theories continue to have impact on religious practices, new academic terms are adopted by practitioners, and when scholars use a term that originated in an emic milieu, it might be taken as legitimisation of that term.

Differences

Views of history

Modern pagans and New Agers typically have contrasting views of history and the future. Modern pagans turn to religious views from the past which they try to revive or, often, to reinvent. Particularly in Europe, modern pagan movements sometimes claim to have an unbroken lineage that can be traced to ancient times. Their view of history is usually based on myths and images derived from past cultures, existing traditions, or nature, and they do not anticipate a future change at a fundamental level. History is regarded as an endless cycle of death and rebirth.

The New Age view of history generally has an evolutionary teleology. New Agers understand history as a progression of significantly different ages and focus on ways to shape the future which they believe will be characterised by a higher consciousness. Instead of seeking to be tradition-bound like modern pagans, New Agers are typically oriented towards an eclectic and new spirituality.

Nature and metaphysics

Immanent theology often distinguishes modern pagan movements from New Age movements. For modern pagans, the natural world is at the centre of conceptions of the sacred. They generally promote views of completeness where mind–body dualism is absent and the world is regarded as fully functional.

Paul Heelas, York and other scholars say the dominant New Age view is that spiritual truth is more important than material concerns, and this leads to a Manichean dualism where the natural world is viewed as less important, as an obstacle or rejected as an illusion. Heelas says the search for metaphysical perfection and the view that mankind is malfunctioning are defining features of New Age spirituality, which the sociologist Douglas Ezzy, the sociologist Melissa Harrington and the religious studies scholar Joanne Pearson contrast with modern pagan views. Using sociological classifications of world-affirming and world-rejecting religious movements, York says that modern paganism and New Age represent two rival theologies, and that New Agers in particular tend to underestimate the "Gnostic–pagan divide", where New Age teachings are part of a Gnostic tradition that de-emphasises or negates the body and the physical existence.

Practice and practitioner

Generally speaking, whereas we have seen that much in the New Age is explicitly epistemologically individualistic, focusing on enabling the individual to "go within" and to discover the "Higher Self", in Paganism there is a greater emphasis on the other, on that which is external to the self: the planet, the deities and the community.

— Religious studies scholar Christopher Partridge

Modern pagan practices can be characterised as striving for long-term continuity, which Pearson contrasts with the focus on reaching specific results that exists in many New Age practices. Among modern pagans, ceremonies are usually central to the religious identity, and seasonal holidays and life passages are ritualised and celebrated in small groups. The ceremonies take different forms depending on the groups that perform them and may involve ancestor veneration or attempts to communicate with spirits. Modern pagans tend to place emphasis on serving a community and many movements in Europe involve ethnic pride and have been connected to nationalism. Although the ethnic dimension is less prevalent in the United States, it is generally viewed as controversial for American modern pagans of European descent to adopt traditions and motifs from non-European cultures.

New Age communities sometimes observe and perform rituals during celestial events, but compared to practitioners of modern paganism, this is inconsistent and less of a defining feature. New Age practices usually take the form of relationships between specialists and clients and often involve meditation. Placing less emphasis on serving a community, the primary focus in New Age teachings is on personal growth, especially the potential for an individual to reach a higher level of consciousness, and the ultimate goal is often to facilitate this shift.

Overlap and hybrid forms

Beyond the ideal types and general tendencies, modern paganism and New Age can exhibit features of each other. New Age materials in particular do not always make a distinction between them. Modern paganism as it exists, according to York, is characterised by confusion between generic and nominal forms, and may incorporate elements of Kabbalism, Freemasonry-derived ceremonial magic, neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism. The religious studies scholar Christopher Partridge describes both movements as parts of the occulture—the spiritual undercurrents of the West—and likens them to two different streams that merge at some points.

Participant at the 1997 Starwood Festival dressed as the Green Man

Modern pagan movements in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia have been influenced by ambitions to create individualistic and egalitarian communities, which is less prominent elsewhere in Europe. Especially in the United States, the modern pagan phenomenon largely emerged alongside New Age in the counter-culture and youth culture of the baby boom generation, and there is significant overlap between the movements. According to the religious studies scholar Sarah M. Pike, who wrote a monograph about modern paganism and New Age in the United States, the movements share a high degree of religious personalisation and tend towards apocalypticism, and their relationship can be understood through their place in American religious and social history. American modern pagan and New Age communities are often connected to social change movements, promoting sexual liberation, feminism and the post-war American environmental movement. An example of overlap is the annual Starwood Festival, which features modern pagan and New Age activities as parts of a stated goal to be eclectic and inclusive.

