Misplaced Pages

Discovery Institute: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:49, 28 November 2019 editInternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,381,181 edits Rescuing 4 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0← Previous edit Revision as of 05:29, 27 December 2019 edit undoCandySmith74 (talk | contribs)8 edits →Teach the ControversyTags: references removed Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app editNext edit →
Line 38: Line 38:
{{Main|Teach the Controversy}} {{Main|Teach the Controversy}}


"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the ] of ], a variant of traditional ], while attempting to discredit the teaching of ] in United States public high school science courses.<ref name=ForrestMayPaper>{{Cite journal|url=https://centerforinquiry.org/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy |first=Barbara |last=Forrest |author-link=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |publisher=Center for Inquiry, Inc. |place=Washington, D.C. |accessdate=2007-08-06 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |archivedate=2011-05-19 }}.</ref><ref> ABC News, November 9, 2005</ref><ref>"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser ] heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner ] (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050405230851/http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html |date=2005-04-05}}</ref> "Teach the Controversy" is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the Scientifi principle]] of ], which is different than Creationism,while seeking to have the weaknesses taught alongside, and having Evolution be taught. Discovery Institute does not want less of Evolution taught but more, in United States public high school science courses. This is based on what Discovery Institute actually believes and wants taught. ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser ] heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner ] (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050405230851/http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html |date=2005-04-05}}</ref>


The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.<ref name="nejm"/><ref name="AAAS"/><ref name="nap">"Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." ]</ref> A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the ], say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.<ref name="nejm">{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1056/NEJMlim055660|pmid = 16723620|title = Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom|journal = New England Journal of Medicine|volume = 354|issue = 21|pages = 2277–2281|year = 2006|last1 = Annas|first1 = George J.}}</ref><ref name=AAAS>"Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221000000/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |date=2006-02-21}} American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006</ref><ref name="kitzmiller_pg89">"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'', but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." ]</ref><ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630002824/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf |date=2007-06-30}} ]. May, 2007.</ref> In the December 2005 ruling of '']'', Judge ] concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".<ref>] (pages 136-138)</ref> The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.<ref name="nejm"/><ref name="AAAS"/><ref name="nap">"Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." ]</ref> A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the ], say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.<ref name="nejm">{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1056/NEJMlim055660|pmid = 16723620|title = Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom|journal = New England Journal of Medicine|volume = 354|issue = 21|pages = 2277–2281|year = 2006|last1 = Annas|first1 = George J.}}</ref><ref name=AAAS>"Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Not trying to "discredit Evolution", we want to teach the weaknesses of Evolution. This is obviously not the same as wanting to discredit Evolution.
A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. Okay? That doesn't make Evolution true. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." How can you possibly know that when you won't even allowed it to be taught? How do you know that what might end up being taught might end up being true and might end up being Scientific? The answer is you don't, you can't know.
In the December 2005 ruling of '']'', Judge ] concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".<ref>] (pages 136-138)</ref>

Intelligent Design can separate itself from Creationism. One just has to choose to be honest and not choose to lie.


==Center for Science and Culture== ==Center for Science and Culture==

Revision as of 05:29, 27 December 2019

Not to be confused with National Institute for Discovery Science.

Discovery Institute
Founded1990; 34 years ago (1990).
Incorporated in 1991
Founder
TypeIRS exemption status: 501(c)(3)
Location
Key peopleSteven J. Buri, President
RevenueUS$4,074,669 (2013)
Expenses$4,981,381 (2013)
Websitewww.discovery.org
Part of a series on
Intelligent design
ClockworkWatchmaker analogy
Concepts
Movement
Campaigns
Authors
Organisations
Reactions
Creationism

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none.

History

In 1990, the Institute was founded as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank. It was originally founded as a branch of the Hudson Institute, an Indianapolis-based conservative think tank, and is named after the Royal Navy ship HMS Discovery in which George Vancouver explored Puget Sound in 1792.

Discovery Institute Press

Discovery Institute Press is the Institute's publishing arm and has published intelligent design books by its fellows including David Berlinski's Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (2010), Jonathan Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) and an edited volume titled Signature Of Controversy, which contains apologetic works in defense of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture director Stephen C. Meyer.

