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.
Why would it be significant if it were true? What exactly are you 'peddling'?
I noticed that you inadvertently forgot to include the substantive and overwhelmingly convincing Numerology Evidence, also complements of ARN.
I certainly can't prove that you're wrong. Therefore ...
Hail, Goddess! In fact, lots of hail.
You don't find the Goddess of Everything who knows, sees, and controls All to be significant?! Hey, I'll be watching you...
But my point is that if you believed my claim, I would question your sanity. (Or reward your devoted followership.) There is nothing to back up my claim other than that I said it. Just because I said it doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because the Bible claims it is the word of God, doesn't mean it is.
You are mistaken.
I'm declaring today a religious holiday. Everyone gets the day off and free pizza.
How so?
But please, if you are serious about this, do read scripture in the original Hebrew and Greek, please.
It was reading the NT in the original that helped me free myself from the truly stultifying and hate-filled version of "Christianity" with which I had been raised. And taught me to never trust anyone who claims to speak on behalf of a broad group of any religion. Whatever your Christian belief, there are plenty of other self-styled Christians with a different take on scripture who think you're a heretic. Oh well, you can't win thta one.
And, after reading scripture, it is also very instructive to make a study of how they came into being, over centuries, and how the version we have today is the product of a number of fractious councils and a few more centuries of sectarian in-fighting
Learning to think for oneself was an enormous relief!
So remember, folks: the underlying principle behind both ID and Creationism is nothing more than a shameless lie.
Creationism seems not to be lying, as ID is. Creationists admitted their goals openly.
Creationism lost at the Supreme Court level in the late 1980s, after which ID was invented. ID claims to be a serious science without using any of the methods of science; in fact, every effort is made to destroy the scientific method enough that even ID can sneak in.
IDers even have to deny that their designer is the Hebrew god, which everyone can see is the case. I post alternative creation stories, but IDers can't stand them; they're the wrong religion!
ID is thus based on a lie--denying the obvious religious connection while in fact the whole point of the effort is to force religion into the classroom. Its easy to document, just check out the various websites that advocate ID. You won't find the alternative creation stories I post. But you'll find lots of bible passages. Check it out!
You mean you couldn't investigate the claims and make a reasonable conclusion? You would accept the claim blindly?
Who actually wrote the Book of Genesis, and what was his source material? Is it an eyewitness account? Doesn't the fact that someone wrote it mean that at some point a man did add something to it?
Ok. And science explains *how* God created it. Evolution was His method.
So it isn't so much the actual existence of a deity you respect, but rather what other men think of that deity?
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.