Some versions of modern Celtic paganism characterise Celtic identity as peripheral and view the ancient Celts as noble savages. This has led to the creation of Celtic-themed pagan music and modern pagan websites where New Age themes are commonplace. In the 1990s and 2000s, increasing exposure in popular culture of Wicca—a modern pagan movement inspired by Celtic culture and the witch-cult hypothesis—with examples such as the 1996 American film The Craft, led to mutual influence between modern paganism and New Age. It helped to create and popularise a lifestyle-oriented form of Wicca, represented by writers such as Silver RavenWolf and Scott Cunningham, which primarily became popular among teenage girls. Ezzy says this version of Wicca, which he calls "popularised Witchcraft", is heavily influenced by New Age in its individualism and element of commercialism, which he exemplifies with commercial spell books.

The Gaia hypothesis, which was proposed in the 1970s and understands the Earth as a living being, has influenced both modern pagan and New Age practitioners. Among modern pagans, it has had most impact on the Goddess movement, where Gaia is venerated as the earth mother; in New Age, Gaia has been defined as a super-consciousness and a balancing principle. According to York, modern paganism and New Age began to become more similar in the 1990s, as modern pagans more frequently adopted panentheistic views, which combine the beliefs in immanence and transcendence, while New Agers embraced ideas such as holistic science and the Gaia hypothesis, making the movements more receptive to each other's perspectives. A 2001 book review in Publishers Weekly described the views of the American writer Francesca De Grandis as a hybrid of Goddess worship and New Age teachings about self-love, which resulted in "a book on how to worship yourself as a goddess".

Friction

Modern pagans frequently seek to distance themselves from New Age identity and some communities use the term "New Age" as an insult. Their recurring criticism of New Age ethos and practice includes accusations of charging too much money, of thinking in simplistic ways and of engaging in escapism. They reject the common New Age metaphor of a battle between the forces of light and darkness, arguing that darkness represents a necessary part of the natural world which should not be viewed as evil.

New Agers criticise modern pagans for placing too much emphasis on the material world and for lacking a proper spiritual perspective. There has been New Age criticism of how some modern pagans embrace extravagant subcultures, such as adopting dark colour schemes and imagery. People from both movements have accused the other of egocentrism and narcissism.

Academic disputes over classification

Wouter Hanegraaff places some post-war forms of modern paganism under the New Age umbrella.

Several late 20th-century scholars and religious writers treated modern paganism and the New Age culture as the same phenomenon, or included modern paganism, especially Wicca, under the umbrella of New Age. This was done by some of the leading scholars of the New Age phenomenon, such as Antoine Faivre, Hanegraaff and Heelas. In his 1996 monograph about New Age, Hanegraaff makes a distinction between older versions of modern paganism and a "New Age variety". In the latter he includes Wicca, especially the forms established in the United States since the 1960s, and the Goddess movement. He addresses a contention made by the American Wiccan Aidan A. Kelly, that modern paganism "parallels the New Age movement in some ways, differs sharply from it in others, and overlaps it in some minor ways"; this argument, according to Hanegraaff, is based on a selective view of New Age and possibly an expression of apologia for modern paganism. Agreeing with York's descriptions of the similarities and differences between the movements, Hanegraaff says their complicated relationship makes modern paganism "a special, relatively clearly circumscribed subculture within [New Age]". Heelas, in his book from 1996, points to the psychological interpretation of theology in New Age teachings, where gods are viewed as projections of the human mind. This results in self-sacralisation, which he also attributes to modern paganism and uses as a basis for its inclusion under the New Age umbrella.

A number of scholars of modern paganism dispute the categorisation of their field under the umbrella of New Age. According to York, several factors may have contributed to the confusion between the movements, such as their shared status as "outsider heresies" in relation to Western mainstream society and Christianity. Other factors include the involvement of the Wiccan Miriam "Starhawk" Simos in organised New Age activities, and modern pagans who in the 1980s adopted the metaphor of a "new age", before distancing themselves from New Age terminology in the 1990s. Harrington, who describes herself as a scholar of Wicca, attributes Faivre's and Hanegraaff's categorisation to the breadth of their study of religious subcultures, which creates a false impression of homogeneity. Pearson, whose doctoral dissertation was about Wicca, says a part of the explanation lies in a failure to acknowledge how terminology is used differently depending on the context; for example how the terms "Wicca" and "traditional witchcraft" are understood differently in British and American discussions. Pearson responded to Heelas in 1998 and argued against the view that modern paganism is characterised by self-sacralisation.