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

The Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), formally registered as PSSI International Inc, is a United States 501(c)(3) nonprofit anti-evolution organization promoting the pseudoscience of intelligent design associated with the Discovery Institute, based in Clearwater, Florida. While in the past, the organization sponsored events promoting intelligent design and fundamentalist Christianity, it is currently largely inactive. The PSSI was established in early 2006 by Rich Akin. Geoffrey Simmons, Discovery Institute fellow, is one of the Directors of the PSSI.

The PSSI created a public list of medical professionals who dissent from Darwinism. This list is used by the Discovery Institute in its anti-evolution campaigns. The list is used in support of the Discovery Institute claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid while asserting that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

The PSSI, which was active between 2006 - 2008, held a "Doctors Doubting Darwin" rally at the University of South Florida's Sun Dome in September 2006. Attendance was estimated at 3,500 to 4,000 people by a local reporter. Apologetic organizations promoting the event had hoped to fill all 7,700 seats in the Sun Dome. This meeting featured the Discovery Institute's Jonathan Wells and fellow Michael Behe, and received local radio coverage. This rally was opposed by the Florida Citizens for Science organization.

Teach the Controversy

Main article: Teach the Controversy

"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the Scientifi principle]] of intelligent design, which is different than Creationism,while seeking to have the weaknesses taught alongside, and having Evolution be taught. Discovery Institute does not want less of Evolution taught but more, in United States public high school science courses. This is based on what Discovery Institute actually believes and wants taught. ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message Archived 2005-04-05 at the Wayback Machine</ref>

The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Intelligent Design can separate itself from Creationism. One just has to choose to be honest and not choose to lie.

Center for Science and Culture

Main article: Center for Science and Culture

Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute. It publishes the blog Evolution News & Science Today (formerly Evolution News & Views and often shortened to Evolution News (EN)), that promotes "a rigorously God-centered view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism."

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  2. "Form 990 for DISCOVERY INSTITUTE (91-1521697) for 12/2010" (PDF). Bulk.Resource.Org. Sebastopol, CA: Public.Resource.Org. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
  3. ^ "Charity Navigator Rating - Discovery Institute". Charity Navigator. Glen Rock, NJ: Charity Navigator. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
  4. Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  5. "Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse - A Conversation With Barbara Forrest". Church & State (Unabridged interview). Washington, D.C.: Americans United for Separation of Church and State. February 2005. ISSN 2163-3746. Archived from the original on May 17, 2014. Retrieved May 27, 2014.
  6. Jones, Thomas (November 1, 2001). "Short Cuts". London Review of Books. 23 (21): 22. ISSN 0260-9592. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  7. Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press: 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. Article available from Universiteit Gent
  8. Pigliucci 2010
  9. Young & Edis 2004 pp. 195-196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?
  10. Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
  11. "Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". World News Tonight. New York: American Broadcasting Company. November 9, 2005. Archived from the original on May 21, 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  12. Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect. 13 (22). Washington, D.C. Retrieved July 23, 2008.
  13. Dembski, William A. (2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When?". Access Research Network. Colorado Springs, CO. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
  14. Matzke, Nick (July 11, 2006). "No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
  15. "Mississippi Legislators Should Drop Academic Freedom Bill or Make Clear It Doesn't Permit Creationism". Retrieved February 22, 2016.
  16. "The Theory of Evolution: Educator's Briefing Packet". The Discovery Institute: Center for Science & Culture. pp. 5–6. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  17. "Discovery Institute: A Brief History" (PDF). Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  18. "Discovery Institute Press". Discovery Institute Press. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
  19. "Intelligent Design Presentation at USF Draws Crowds and Complaints From Darwinists - Evolution News & Views". Evolution News. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  20. "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Part One". Podomatic.
  21. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals; A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  22. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Archived February 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Hank Tippins, Tippin the Scales, The Observer News, Tampa Bay, Florida, October 21, 2006.
  23. Recent Events Archive: Apologetics Events in the U.S. and Beyond Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, apologetics.org.
  24. September 23, 2006 - News Archived September 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, Texans for Better Science Education Newsletter, Sept 23, 2006.
  25. Florida Citizens for Science official webpage
  26. Doomed in the Dome, Red State Rabble blog, September 28, 2006.
  27. ^ Annas, George J. (2006). "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom". New England Journal of Medicine. 354 (21): 2277–2281. doi:10.1056/NEJMlim055660. PMID 16723620.
  28. Cite error: The named reference AAAS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. "Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition United States National Academy of Sciences
  30. Forrest & Gross 2004, pp. 19, 23

References

External links

Portals: Categories: