No United Front for Intelligent Design

In the weeks before the battle over first amendment rights ramped up in Dover, the Discovery Institute folks said they didn?t support intelligent design mandates in science curricula, saying that such cases will only be politically divisive. Now, lawyers representing the school board are apparently happy to hear it. The York Daily Record, which has nicely covered some of the dismay experienced by a small town under the media heat lamp and now listed as the Number One Island of Ignorance by on

| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share
In the weeks before the battle over first amendment rights ramped up in Dover, the Discovery Institute folks said they didn?t support intelligent design mandates in science curricula, saying that such cases will only be politically divisive. Now, lawyers representing the school board are apparently happy to hear it. The York Daily Record, which has nicely covered some of the dismay experienced by a small town under the media heat lamp and now listed as the Number One Island of Ignorance by one group, talked with Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute program officer and Robert Crowther II, the Institute?s communications director.
They?re not participating in the actual proceedings, but were happy to weigh in to the court of public opinion by giving the YDR reporter some mixed messages. Both sides are wrong, they contend. They criticized Kenneth R. Miller, Brown University biology professor and Monday?s witness for three things: characterizing ID as a concept that focuses on what evolution doesn?t explain; suggesting that ID requires a supernatural being; and claiming that ID is not a testable theory.
Dustbining the first and last of those criticisms, Luskin himself cites Michael Behe?s 2004 article in Protein Science about how proteins and protein interactions could not evolve. Behe actually does test a theory here, but that theory is evolution, with the ultimate goal of showing what evolution doesn?t explain. As for the supernatural, Richard Thompson, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center said he was relieved that the Discovery Institute pulled their backing. As he is trying to make a case that inserting ID into scientific curriculum is not about religion, he is glad to be distanced from an organization he says has made a lot of comments that bring religion into the debate. So the institute criticizes Miller for bringing religion into the debate and Thompson criticizes the Institute for bringing religion into the debate. Who gets that potato next?
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Meet the Author

  • Brendan Maher

    This person does not yet have a bio.
Share
A greyscale image of cells dividing.
March 2025, Issue 1

How Do Embryos Know How Fast to Develop

In mammals, intracellular clocks begin to tick within days of fertilization.

View this Issue
Discover the history, mechanics, and potential of PCR.

Become a PCR Pro

Integra Logo
3D rendered cross section of influenza viruses, showing surface proteins on the outside and single stranded RNA inside the virus

Genetic Insights Break Infectious Pathogen Barriers

Thermo Fisher Logo
A photo of sample storage boxes in an ultra-low temperature freezer.

Navigating Cold Storage Solutions

PHCbi logo 
The Immunology of the Brain

The Immunology of the Brain

Products

Sapio Sciences

Sapio Sciences Makes AI-Native Drug Discovery Seamless with NVIDIA BioNeMo

DeNovix Logo

New DeNovix Helium Nano Volume Spectrophotometer

Olink Logo

Olink® Reveal: Accessible NGS-based proteomics for every lab

Olink logo
Zymo Logo

Zymo Research Launches the Quick-16S™ Full-Length Library Prep Kit