Some feminist modern pagans share the New Age goal of finding an inner goddess and may refer to Jungian archetypes. This has led some scholars to classify them as part of the New Age movement, which typically describes gods as creations of the human mind and not as discrete entities. Other scholars view such feminist modern pagans as differing from New Agers because they view the goddess as both internal and external. Ezzy argues that "popularised Witchcraft", which he sets apart from initiatory traditions, should be classified as New Age rather than modern paganism, because it focuses on the self, is not connected to established modern pagan networks, and is integrated with market forces. This view is not universally shared among scholars of modern paganism.

Teach the Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy 

"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, note the institute to have manufactured a controversy, where there exists none.

The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington. The overall goals of the movement were stated as "to defeat scientific materialism" and "to replace [it] with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". It claims that fairness require educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution' where "the full range of scientific views", evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory" are presented and evaluated, while referencing intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity.

In December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". The federal ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy.

Origin of phrase

The term "teach the controversy" originated with Gerald Graff, a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, as an admonition to teach that established knowledge is not simply given as a settled matter, but that it is created in a crucible of debate and controversy. To the chagrin of Graff, who describes himself as a liberal secularist, the idea was later appropriated by Phillip E. Johnson, Discovery Institute program advisor and father of the ID movement. Discussing the 1999-2000 Kansas State Board of Education controversy over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms, Johnson wrote "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to 'teach the controversy'." In his book Johnson proposed casting the conflicting points of view and agendas as a scholarly controversy. Johnson's usage differs somewhat from Graff's original concept. While Graff advocated that a comprehensive understanding of what are considered to be "established" concepts must include teaching the debates and conflicts by which they were established, Johnson appropriated the phrase to cast doubt upon the very concept of established knowledge.

The phrase was picked up by other Discovery Institute affiliates Stephen C. Meyer, David K. DeWolf, and Mark E. DeForrest in their 1999 article, "Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science Curriculum" published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics also publishes the controversial pro-intelligent design biology textbook Of Pandas and People, suggested as an alternative to mainstream science and biology textbooks in the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans proposed by Teach the Controversy proponents.

Development of the strategy

Comparisons of the drafts of the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People before and after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling showed that the definition given in the book for "creation science" in pre Edwards drafts is identical to the definition of "intelligent design" in post Edwards drafts; cognates of the word creation—creationism and creationist, which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase 'intelligent design'; and the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes.

The campaign was devised by Stephen C. Meyer and Discovery Institute founder and President Bruce Chapman as a compromise strategy in March 2002. They had come to the realisation that the dispute over intelligent design's (lack of) scientific standing was complicating their efforts to have evolution challenged in the science classroom. This strategy was designed to move the focus onto an approach that stresses open debate and evolution's purported weakness, but does not require students to study intelligent design. The intention was to create doubt over evolution and avoid the question of whether the intelligent designer was God, while giving the institute time to strengthen their purported theory of intelligent design. Another advantage of this strategy was to allay teacher fears of legal action.

Employment of the strategy

The Discovery Institute's strategy has been for the institute itself or groups acting on its behalf to lobby state and local boards of education, and local, state and federal policymakers to enact policies and/or laws, often in the form of textbook disclaimers and the language of state science standards, that undermine or remove evolutionary theory from the public school science classroom by portraying it as "controversial" and "in crisis;" a portrayal that stands in contrast to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that there is no controversy, that evolution is one of the best-supported theories in all of science, and that whatever controversy does exist is political and religious, not scientific. The Teach the Controversy strategy has benefitted from 'stacking' municipal, county and state school boards with intelligent design proponents as alluded to in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy.

