Posted on 09/22/2005 6:53:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit that describes itself as a "nonpartisan policy and research organization," recently issued a policy position against Dover in its upcoming court case.
John West, associate director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, calls the Dover policy "misguided" and "likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design."
Eleven parents filed a federal suit last December, about two months after the school board voted to include a statement about intelligent design in its ninth-grade biology classes.
Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being, that life is too complex to have developed through evolution as described by biologist Charles Darwin.
The parents, along with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the board had religious motives for putting the policy in place.
The non-jury trial is expected to start in Harrisburg Sept. 26.
No surprise: The school board's attorney, Richard Thompson, said he isn't surprised the Discovery Institute has distanced itself from the school board's stance.
"I think it's a tactical decision they make on their own," said Thompson, top attorney with Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a law firm that specializes in cases related to the religious freedom of Christians.
Though the Discovery Institute promotes the teaching of intelligent design, it has been critical of school boards that have implemented intelligent design policies, Thompson said.
Discovery Institute's Web site offers school board members a link to a video titled "How to Teach the Controversy Legally," referring to the organization's opinion that there is a controversy over the validity of the theory of evolution.
The video doesn't specifically mention teaching intelligent design.
But Discovery Institute is the leading organization touting intelligent design research and supporting the scientists and scholars who want to investigate it.
Dover is the only school district that Discovery has publicly spoken out against. West said that's because they mandated the policy. Discovery Institute supports teaching intelligent design, but not requiring it through a school board policy.
He said there are few proponents of intelligent design who support the stand Dover's board has taken because the district has required the reading of a statement that mentions intelligent design and directs students to an intelligent design textbook.
"They really did it on their own and that's unfortunate," West said.
The "bad policy" has given the ACLU a reason to try to "put a gag order" on intelligent design in its entirety, he said.
Discovery also spoke out against Pennsylvania legislators who wanted to give school boards the option of mandating the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.
Avoiding politics: Teaching intelligent design is not unconstitutional, but the institute doesn't support the Dover school board's stand because it doesn't want intelligent design to become a political issue, said Casey Luskin, program officer in the Public Policy and Legal Affairs department at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
He said the Discovery Institute is "not trying to hinder their case in court," but the organization wants intelligent design to be debated by the scientific community, not school boards.
Lawyer: Won't hinder case: Thompson said the Discovery Institute's noninvolvement in the trial won't hinder Dover's case because "the judge is going to look at the policy ... not who is in favor of it on the outside."
But the institute has been a hindrance to the school district's attempts to find "scientific" witnesses to testify about intelligent design, Thompson said.
Though Discovery representatives said they have never been in support of Dover's policy, Thompson said the organization's unwillingness to get involved in the trial became evident after it insisted that some of its fellows -- who were lined up to testify -- have their own legal representation, instead of the Thomas More Center, which bills itself as "The Sword and Shield for People of Faith."
Some of the Discovery Institute's intelligent design supporters backed out of testifying, even after Thompson told them they could have their own legal representation if they wanted, Thompson said.
"It was very disappointing" that the institute would prevent its members from testifying, Thompson said.
But he still found some willing Discovery fellows to testify that intelligent design is not a religious movement: Michael Behe from Lehigh University and Scott Minnich from the University of Idaho.
West said Discovery fellow Charles Thaxton is also slated to testify.
But why are more recent revelations rejected? Does Gabriel outrank Moroni? Is there infighting amongst the host? Is Moroni a plural form like Elohim? Enquiring minds want to know.
"Dictated" is pretty old-tech. Don't you mean "ear-mail"?
WE ARE NOT WORTHY!
You are free to believe as you will, and even to proslytise in most places. But the science classroom is not one of those places
You stand up for freedom....than deny it in the classroom.
You are placing limits on freedom, when you have no right to.
Wow! Hadn't heard about him before.
To paraphrase the Prefect of Police in "Casablanca": "I'm shocked, shocked to discover that people like Howard Ahmanson are major contributors to the Discovery Institute!"
That's the second good laugh I've had already today!
Thanks for the ping!
They just can't decide when.
If the Bible was as clear as 2+2=4 then we would not have 1001 different versions of what a Christian is.
Just because something isn't 100% clear doesn't mean it is incorrect.
I refuse to abandon Pastafarianism unless the Godess permits me to touch her with MY Noodly Appendage.....
Do you want these same teachers to have the freedom to discuss sex ed and homosexual behaviors also?
To be clear, I'm not referring to the church. I make the authority claim based on the authority Jesus claimed to possess. What He has spoken of regarding man and Himself is reasonable.
BTW, how did arrive at most of what you know? Did you happen to trust the statements of other men initially and then investigate the claims, subsequently affirming or negating what you believed?
I could be wrong but it seems much of what we do know and believe comes by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' (i.e.-trusting what other men say about a certain thing without fully going to the end of it ourselves).
I do enjoy reading these posts. I find them challenging and thought provoking.
You have presented a very well worded and intelligent response, thank you for it. I would have to agree that in order to critically understand any premise it is essential to at least initially give consideration to the claim being made based upon the perceived trustworthiness of the source.
This brings up a fundamental difference between theology and science, and underscores why neither is suited to assume the place of the other. Trust in scientific claims is earned through continuous and never-ending testing of falsifiable claims; i.e. it is not only possible but a requirement that any such claim be independently verified. Theological claims ultimately rely on a character judgment of the origin of the claim - usually only verified by the claimant itself; e.g. the chief argument to trust in the Bible is because the Bible itself says to trust it. Thus the assertion that science is based on facts and religion is based on faith.
So I guess my point is that to me the level of trustworthiness something enjoys is directly proportional to the ability to independently verify its claim.
I also enjoy reading these threads. If that were not the case, I would not be here. Thanks again for your thoughtful post.
I filed my application for the position of Consort long before your obscene post. And as for your appendage, I doubt that Her Divinity would even notice it.
That is What/Why not How.
Science = How
Religion = Why
"I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
And perhaps I can have many Consorts. I'm flexible, I'm a swinger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.