Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 9, 2013 in Creationism, Government, Society | 1 comment

The Discovery Institute in Their Own Words

Those of us who have battled against the inclusion of creationism (including Intelligent Design) in the classroom have dealt with the Discovery Institute in one form or another.

A recent, open letter, by Joshua Youngkin to Bill Moyers shows exactly what the DI is about.  This letter is in response to Zack Kopplin appearing on the show.  Zach, whom is probably the greatest man I’ve ever talked with, has been kicking the ass of the DI and creationists since high school and looks to be well on his way to being a leader in the world.

But, let’s see what Joshua thinks the Discovery Institute actually does.

Discovery Institute, on the other hand, is on the inside, and ready to shed light from a privileged vantage point. We draft and amend academic freedom language, counsel lawmakers privately,testify publicly, and are otherwise intimately acquainted with the intentions behind and likely effects of academic freedom legislation.

Very interesting.

Notice what’s NOT on that list.

Science

Research

Evidence

That sort of thing.

I’ve talked  before about why the Academic Freedom bills are useless and merely attempts to legally allow something that is illegal to teach.

A look at the 2010 tax return for the DI may be instructive here.

The tax return doesn’t show if the DI did any scientific research ‘in-house’, but there are two grants (one to Biologic and the other to Grove City College) for ‘scientific research’ totaling just under $240,000 US dollars.

Meanwhile, the total lobbying expenses for the 2010 period was $371,000 US.

The DI’s total income for the year was a hair over four million dollars, of which almost 2.5 million went to salaries and employee benefits.

Looks a little odd doesn’t it.  I mean for an organization that promotes intelligent design as an alternative to evolution to not be doing very much research, but instead all those other things that Joshua listed.

In simple language, the DI isn’t interested in science.  It’s interested in forcing their beliefs on others by law, rather than ability.

Hat tip to the Sensuous Curmudgeon.  He does an amazing job of keeping track of this stuff.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    … ,testify publicly,…

    So Josh Youngkin works for the Discovery Institute and he actually wrote that? I seem to recall that in the most prominent ID court case yet, Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Discovery Institute personnel, Behe excepted, mostly didn’t get around to “testifying publicly.”

    Barbara Forrest described it in 2006
    …
    Dembski’s CSC associates Stephen C. Meyer, John Angus Campbell, Scott
    Minnich and Michael Behe were also to be witnesses for the defense,
    along with ID supporters Warren Nord, Steve William Fuller, and Dick M.
    Carpenter II. When TMLC rejected Meyer, Dembski, and Campbell’s demand
    for legal representation independent of TMLC, the three withdrew from
    the case by refusing to continue without their own attorneys12.
    …

    The reason given was a dispute over legal representation, but there was widespread speculation that the DI could already smell that the case was a loser for them. For whatever reasons, they had their best yet opportunity to “testify publicly,” and many of them missed the opportunity. Behe did testify, but to such effect that he was cited by Judge Jones in his decision, which went very badly for ID.