Discovery Institute in NY Times
Discovery Institute, with which I am affiliated as a senior fellow in foreign policy, is best known in the media for its research on "intelligent design." There has been some press on it lately, in part because of President Bush's statement a couple of week ago supporting intelligent design.
Discovery is often attacked as a "command center" for creationists, and many people call intelligent design "creationism light." But, as can be expected, most people -- even those who should know better -- are confused by what exactly Discovery Institute stands for in regards to intelligent design. Part of the blame for that confusion goes to the lazy or hostile media coverage that ascribes to Discovery Institute strawman positions.
One often hears in the media that Discovery supports teaching intelligent design at schools. This is simply inaccurate. Over the weekend, the New York Times published a lengthy profile of Discovery Institute. It was by no means a friendly article, but it did better than many others in clarifying Discovery's actual positions:
Yes, Discovery supports scientists who are exploring scientific evidences that show weakness in the traditional Darwinian theory (for example, the Cambrian Explosion). Discovery also supports scientific freedom for the researchers who engage in the study of the evidences and opposes the kind of witch hunt in which some of the established institutions engage.
The actual Discovery policy position, however, is very mild: it wants schools to teach evolution as the dominant paradigm, but also wants the pupils to be exposed to some of the scientific gaps and problems associated with the evolutionary theory, which is invariably taught in schools as an almost god-given truth. It does NOT support mandating the teaching of intelligent design.
It's time to give the ad hominem attacks a rest and engage in a more meaningful and substantive scientific and policy debate.
Discovery is often attacked as a "command center" for creationists, and many people call intelligent design "creationism light." But, as can be expected, most people -- even those who should know better -- are confused by what exactly Discovery Institute stands for in regards to intelligent design. Part of the blame for that confusion goes to the lazy or hostile media coverage that ascribes to Discovery Institute strawman positions.
One often hears in the media that Discovery supports teaching intelligent design at schools. This is simply inaccurate. Over the weekend, the New York Times published a lengthy profile of Discovery Institute. It was by no means a friendly article, but it did better than many others in clarifying Discovery's actual positions:
But even as the institute spearheads the intellectual development of intelligent design, it has staked out safer turf in the public policy sphere, urging states and school boards simply to include criticism in evolution lessons rather than actually teach intelligent design...Despite constant ad hominem attacks as being a bunch of creationists, the actual Discovery position is something else.
Dr. West, who leads the science center's public policy efforts, said it did not support mandating the teaching of intelligent design because the theory was not yet developed enough and there was no appropriate curriculum. So the institute has opposed legislation in Pennsylvania and Utah that pushes intelligent design, instead urging lawmakers to follow Ohio's lead.
"A lot of people are trying to hijack the issue on both the left and the right," Dr. West said.
Yes, Discovery supports scientists who are exploring scientific evidences that show weakness in the traditional Darwinian theory (for example, the Cambrian Explosion). Discovery also supports scientific freedom for the researchers who engage in the study of the evidences and opposes the kind of witch hunt in which some of the established institutions engage.
The actual Discovery policy position, however, is very mild: it wants schools to teach evolution as the dominant paradigm, but also wants the pupils to be exposed to some of the scientific gaps and problems associated with the evolutionary theory, which is invariably taught in schools as an almost god-given truth. It does NOT support mandating the teaching of intelligent design.
It's time to give the ad hominem attacks a rest and engage in a more meaningful and substantive scientific and policy debate.
| Permalink | 
