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.
Not Atkins, just not a fan of pasta. I'll take the cake, though. ;-)
2+2=4 is only true within certain algebraic systems.
When evo is that clear...you can have your freedom.
My freedom is not contingent upon your understanding of science.
2/3 of America is waiting.
Argumentum ad numerum is a logical fallacy.
See! Look at all these loyal followers! Is my divinity on good authority now?
Are you a professional drummer?
Nor have we observed many things in geology and cosmology. Not all science is done in a lab.
Do you have a stripper factory and beer volcano?
we can observe gravity in actionYes, but only micro-gravity. Noone knows what happens when an object falls out of range of our sensors. This is why gravity is a theory in crisis!
If you placed a picture, on this thread, of yourself changing broccoli into something that actually tasted good and was worth eating I might.
I suspect it would be impossible even for a Goddess to produce.
You're working under the concept that anything that we can't reproduce in a lab or reliably witness in person is somehow unverifiable. This is not the case.
The scientific method allows for this by using hypotheses to predict what we would be able to test for, or witness, if a certain thing were true. For example, how would we know if the Hawaiian Islands were formed by plate tectonics vs. a hot spot in the earths magma that the plate was passing over? It is possible to make predictions on what we would find in these cases, and determine the correct answer, even though we cannot roll a time machine backward and see the Islands form.
Ichneumon has a great post on that subject here. I suggest you read it all thoroughly until you understand it.
You must accept or reject Genesis on faith alone. There is no way to verify the supernatural via science.
But science does give us methods to verify many things about the natural world, and Evolution has been thoroughly verified by many different methods. That's why it's presented as "fact". Because as well as we can determine, that's what it is.
What exactly is a macro-evolutionary event?
It sounds like longshadow isn't really firm in his desire to be the consort of Her Divinity. Noodly appendages aren't really of much use to a Goddess, considering the stiff competition available.
It's good to know that even goddesses enjoy a little monkey business.
Are you sure you want to watch 3 naked men dance around a large fire? Things could get a wee bit touchy.
How about Chicken and Mushroom Fettuccine? That's OK isn't it? Please?
Doesn't everybody? Well, mine is on VHS, but same difference.
I have a better one for you:
DaveLoneRanger is an idiot. Liberals are idiots. Therefore, DaveLoneRanger is a liberal.
is a logical statement
No, Dave, it is not a "logical statement". It is a logical fallacy. If you had more than an 8th grade education you would understand that.
However, like most ID / creationists, you have to accuse us of being athiests because you cannot compete, even marginally, on an intellectual or educational basis.
We can debate the evolution / creationism issue. Some people can even do it intelligently. But here is something that is an incontrovertible fact. DaveLoneRanger is not the equal of RightWingProfessor by any measure: mental, moral, or physical.
You're much too kind, but alas, I doubt I could have been a marine.
SWINE!
Impudent scounderel!
How dare you cast aspersions on my Noodliness? It's as al dente as perfection itself!
As a test of this 'firmness', could you see if it sticks to the wall? Hmmm?
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.