As the primary organizer and promoter of the Teach the Controversy campaign, the Discovery Institute has played a central role in nearly all intelligent design cases, often working behind the scenes to orchestrate, underwrite and support local campaigns and intelligent design groups such as the Intelligent Design Network. It has provided support ranging from material assistance to federal, state and regionally elected representatives in the drafting of bills to the provision of support and advice to individual parents confronting their school boards. DI's goal is to move from battles over standards to curriculum writing and textbook adoption while undermining the central positions of evolution in biology and methodological naturalism in science. In order to make their proposals more palatable, the Institute and its supporters claim to advocate presenting evidence both for and against evolution, thus encouraging students to evaluate the evidence.

Though Teach the Controversy is presented by its proponents as encouraging academic freedom, it, along with the Santorum Amendment, is viewed by many academics as a threat to academic freedom and is rejected by the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The American Society for Clinical Investigation's Journal of Clinical Investigation describes the Teach the Controversy strategy and campaign as a "hoax" and that "the controversy is manufactured".

Along with the objection that there is no scientific controversy to teach, another common objection is that the Teach the Controversy campaign and intelligent design arise out of a Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic movement that calls for broad social, academic and political changes. Intelligent design proponents argue their concepts and motives should be given independent consideration. Those critical of intelligent design see the two as intertwined and inseparable, citing the foundational documents of the movement such as the Wedge Document and statements made by intelligent design proponents to their constituents. The judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial considered testimony and evidence from both sides on the question of the motives of intelligent design proponents when he ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and "that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."

In the debate surrounding the linking of the motives of intelligent design proponents to their arguments, following the Kansas evolution hearings the chairman of the Kansas school board, Steve Abrams, cited in The New York Times as saying that though he's a creationist who believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, he is able to keep the two separate:

In my personal faith, yes, I am a creationist, ... But that doesn't have anything to do with science. I can separate them. ... my personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom.

Afterward, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western Reserve University physicist and astronomer, in a New York Times essay said:

A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams's religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board. ... As we work to improve the abysmal state of science education in our public schools, we will continue to do battle with those who feel that knowledge is a threat to religious faith ... we should remember that the battle is not against faith, but against ignorance.

A rudimentary form of the teach the controversy strategy had emerged first among creationists following the Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) prepared an evaluation of what the movement should try next, suggesting "school boards and teachers should be strongly encouraged at least to stress the scientific evidences and arguments against evolution in their classes . . . even if they don't wish to recognize these as evidences and arguments for creationism." Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education says this comment shows that the teach the controversy strategy was "pioneered in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard."

Prior to the September 2005 start of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, the "Dover trial," prominent intelligent design proponents gradually shifted to a "Teach the Controversy" strategy. They had realised that mandates requiring the teaching of intelligent design were unlikely to survive challenges based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and that an unfavorable ruling had the effect of legally ruling intelligent design a form of religious creationism.

Thus, the Discovery Institute repositioned itself. It publicly abandoned advocating for any policies or laws that required the teaching of intelligent design in favor of a Teach the Controversy strategy. Institute Fellows reasoned that once the "fact" that a controversy indeed exists had been established in the public's mind, then the reintroduction of intelligent design into public school criteria would be much less controversial later.

The best illustration of this shift in strategy is comparing the Discovery Institute's 1999 guidebook Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula which concludes "school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution" to 2006 statements by Phillip E. Johnson, that his intent was never to use public school education as the forum for his ideas and that he hoped to ignite and perpetuate a debate in universities and among the higher echelon of scientific thinkers.

With the December 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science, intelligent design proponents were left with the Teach the Controversy strategy as the most likely method left to realize the goals stated in the wedge document. Thus, the Teach the Controversy strategy has become the primary thrust of the Discovery Institute in promoting its aims. Just as intelligent design is a stalking horse for the campaign against what its proponents claim is a materialist foundation in science that precludes God, Teach the Controversy has become a stalking horse for intelligent design. But the Dover ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy.

Shift to the "Critical Analysis of Evolution"

See also: Critical Analysis of Evolution

By May 2006 the Discovery Institute sought to replace the failed "teach the controversy" strategy with a strategy broadened to include examples of other supposedly legitimate scientific controversies. In Ohio and Michigan where school boards were again reviewing science curricula standards the Discovery Institute and its allies proposed lesson plans that included global warming, cloning and stem cell research as further examples of controversies that are akin to the alleged scientific controversy over evolution. All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community as legitimate science, and all four are areas where US political conservatives have been known to be critical of the scientific consensus. Members of the scientific community have responded to this tactic by pointing out that like evolution whatever controversy may exist over cloning and stem cell research has been largely social and political, while dissident viewpoints over global warming are often viewed as pseudoscience. Richard B. Hoppe, holder of a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Minnesota, described the tactic in the following way:

