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.
"Class, from time to time there are groups that object to evolution because it doesn't conform to their personal religious beliefs. Those objections have all been based on emotion and not reason, and have not had any scientific merit whatsoever."
I think you could come up with more than that. Here's some help, compliments of ARN.org:
Critical Analysis of Evolution, Material for Students
Online Articles of Notable Interest
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Enjoy!
When you accept this as the word of God, you are accepting, first, that it was actually divinely inspired, and second, that it has been accurately transmitted. When you look at the universe, you are directly seeing God's handiwork.
We are not adding or subtracting anything to this like the evos do.
Not to the text itself, but certainly everyone adds meaning when they interpret it.
Why not?
I take the reverse view. One's interpretation of scripture should be cross-checked against the reality of the created universe. If your interpretation conflicts with reality, then it is your interpretation which is faulty, not reality.
But even then, as I said, you are believing on faith that those scriptures are inspired, and that they have been accurately transmitted. You are trusting in the men who wrote and passed them down.
It helps to actually study the word to make sure the person is not a false preacher. I dont remember the verses that echo this.
I hope you don't mind my pointing out the irony here. ;o)
Off the top of my head, try Deuteronomy 18. :o)
Observation trumps belief. Science is neutral on the subject of religion, and if something in your religion is in conflict with science, that's just too bad. You can't possibly expect science to accommodate whatever "feelings" you might have.
What a shocker!! ha ha
We view the Word differently. Another obvious conclusion.
Interesting. The "peer review" in those articles is laughable at best.
ID doesn't match the basic requirements for a scientific theory. As such, it doesn't warrant anything more than the most cursory mention in science class.
Once there is another theory that meets the basic scientific requirements, then it should be discussed. "Teaching the controversy" is a desperate move made by discredited people who have admitted that their "theory" is worthless.
That was also Galileo's opinion.
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.
It didn't persuade the learned gentlemen of the Inquisition, however:
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633. The heresy confession.
However, these things sometimes get corrected. More than three centuries later, the Catholic church has come around to Galileo's thinking:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis. Referred to in the 1996 statement. Excerpt:Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [see link & excerpt below], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
... the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Guess we'll just have to leave that up to the instructors, eh?
And creationists have rejected his creation for their particular interpretation of scripture.
And Thomas Paine's, and other men of the Enlightenment.
Right and wrong exist, in whatever relative meaning you may attach. There may be some difficulties about what is absolute, but it is definitely part of our universe and there seems to be some very real, natural consequences for the choices we make. Those choices seem to bring about a wide range of emotions, too.
Where in the world did emotions come from and what benefit are they to our existence? They seem to be a nuisance.
They're getting better then. It only took them half that time to accept evolution.
I would be most surprised, because I assumed you were male! (Sorry about that. ;o)
You can keep pounding your drum that the Bible is simply mans interpretation and I'll counter with the Word of God is the Word of God.
Its a difference of opinion. I can respect it and not Bible thump you.
Why do you feel the need to mock others?
How you going you know what the author meant without the Cliff Notes ™?
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.