Discovery Institute Responds

Donalbain

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 12:55:53 PM12/20/05

to

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Now, lets play whining Bingo

Activist Judge? Check!
Government censorship? Check!
Intelligent design is science really? Check!

Stile4aly

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 1:00:37 PM12/20/05

to

Read: Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!

Wow, this is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen come out of the
Discovery Institute. What's funny is that the judge even says in his
decision that he's not saying ID shouldn't be pursued or researched,
just that it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Of course, we all know that the DI isn't interested in research.

Stile4aly

Gordon Hill

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 1:26:31 PM12/20/05

to

I think you nailed it. Who soes this judge think he is to suggest they
do research to show ID is science. How stupid can one get?

All the best, GH

catshark

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 2:37:03 PM12/20/05

to

The Discovery Institute is so predictable that the judge went ahead and did
exactly that:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely
mark it as the product of an activist judge. If
so, they will have erred as this is manifestly
not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to
us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed
faction on a school board, aided by a national
public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID . . . (p. 137)
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf>

And the DI's press release says:

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist
federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific
idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian
evolution through government-imposed censorship
rather than open debate, and it won't work . . .

Besides being vastly amusing on that ground, how many scientific ideas do
you know that "spread" through being taught in high schools? And yet, that
is all the decision is about, as Jones made clear:

With that said, we do not question that many of the
leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply
held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.
Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be
studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our
conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to
teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public
school science classroom.

So this is nothing more than another dose of DI bombast, just as
transparent as the tired list of purported evidence for design trotted out
for all formal occasions: digital code in DNA, molecular machines and "fine
tuned" laws of physics. If, as Casey Luskin of the DI says:

As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity
of intelligent will be determined not by the courts
but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.

Then what possible complaint do they have with the decision that limits
itself to venues that do not produce scientific evidence? And why is the
DI turning down money from the Templeton Foundation for research and still
pushing the idea of teaching it in public elementary and high school
classes, as allegedly "voluntarily" instruction under the supposed
"academic freedom" of public school teachers to raise the issue?

I think Judge Jones is right. The Discovery Institute is manifestly in
error. Just in more ways than even the Judge pointed out.

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.

- William A. Dembski -

Googler

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 2:52:38 PM12/20/05

to

Stile4aly wrote:

<<...>>

> Wow, this is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen come out of the
> Discovery Institute. What's funny is that the judge even says in his
> decision that he's not saying ID shouldn't be pursued or researched,
> just that it shouldn't be taught in schools.
>

Actually, the ruling doesn't say that at all. What it says is that
'ID' (as the term is commonly used) should not be taught as part of
*SCIENCE*, and that requiring it to be taught in a *BIOLOGY* class
serves no secular purpose.

Of course, this does not serve the proponents of ID in any way.

Geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 2:57:42 PM12/20/05

to

"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135101637.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Donalbain wrote:
>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

I like the phone number and extension on the top of the press release. I was
surprised to hear someone answer it and even more surprised when she
actually listened to me....in one ear and out the other I suppose.

Augray

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 3:49:00 PM12/20/05

to

On 20 Dec 2005 11:52:38 -0800, "Googler"
<GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>
>Stile4aly wrote:
>
> <<...>>
>
>> Wow, this is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen come out of the
>> Discovery Institute. What's funny is that the judge even says in his
>> decision that he's not saying ID shouldn't be pursued or researched,
>> just that it shouldn't be taught in schools.
>>
>
>Actually, the ruling doesn't say that at all.

Actually, it does. From page 137:

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading
advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which
drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID
should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated,
our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID
as an alternative to evolution in a public school science
classroom.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 3:50:58 PM12/20/05

to

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> as Casey Luskin of the DI says:
>
> As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity
> of intelligent will be determined not by the courts
> but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.

And that's exactly what happened.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

RHertz

unread,

Dec 20, 2005, 2:27:14 PM12/20/05

to

"Gordon Hill" <gor...@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1135103191.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>I think you nailed it. Who soes this judge think he is to suggest they
> do research to show ID is science. How stupid can one get?
>
> All the best, GH
>

The DI guy said the judge had "delusions of grandeur". Talk about sour
grapes! Isn't that good for a contempt of court citation or something?