Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Medved Becomes Discovery Fellow

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Discovery Press Release:

Discovery Institute Names National Talk Show Host Michael Medved as Senior Fellow

SEATTLE — Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host and bestselling author, has joined the Discovery Institute in the role of senior fellow. The position cements a longstanding friendship and recognizes a commonality of values and projects across a spectrum of issues.

“Michael Medved is an intellectual entrepreneur, a political and cultural polymath with great insights, judgment and wit. We are delighted to have this new relationship with him,” said Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman.

The sixth largest talk radio audience in the country, 3.7 million listeners, hears Medved’s daily three-hour radio program, The Michael Medved Show. Michael’s show is carried on more than 200 stations across America. The author of several books, including Hollywood vs. America and a recent autobiography, Right Turns, the one-time “punk liberal activist” turned “lovable conservative curmudgeon” is currently at work on a book on The Ten Big Lies About America.

Chapman saluted Medved “as the national radio host—make that ‘media host’—who is best able to understand science issues, including the current conflict over Darwinism and intelligent design. He’s very smart, quick and resourceful. Yet he also is respectful of those he disagrees with.”

“Over the years, I’ve greatly appreciated Discovery’s scholarship and advocacy in many areas,” Medved commented. “We may not agree on every issue, but I often have been struck by how much our worldviews overlap. It has been my pleasure to have Discovery fellows on my show as guests, including Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and David Klinghoffer. Formalizing the relationship will, I’m sure, only deepen the feeling of collegiality I already have with my friends at Discovery. I look forward to working with Discovery on future projects.”

Medved’s first book, What Really Happened to the Class of ’65?, provided one of the first skeptical reconsiderations of the 1960s counterculture. His tenth book, Right Turns, drew national attention in 2005, offering 35 “unconventional lessons” from Michael’s dramatic political and religious evolution. The New York Times called Right Turns “A provocative memoir… Even many of his readers who hold to very different political and social views will concede, grudgingly, the quality of Medved’s intellect.”

Crown Forum will publish The Ten Big Lies About America, certain to be hugely controversial, in June 2008.

Long active in the Jewish community, Medved has served as president of an Orthodox congregation and co-founder of a Jewish Day School. Since 1996, Michael and his wife, Dr. Diane Medved, a psychologist, have lived in the Seattle area with their three children.

