Advanced | Help | Encyclopedia
Directory

• Encyclopaedia
• D
• Di
• Dia
• Dib
• Dic
• Did
• Die
• Dif
• Dig
• Dih
• Dii
• Dij
• Dik
• Dil
• Dim
• Din
• Dio
• Dip
• Diq
• Dir
• Dis
• Dit
• Diu
• Div
• Diw
• Dix
• Diy
• Diz

Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder as a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Its areas of interest include intelligent design, science, technology, environment and economy, international affairs, culture, defense, legal reform, religion and public life, transportation, and institutions of representative democracy, as well as bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region. Financially, the institute is a non-profit educational foundation funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members.

Table of contents

History and Organization

The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 as a think tank based upon the ideas of C.S. Lewis and the concept of Intelligent Design in the creation of life, versus genetic variation and natural selection as posited in the theory of evolution.

Center for Science and Culture

The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is a division of the Discovery Institute. The CSC lobbies aggressively for wider acceptance of intelligent design (ID) as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe and is opposed to the theory of evolution. To that end the CSC works to advance a policy that has come to be known as the Wedge Strategy, of which the "Teach the Controversy" strategy is a major component. The "teach the controversy" strategy was announced by the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer [1] following a presentation of a proposed model lesson plan compiled by the Discovery Institute to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002.

Mission Statements

The mission statements of the Discovery Institute and it's subsidiary the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) have evolved over time to drop overtly theistic proclaimations and affirmations in favor of language that appeals to a more secular audience, which the Discovery Institute hopes its social and political programs will appeal to and be accepted by.

The current mission statement for the Discovery Institute [2] reads:

Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website ( http://www.discovery.org ).
Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors.

The current mission statement for the the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) reads:

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
  • supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
  • encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well strengths.

Discovery Institute Causes

The Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture have been very active participants in the advancement of the agenda set forth in its mission statements outlined above. That agenda includes the following issues.

Intelligent Design

The Discovery Institute supports the concept of Intelligent Design. However, it does not support requiring the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. Rather, it supports an educational policy on evolution that it calls "Teach the Controversy" that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution. It does take the position that teaching the scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design does not violate the Constitution, and should therefore be permitted. [3]

The cover of the book shows Charles Darwin

Darwin on Trial (ISBN 0830813241) is a controversial 1991 book by the University of California, Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, in which he first uses the phrase intelligent design in its modern sense.

Darwin on Trial

Johnson, an evangelical Christian, had come to believe that evolutionary theory was based on materialistic assumptions and empty rhetoric, such as that he thought was found in Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.

Johnson evaluates the evidence for Darwinism using legal principles for assessing its probative value, and examines the philosophical presuppositions of the scientific community.

The book was initially ignored by the scientific community, but then was reviewed by Stephen J. Gould in Scientific American. It became assigned reading in some origins classes at leading universities, including Cornell University. It is now considered a landmark book and the starting point of the current intelligent design movement, of which Johnson is considered "the father." Johnson has even earned the respect of physicist, and outspoken atheist, Steven Weinberg who, in his book Dreams of a Final Theory, calls him “the most respectable academic critic of evolution.” (1992, p. 247)

Johnson makes clear at the outset that he has no interest in discussing the Biblical account of creation in Genesis. Rather, the focus of the book is simply to examine whether evolutionists have proven their case using evidence evaluated with an open mind and impartially, that is, whether there is convincing evidence that the variety of life on earth came about through the purely material processes of natural selection and other unguided evolutionary mechanisms. He suggests that they have not, that there are serious evidentiary holes in the theory, and that their conclusions are driven mainly by their prior assumptions and "faith" that there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything.

Critics would suggest that Johnson is neither impartial nor has an open mind. Proponents suggest that he is more open minded than evolutionary scientists since his reputation and career are not riding on the success of the theory, and because he does not start with a naturalistic a priori philosophy.

Teach the Controversy

On March 11, 2005, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell writing in the The Baltimore Sun stated that:

... many educators wish such controversies would simply go away. On the one hand, if science teachers teach only Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. On the other, if teachers present religiously-based creationism, they run afoul of Supreme Court rulings. Either way, it seems educators face a no-win situation.

It is in this area of controversy that the Discovery Institute has decided to not only establish its think tank, but to create further controversy by advocating that an inclusive approach is used in educational matters. Their critics maintain that the theory of evolution is consistent with the empirical evidence and does not invalidate belief in a creator. The Discovery Institute disagrees: hence the controversy.