Like the attacks on evolution, the attack on climate science is driven by the sectarian conviction that 'materialistic' science is untrustworthy and must be replaced. As with intelligent design creationism, science-deniers' so-called evidence takes the form of claims for the insufficiency of current scientific explanations rather than concrete, testable alternative hypotheses. As in the evolution debate, religious extremists use the clever strategy of denigrating the scientific consensus on causality (global warming is human-caused via pollution) by pretending it contrasts sharply with an alternative scientific theory that, properly-understood, is really just a more nuanced view that's not really in opposition (current global warming is part of the earth’s natural cycle but is being exacerbated by pollution). This exaggerates the intensity of normal scientific debate in order to suggest there's something wrong with climate science, and then uses this manufactured controversy to cloak the anti-science view and smuggle it into classrooms — sectarian religious evangelism masquerading as science.

With the Dover ruling describing "teach the controversy" as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard", intelligent design proponents have moved to a fallback position, emphasizing contrived flaws in evolution and overemphasizing remaining questions in the theory what they call the Critical Analysis of Evolution. The Critical Analysis of Evolution strategy is viewed by Nick Matzke and other intelligent design critics as a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. Critical Analysis of Evolution continues the themes of the teach the controversy strategy, emphasizing what they say are the "criticisms" of evolutionary theory and "arguments against evolution," which continues to be portrayed as "a theory in crisis." Early drafts of the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan referred to the lesson as the "great evolution debate"; one of the early drafts of the lesson plan had one section titled "Conducting the Macroevolution Debate". In a subsequent draft, it was changed to "Conducting the Critical Analysis Activity". The wording for the two sections is nearly identical, with just "debate" changed to "critical analysis activity" wherever it appeared, in the manner of how intelligent design proponents simply replaced "creation" with "intelligent design" in Of Pandas and People to repackage a creation science textbook into an intelligent design textbook.

Repercussions

The campaigns of intelligent design proponents seeking curricular challenges have been disruptive, divisive and expensive for the affected communities. In pursuing the goal of establishing intelligent design at the expense of evolution in public school science classes, intelligent design groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers, school board members and parents who opposed their efforts. The campaigns run by intelligent design groups place teachers in the difficult position of arguing against their employers while the legal challenges to local school districts are costly, diverting funding away from education and into court battles. For example, as a result of the Dover trial, the Dover Area School District was forced to pay $1,000,011 in legal fees and damages for pursuing a policy of teaching the controversy.

Four days after the six-week Dover trial concluded, all eight of the Dover school board members who were up for reelection were voted out of office. Televangelist Pat Robertson in turn told the citizens of Dover, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city." Robertson said if they have future problems in Dover, "I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Critics, like Wesley R. Elsberry, say the Discovery Institute has cynically manufactured much of the political and religious controversy to further its agenda, pointing to statements of prominent proponents like Johnson:

Whether educational authorities allow the schools to teach about the controversy or not, public recognition that there is something seriously wrong with Darwinian orthodoxy is going to keep on growing. While the educators stonewall, our job is to continue building the community of people who understand the difference between a science that tests its theories against the evidence, and a pseudoscience that protects its key doctrines by imposing philosophical rules and erecting legal barriers to freedom of thought.

To the absence of actual scientific controversy over the validity of evolutionary theory, Johnson said:

If the science educators continue to pretend that there is no controversy to teach, perhaps the television networks and the newspapers will take over the responsibility of informing the public.

And to the resistance of science educators over portraying evolution as controversial or disputed, Johnson said:

If the public school educators will not "teach the controversy," our informal network can do the job for them. In time, the educators will be running to catch up.

Elsberry and others allege that statements like Johnson's are proof that the alleged scientific controversy intelligent design proponents seek to have taught is a product of the institute's members and staff. In the Dover trial's ruling the judge wrote that intelligent design proponents had misrepresented the scientific status of evolution.

According to published reports, the nonprofit Discovery Institute received grants and gifts totaling $4.1 million for 2003 from 22 foundations. Of these, two-thirds had primarily religious missions. The institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls, lobbying and media pieces that support intelligent design and their Teach the Controversy campaign and is employing the same Washington, D.C. public relations firm that promoted the Contract with America.

Political action

The Discovery Institute aggressively promoted its Teach the Controversy campaign and intelligent design to the public, education officials and public policymakers. Its efforts were largely aimed at conservative Christian policymakers, to whom it was cast as a counterbalance to the liberal influences of "atheistic scientists" and "Dogmatic Darwinists." As a measure of their success in this effort, on 1 August 2005, during a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, President Bush said that he believes schools should discuss intelligent design alongside evolution when teaching students about the origin of life. Bush, a conservative Christian, declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life, but advocated the Teach the Controversy approach, saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought... you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." Christian conservatives, a substantial part of Bush's voting base, were central in promoting the Teach the Controversy campaign.

In some state battles, the ties of Teach the Controversy and intelligent design proponents to the Discovery Institute's political and social activities were made public, resulting in their efforts being temporarily thwarted. The Discovery Institute took the view that all publicity is good and no defeat is real. The Institute showed a willingness to back off, even to not advocate for the inclusion of ID, to ensure that all science teachers were required to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis." The institute's strategy is to move from standards battles, to curriculum writing, to textbook adoption, and back again, doing whatever it took to undermine the central position of evolution in biology. Critics of this strategy and the movement contended that the intelligent design controversy diverts much time, effort and tax money away from the actual education of children.

Political battles involving the Discovery Institute

Main article: Intelligent design in politics

• 2000 Congressional briefing: In 2000, the leading ID proponents operating through the Discovery Institute held a congressional briefing in Washington, D.C., to promote ID to lawmakers. Sen. Rick Santorum was and continues to be one of ID's most vocal supporters. One result of this briefing was that Sen. Santorum inserted pro-ID language into the No Child Left Behind bill calling for students to be taught why evolution "generates so much continuing controversy," an assertion heavily promoted by the Discovery Institute.
• 2001 Santorum Amendment: As a result of the 2000 Congressional briefing, the Discovery Institute drafted and lobbied for the Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind education act. The amendment encouraged the "teach the controversy" approach to evolution education. The amendment was passed by the U.S. Senate, but was left out of the final version of the Act, and remains only in highly modified form in the conference report, where it does not carry the weight of law. The conference report language is commonly touted by the Discovery Institute as model language for bills and curricula. The Discovery Institute lobbies states, counties, and municipalities, and offers them legal analysis and Institute-developed curricula and text books they proclaim meet constitutional criteria established by the courts in previous creationism/evolution First Amendment cases.
• 2002-2006 Ohio Board of Education: The Discovery Institute proposed a model lesson plan that featured intelligent design prominently in its curricula. It was adopted in part in October 2002, with the Board's advising that the science standards do "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." This was touted by the Discovery Institute as a significant victory. By February 2006 the Ohio Board of Education voted 11–4 to delete the science standard and correlating lesson plan adopted in 2002. The board also rejected a competing plan from the institute to request a legal opinion from the state attorney general on the constitutionality of the science standards. Intelligent design proponents pledged to force another vote on the issue.
• 2005 Kansas evolution hearings: A series of hearings instigated by the institute held in Topeka, Kansas May 2005 by the Kansas State Board of Education to review changes how the origin of life would be taught in the state's public high school science classes. The hearings were boycotted by the scientific community, and views expressed represented largely those of intelligent design advocates. The result of the hearings was the adoption of new science standards by the Republican-dominated board in defiance of the State Board Science Hearing Committee that relied upon the institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan and adopted the institute's Teach the Controversy approach. In August 2006 conservative Republicans lost their majority on the board in a primary election. The moderate Republican and Democrats gaining seats vowed to overturn the 2005 school science standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing Committee that were rejected by the previous board.
• 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Eleven parents of students in the school district of Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In December, 2005 United States federal court judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

Criticism

The theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologists and by the scientific community in general, in such overwhelming numbers that the theory of evolution is viewed as having scientific consensus. Over 70 scientific societies, institutions, and other professional groups representing tens of thousands of individual scientists have issued policy statements supporting evolution education and opposing intelligent design. Scientific controversies are minor and concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the overarching theory of evolution. In the absence of an actual professional controversy between groups of experts on evolution, critics say intelligent design proponents have merely renamed the conflict that already existed between biologists and creationists, and that the controversy to which intelligent design proponents refer is political in nature and thus, by definition, outside of the realm of science and scientific educational curricula. Critics contend that intelligent design proponents ignore this point by continuing to make the claim of a "scientific controversy." According to Thomas Dixon, "The 'controversy' in question has not arisen from any substantial scientific disagreement but is the product of a concerted public relations exercise aimed at the Christian parents of America."

For example, the National Association of Biology Teachers, in a statement endorsing evolution as noncontroversial, quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and went on to state that the quote "accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes." They emphasized that "Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process" and that "The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences."

Prominent evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have proposed various "controversies" that are worth teaching, instead of intelligent design. Dawkins compares teaching intelligent design in schools to teaching flat earthism: perfectly fine in a history class but not in science. "If you give the idea that there are two schools of thought within science, one that says the earth is round and one that says the earth is flat, you are misleading children". Tufts University Professor of Philosophy Daniel C. Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, describes how they generate a sense of controversy: "The proponents of intelligent design use an ingenious ploy that works something like this: First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a 'controversy' to teach".

Critics of the Teach the Controversy movement and strategy can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, described the approach of the movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry." "The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God".

The Discovery Institute

According to critics of the Discovery Institute's efforts through the Teach the Controversy campaign and the intelligent design movement, the Wedge strategy betrays the institute's political rather than scientific and educational purpose. The Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture (CSC) has an overarching conservative Christian social and political agenda that seeks to redefine both law and science and how they are conducted, with the stated goal of a religious "renewal" of American culture.

Critics also allege that the Discovery Institute has a long-standing record of misrepresenting research, law and its own policy and agenda and that of others:

• In announcing the Teach the Controversy strategy in 2002, the Discovery Institute's Stephen C. Meyer presented an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution." In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organization that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered his or her research to provide evidence against evolution.
• The Discovery Institute, following the policies outlined by Phillip E. Johnson, obfuscates its agenda. Opposed to the public statements to the contrary made by the Discovery Institute, Johnson has admitted that the goal of intelligent design movement is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

• Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
• This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.
• If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the 'wedge.'
• So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.
  — Phillip E. Johnson

Rob Boston of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State described Johnson's vision of the Wedge as: "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

Instead of producing original scientific data to support ID's claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers through its Teach the Controversy campaign.

Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restriction on establishment. They argue that ID is simply an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief and agenda.

Given the history of the Discovery Institute as an organization committed to opposing any scientific theory inconsistent with "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God", many scientists regard the movement purely as a ploy to insert creationism into the science curriculum rather than as a serious attempt to discuss scientific evidence. In the words of Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Education:

Teach the controversy' is a deliberately ambiguous phrase. It means 'pretend to students that scientists are arguing over whether evolution took place.' This is not happening. I mean you go to the scientific journals, you go to universities... and you ask the professors, is there an argument going on about whether living things had common ancestors? They'll look at you blankly. This is not a controversy.

Though Teach the Controversy proponents cite the current public policy statements of the Discovery Institute as belying the criticisms that their strategy is a creationist ploy and decry critics as biased in failing to recognize that the intelligent design movement's Teach the Controversy strategy as really just a question of science with no religion involved, is itself belied by Discovery Institute's former published policy statements, its "Wedge Document", and statements made to its constituency by its leadership, and in particular Phillip E. Johnson.

Writes Johnson in the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000):

The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message. ... The first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact.

Johnson's words bolster the claims of those critics who cite Johnson's admission that the ultimate goal of the campaign is getting "the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools".

Amid this political and religious controversy the clear, categorical and oft-repeated view of established national and international scientific organizations remains that there is no scientific controversy over teaching evolution in public schools.

University course

George Mason University Biology Department introduced a 1-credit course on the creation/evolution controversy, and Emmett Holman, an associate professor of philosophy from the university, found that as students learn more about biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing. He concluded that "teaching the controversy" would undermine creationists’ criticisms, and that the scientific community's resistance to this approach was bad public relations. Rather than being taught in a mainstream science course, it would be a separate elective course, probably taught by a scientist but called a course on "philosophy of science", "history of science", or "politics of science and religion".

Biologist Tom A. Langen argues in a journal letter entitled "What is right with 'teaching the controversy'?" that offering a specific course about this controversy will help students understand the demarcation between science and other ways of obtaining knowledge about nature. Similar positions have been expressed by atheists Julian Baggini and Aaron Sloman.