###

Comments
[...] no scientific training whatsoever. I guess the Discovery Institute just wants his name. In their announcement of Medved’s appointment as a Senior Fellow, the Discovery Institute said [...]Radio debate: Dan Barker vs. Casey Luskin on the Ball State case « Why Evolution Is True
June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
tyke, Why don't you ask Professor Marks at Baylor what type of research is being done and being prevented from being done? Stop speaking out of ignorance.geoffrobinson
November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
So saying that John Edwards and Ron Paul have essentially the same policies is an example of "considerate thinking"? I have listened to plenty of Medved over the past few years, and none of it leads me to believe that Medved will add any credibility to the DI's efforts outside those who are already true believers in ID. Regarding research. What research?tyke
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Exactly, Geoff. I think the addition of a public intellectual, like Medved, to the stable of resources at the Discovery Institute can only serve to kick the scientific program into high gear.poachy
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
After reading most of the comments on this thread, I'm pretty sure that most people who view this as a negative don't listen to Michael Medved. He is a articulate, considerate thinker. He "gets" ID and understands the nuances of the debate. He entertains opposing points of view on his show constantly and has very good and meaningful interactions with them. He routinely debunks conspiracy theories, so the Bigfoot thing is no big deal to me. He is not given over to those types of things. Comments regarding research, etc. Does anyone seriously believe that ID research and thinking will come to a hault because there is a formalized relationship between DI and Medved? What is even the point of the comment?geoffrobinson
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
----Carl "Which means that the present administration, especially in the Departments of State and Defense, is comprised almost exclusively of liberals. And if one thinks about the situation in terms of how much government spending has expanded over the past seven years, it seems even more plausible to think of them as basically liberal." Yes, they are liberal in many ways---one worldism, open borders, big government, nation building, ---absolutely right. No argument here. ---PaV That is an excellent definition of conservative/ liberal by the way. Conservatives do conform their way of thinking to reality and liberals do try to conform reality to their way of thinking. Marx, Freud, Mead, and Kinsey all tried to remake the world in their own image and likeness. They wanted the world to be just like they were. Its a lot easier to create a phony morality than conform to the real one. Pav: To that I would add--Conservatives think that we make the world the way it is, liberals think the way the world is makes us.StephenB
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
As to examples of liberals conforming reality to their way of thinking: (1) men and women are the same [one presumes that those who proclaim this “truth” have never seen naked photos of men and women; PaV, I don't think this is a very good argurment, given the liberals fondness for thinking porn is free speech.poachy
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
One way I contrast liberals from conservatives is this: Liberals conform reality to their way of thinking; conservatives conform their way of thinking to reality.
Which means that the present administration, especially in the Departments of State and Defense, is comprised almost exclusively of liberals. And if one thinks about the situation in terms of how much government spending has expanded over the past seven years, it seems even more plausible to think of them as basically liberal. Just remember: I've been urging you to keep the door firmly shut against politicizing the evolution/design debate. If you want to frame it as a scientific debate over competing theories, that's fine. If you want to frame it as a cultural-political debate over competing world-views, that's fine too. But you can't have it both ways.Carl Sachs
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
One way I contrast liberals from conservatives is this: Liberals conform reality to their way of thinking; conservatives conform their way of thinking to reality. Guess which part of this dichotomy the Darwinists belong to? As to examples of liberals conforming reality to their way of thinking: (1) men and women are the same [one presumes that those who proclaim this "truth" have never seen naked photos of men and women; (2) infanticide is really a "late-term abortion"; (3) "divorce is better for the children", etc. etc.PaV
November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
This change does not mean the death of science, as our theorists claim, but the beginning of a new form of science that is not infatuated with men and their ideas and not ashamed to celebrate the handiwork of God.
Sounds like religion to me, and we've already got plenty of that.tyke
November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
There is a type of conservatism that has nothing to do with the trivial forms seen in modern political discourse—Aristotelian conservatism. This type of conservatism is rooted in a deep and abiding love of nature. It s based on the premise that nature is good—indeed, “very good”—and that any theory of value must be rooted in the goodness of nature in order to overcome the nothingness and potential for error produced by the love of pure intellect. From this love of nature comes the notion of natural law. Aristotle’s golden mean may have lost some of its gravity, since nature is no longer seen as a middle term of intellect and matter, but natural law, properly explicated, provides a useful antidote to the various speculative theories of value that characterized the Modern age, including natural selection, the superman, and dialectical materialism. Now that some of the glow from those theories has worn off, the tide is turning away from pure theory to concepts of value that are reliably grounded in sense. Aristotelian conservatism insists on rooting all theories of value in observation. If Neo-Darwinism cannot be proven by empirical means, then it should be rejected. Finally, this form of conservatism is rooted in the value of life, which is relevant today because of the growing realization that life is not the simple bauble described by Darwin and Nietzsche. The more closely we examine life, the more we become aware of its astonishing goodness, which far surpasses the thinking of men. This change does not mean the death of science, as our theorists claim, but the beginning of a new form of science that is not infatuated with men and their ideas and not ashamed to celebrate the handiwork of God.allanius
November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
In re: (41)
This isn’t just a statement marrying intelligent design to conservatism, but to a very specific strain of conservatism.
Very likely. And it will also provide further ammunition for people who will say that this marriage between ID and "a very specific strain of conservatism" was the point the whole time -- that ID was never about science, but about politics and "culture wars," etc.Carl Sachs
November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
This sends a very clear "if you're not into wars, we're not into you" message, which I'm sure all the other Catholics will love as much as I do. This isn't just a statement marrying intelligent design to conservatism, but to a very specific strain of conservatism.Bugsy
November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
