Wednesday, November 04, 2009


Dishonesty Institute

In a comment to a post a while back about the Discoveryless Institute's attempt to hijack the reputation of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, "Rhology" asked:

Also, I don't get why you keep throwing out the word "dishonest". Maybe they just disagree. Think of that?

Here's yet another reason for calling the DI dishonest: Casey Luskin is over at the Ministry of Misinformation, repeating a blatant lie: that Judge Jones was being an "activist judge" because he decided whether or not ID is science. First of all, Casey is showing his status as a faux lawyer by claiming Judge Jones was "trying to settle far more expansive issues unnecessary for the holding in the case." Trial court judges routinely present as many grounds that justify their decisions as possible. Why wouldn't they? But it is particularly disingenuous of Luskin to make the claim that Judge Jones should not have decided whether or not ID was science. As I said before:

The defendant school board certainly thought the status of ID was an issue for Judge Jones' consideration. The following is from the closing argument on behalf of the defendants by Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center:
[T]he evidence of record demonstrates that the curriculum change at issue here had, as its primary purpose and has as its primary effect, science education. It is true that it attracts attention to a new and fledgeling (sic) science movement. But look at Steve Fuller. See it through his eyes. See it through the eyes of history and watch how he can see what may be the next great paradigm shift in science, a wholly new vista that does service to the children of this district by allowing them to put together scientific fields in a new and exciting way which is ultimately productive of scientific progress.
And there was also this from Mr. Gillen:

The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the primary effect of Dover's curriculum change is to advance religion for another reason. The evidence shows that intelligent design is science, a theory advanced in terms of empirical evidence and technical knowledge proper to scientific and academic specialties. It is not religion.

The evidence has failed to support the claim that intelligent design is a nonscientific argument that is inherently religious. The testimony and evidence offered by Behe and Dr. Scott Minnich proved that IDT is science.

But, more importantly as to the DI's honesty or lack thereof, the DI submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to Judge Jones that included the following:
Secular purposes for teaching about the theory of intelligent design include informing students about competing scientific theories of biological origins . . .
In short, the DI itself argued that the case should turn on the issue of whether or not ID is science. It is exactly the situation that the DI is guilty of claiming, as Judge Jones predicted, that "an activist judge is a judge whose decision you disagree with."

That's why we call it the Dishonesty Institute!


By the way, here are Professor Peter Irons' responses to the hooey the DI's "legal team" peddled in the Montana Law Review that was touted by Luskin.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education