hey discovery!

i've always been interested in the public evolution vs. intelligent design (ID) controversy. i say 'public' because that's really the only arena in which it actually is a controversy. any self-respecting scientist excepts the basic principles of darwinian evolution supported by both classic and more modern molecular evidence and recognizes that intelligent design is poorly re-tooled version of neo-creationism! but public perception is a powerful thing and thus the 'controversy' lives on.

the 'intellectual' command center for intelligent design could be the discovery institute, who describe them selves as "a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in seattle and dealing with national and international affairs." their mission statement:

"to make a positive vision of the future practical. the institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the institute's own publications and Internet website."

i like to visit their website every once in awhile when i'm feeling down and need a good laugh. here are some examples.

in response to the recent changes in science teaching standards in ohio, casey luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs has this to say:

"“darwin-only activists are dumping down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning, this is nothing more than a gag order on science, a dogmatic approach to education that restricts students from learning about evolution"”

so wait a second. are you telling me that after all this time, discovery institute, the organization that has agressively lobbied for ID by providing council and 'expert' witnesses in every court battle, is now opposing the ohio decision in defense of evolution? who the hell are these people kidding?! honestly, it's pretty damn clear which corner of this boxing match they are in. take for example discovery institute's center for science and culture. the main goals of this program are as follows:

• support research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-darwinian theory,
• support research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design,
• support research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture,
• ecourage schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well as its strenghts,

i reallappreciatete their distiction between neo-darwinism and evolution. apparently they have no bones to pick with evolution but it's neo-darwinism that idestroyingng our society by forcing its supposed materialism on everyone! it would appear that the members of discovery fail to understand that neo-darwinism (better known as the 'new synthesis') represents the unification of every major biological field together to offer the most comprehensive understanding of life; which only makes sense within the frame work of evolution. but my favorite part about the center for science and culture is that it's directors are dr stephen meyer, whose phd is in the history and philosophy of science, and dr john west, whose phd is in government. these guys are not scientists! i appreciate the philosophy of science, i really do, but if your trying to make a compelling scientific argument for something like intelligent design don't get a couple of book worms from the humanities!!

i could go on all day about these nut jobs. i encourage you to check into their website for more classic excerpts. my guess is you'll start to see a continual pattern: discovery institute claims to make scientific arguments to oppose the unified biologicaprincipleses of the new synthesis and support instead the alternative theory of intelligent design. they declare to do so independent of religious or creationistic influence but it's quite clear that their position rests heavily on poorly disguised religious fundamentalism (in some form or another) hell-bent on preventing "materialism" from apparently ruining our society. sadly, the general public is largely uninformed and easily falls victim to their "teach the controversy" ploys to insert creationism into science education where has no place. look for a more direct refutation of intelligent design to come later.