jdd, pretty much. Medved is an able communicator, there is no doubt, but he's squarely in the market of "moral outrage" and will not taken seriously by wonks and scientists outside the ID true believers (if that). And it's not as though he had much credibility in the first place when it come to political matters. Sure, conservatives love him, but his arguments are usually thin and unimpressive. I caught him on the radio just the other day for a few minutes. Just enough time to hear him say that there was no difference between the policies of Ron Paul and John Edwards--and no, it wasn't in the context of the Iraq War, which is the *only* thing those two have in common. This is a big mistake by the DI. I guess if they are trying to raise money from right-wing Christian fundamentalists he can probably help, but otherwise his appointment sends all the wrong signals regarding the nature and intent of the DI think tank.tyke
November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Tim, I think tykes point is that the sharp edge seems to be getting bigger than the broad edge. That is the DI is adding more talking heads but they don't seem to be investing as much in research. but maybe I'm wrong about what tyke is saying.jdd
November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
As a propagandist, no doubt Medved is highly qualified, but I don’t believe that’s what’s required.
I don't think this is fair. I don't buy most of what Al Franken says, but I wouldn't call him a "propagandist". They're both commentators expressing their opinions. Calling either of them "propagandists" does indeed polarize and short-circuit debate.russ
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
"I look forward to Michael Medved expanding the body of scientific knowledge and research regarding the theory of Intelligent Design." Michael Medved is not a scientist. He's yet another sharp point in the wedge strategy, just like Phillip E Johnson explained in the Nova special. I see Medved like Phillip E Johnson described himself - the sharp point of a wedge. Dr Dembski and Dr Behe are the wide portion (heavier too) of the wedge (as described by Mr Johnson). Guys like Johnson and Medved crack the door(s) open and guys like Dr Dembski and Dr Behe blow the doors wide open with their scientific knowledge. Ben Stein is the sharp side of the wedge too, he's no scientist but he plays an important role in overthrowing science soaked in naturalism. Does that make sense? TimToolbox_Tim
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
I look forward to Michael Medved expanding the body of scientific knowledge and research regarding the theory of Intelligent Design. I'm just not holding my breath. As a propagandist, no doubt Medved is highly qualified, but I don't believe that's what's required. Do the research.tyke
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Oh yes, I forgot, Darwinists seem to have jumped on the the global warming bandwagon, while intelligent design advocates typically think it is junk science. By the way, don't get too excited about my reference to Jefferson, it was only hyperbole.StephenB
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
I, too, would like to see ID and Darwinistic evolution isolated from other issues, but each side often pursues cultural interests that makes the divide even wider. Darwinists, for example, typically promote a radical separation of church and state, while ID advocates usually advocate a more moderate position. Typically, Darwinists are closer to secular humanism, while ID supporters, with some exceptions, incline more toward a Judeo/Christian world view. Indeed, they even read and argue for decidedly different versions of American history. Ask a Darwinist to characterize Thomas Jefferson, and you will think old TJ was a raging atheist; ask a typical IDer, and you will think the guy was ready for an altar call. How do you extricate the sciences from their cultural and sub-cultural contexts. If you know a way, count me in.StephenB
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
I would actually like to see another think tank that supports a rival ID theory. Competition might be good for ID. If the two think tanks keep each other in check, then it steals the darwinists' thunder when they want to criticize.Collin
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Bugsy - Not if you're Larry CraigGlarson24
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Do we have a "Bigfoot of the gaps" issue here? No matter what is shown about the unlikelihood that Sasquatch exists, no matter how infinitesimal the probabilities, there will always be the possibility that Bigfoot will show up some day with a naturalistic explanation, just as black swans did.jerry
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Alan, No, I used preclude incorrectly.todd
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Regardless of Medved's politics or religious views, I have to believe the Sasquatch thing is going to hurt. Perhaps some observation of his was taken out of context. I hope so, because Medved is a pretty level-headed guy and has a knack for articulating the important stuff.Stanton Rockwell
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Long time lurker who just registered today. I don't see what the big deal is about Mr Medved believing in bigfoot. Although I don't believe there is any bigfoot or related creature running around Canada I know a lot of other smart people do. Who's to say they're wrong? I don't want to sound sarcastic but I don't think anyone can claim to have personally inspected every square yard of Canada and the Pacific Northwest. If they ever find a skeleton/fossile of a bigfoot type of creature a lot of people are going to look bad. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it could. I'm always open to new discoveries. Like Mr Medved, I'm sure Dr Dembski or Dr Behe and other ID leaders have some personal beliefs that have nothing to do with Intelligent Design. That doesn't make ID any less of a scientific theory. I'm probably not as well read as many of you but I think Mr Medved will be an asset to the ID movement. Time will tell. TimToolbox_Tim
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
to Todd: "I’ve met precious few materialists who recognize their philosophy >precludes the empirical evidence which they say supports their materialist philosophy!" - Did you mean to say precludes (prevents from happening or arising) the empirical evidence which does NOT support their materialist philosophy?alan
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Exposure is always good.Bugsy
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
This is a matter of separating science and religion. I stand with everyone who believes science and religion are different spheres and who recognize ideology is the brother of theology. True believers, such as PZM and Dawkins, will fight like cornered weasels when confronted with their own metaphysic! I've met precious few materialists who recognize their philosophy precludes the empirical evidence which they say supports their materialist philosophy! This is the central circularity of most materialists I've engaged over the years and intellectual honesty on this point is rare. The reason this issue splits along partisan lines is because of the divisive tactics of leftists - because ultimately, left wing politics is anti-theism and seeks utopia via collective action - which must be organized and controlled by a central state. The so-called Religious Right was a reaction to the Secular Left, which had been using the US Courts to impose dogmatic secularism on the rest of the country. Read " Our Secularist Democratic Party" from The Public Interest, Fall 2002. Global Warming ties into this issue and is a great example of the revolt against reason which pervades the secular academy. I've got right wing co-workers who take a page from the PZM book of sneering arrogance over ID, but decry AlGore's psuedo-science on Global Warming. The only difference is there is more open dissent from the global warming crowd than from the Darwinist crowd. I chalk that up to darwinism's head start in the trenches.todd
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I don't know how to feel about this. I'm a big fan of Medved, but I don't think we should stoop to the Darwinist's level. We don't politicize science. We don't politicize religion. Let's keep politics out of our movement. This just gives the other side ammo against us. But on the other hand... Maybe we need to get our hands a little dirty so that we can win. I don't know. Should we be politicizing ID?Nochange
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply