Editing Intelligent design movement (section)

=== The 'big tent' strategy ===
The movement's strategy as set forth by Phillip E. Johnson states the replacement of "materialist science" with "theistic science" as its primary goal; and, more generally, for intelligent design to become "the dominant perspective in science" and to "permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." This agenda is now being actively pursued by the Center for Science and Culture, which plays the leading role in the promotion of intelligent design. Its fellows include most of the leading intelligent design advocates: William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyer.

Intelligent design has been described by its proponents as a 'big tent' belief, one in which all theists united by having some kind of creationist belief (but of differing opinions as regards details) can support. If successfully promoted, it would reinstate creationism in the teaching of science, after which debates regarding details could resume. In his 2002 article in ''Christian Research Journal'', Discovery Institute fellow Paul A. Nelson credits Johnson for the 'big tent' approach and for reviving creationist debate since the ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' decision.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Nelson |first=Paul A. |author-link=Paul Nelson (creationist) |year=2002 |title=Life In The Big Tent: Traditional Creationism And The Intelligent Design Community |url=http://www.equip.org/PDF/DL303.pdf |journal=Christian Research Journal |location=Charlotte, NC |publisher=[[Christian Research Institute]] |volume=24 |issue=4 |issn=1082-572X |access-date=2014-06-01}}</ref> According to Nelson, "The promise of the big tent of ID is to provide a setting where Christians (and others) may disagree amicably, and fruitfully, about how best to understand the natural world, as well as Scripture."

In his presentation to the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference," "How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won," Johnson affirmed this 'big tent' role for "The Wedge" (without using the term intelligent design):

{{quotation|To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is "slow creation." When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a Creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning.

...

So did God create us? Or did we create God? That's an issue that unites people across the theistic world. Even religious, God-believing Jewish people will say, "That's an issue we really have a stake in, so let's debate that question first. Let us settle that question first. There are plenty of other important questions on which we may not agree, and we'll have a wonderful time discussing those questions after we've settled the first one. We will approach those questions in a better spirit because we have worked together for this important common end."

...

[The Wedge is] inherently an ecumenical movement. Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic. The next book that is coming out from Cambridge University Press by one of my close associates is by an evangelical convert to Greek Orthodoxy. We have a lot of Protestants, too. The point is that we have this broad-based intellectual movement that is enabling us to get a foothold in the scientific and academic journals and in the journals of the various religious faiths.|Johnson|How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won<ref name="debate_won"/>}}

The Discovery Institute consistently denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda has religious foundations, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ''[[ABC World News|World News Tonight]]'' asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the Institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path."<ref>{{cite news |date=November 9, 2005 |title=Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate |url=https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true |work=[[ABC World News|World News Tonight]] |location=New York |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company]] |access-date=2014-06-01}}</ref>