This controversy is discussed in a book written by Stephen C. Meyer, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute with a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge advocating creationism, and John Angus Campbell, who is a Professor of Communications at the University of Memphis, holding forth for Darwin’s Origin of Species. Their book is Darwinism, Design and Public Education published by Michigan State University Press. In response to the movement developmental biologist Paul Gross and philosopher Barbara Forrest have recently published Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press, 2004). This work claims to reveal the movement's "pervasively sham methods of inquiry" and its political, cultural, and religious ambitions. [4]

The Discovery Institute advocates the position that teaching evidence that supports Intelligent Design does not violate the Constitution, and should therefore be permitted. Their opponents argue that the Discovery Institute is advocating poor scholarship contrary to the consensus within the scientific community.

The Discovery Institute web site states the following:

"Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents". [5]

The stated goal of the wedge strategy, [6] is to conduct research toward the goal of developing coherent theories of origins that are superior to evolution and its materialistic understandings and consistent with theistic understanding, toward the ultimate goals of:

  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Wedge document discusses at length the means of achieving these goals, which are scientific research, writing, publishing, conferences, seminars, speaking appearances, debates, media appearances and other public square activities. The Wedge document does not discuss the Teach the Controversy policy or any other educational policy for teaching in public schools. The document refers to an intention to "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula", but only after "our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory".

Proponents distinguish their goals for advocacy in the public sphere through books, articles, and public speaking from their goals for public education, which must comply with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. They have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. [7]

Critics have responded by pointing out that the goals of the wedge and Teach the Controversy for each forum are one and the same, and that Johnson has spoken publicly many times in favor of "the truth of the Bible" over that of secular science and materialism. Critics also allege that the proponent's compliance with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution has the net effect of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that this is parallel to and consistant with the creationist agenda of creationist fundamentist Christians, which comprise much of the support for intelligent design.

The movement has been widely criticized by the the scientific establishment, and specifically the most significant organization in the American scientific establishment, the National Academies of Science. Much of the criticism points to the connections with the Intelligent Design movement and suggests that "teach the controversy" advocacy is a ploy to inject teaching about Intelligent Design or Creationism in schools.

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.[8]

Political action

In 2001, largely as a result of lobbying by the Discovery Institute, Phillip E. Johnson and others, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution in support of curriculums that help students to understand the full range of scientific views. [9] The United States Congress then passed legislation that included the following language known as the Santorum Amendment in the Conference Report, which serves as an explanatory text about the legislative history and purposes of the bill:

"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society". [10] [11] [12]

The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference is not part of the law as enacted and does not require educators to change the way they teach evolution [13].

The response of mainstream scientists to the efforts to promote "teaching the controversy" has been unequivocal. The leaders of ninety-six scientific and educational organizations responded to the Conference Report, which cites biological evolution as an example of a topic that may generate controversy:

"As written, the apparently innocuous statements in this resolution mask an anti-evolution agenda that repeatedly has been rejected by the courts. The resolution singles out biological evolution as a controversial subject but is deliberately ambiguous about the nature of the controversy. Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy. If the point of the resolution is to encourage teaching about political controversy surrounding scientific topics, then evolution is just one of a legion of issues that are the subject of political debate. It should not be singled out. Confusing political with scientific controversy on the topic of biological evolution will weaken science education". [14]

Proponents note that the response seems directed not at the actual pedagogical policy, but rather the belief the it "masks an anti-evolution agenda" despite the "apparently innocuous statements". They assert that this is another example of arguing against a straw man rather than addressing the actual policy.

In December 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted science standards that require Ohio students to study why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory". [15] Earlier polls showed widespread popular support in Ohio for such a policy. [16] In 2004, Ohio published a model lesson plan for the "Critical Analysis of Evolution". [17] The plan has been opposed by the National Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Academy of Sciences [18].

The Board also advised that the science standards do "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design" [19]

According to published reports, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls, lobbying and media pieces that support and advance intelligent design [20].

Philosophical Basis

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Phillip E. Johnson set forth part of the philosophical basis for the teaching policy. He made the following observations about public education, the definition of science, and the scientific establishment:

"The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. . . . Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith...." [21]

He notes that science and science education are not always driven by a priori philosophical and religious neutrality:

"All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for those who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door...." [22]


In the same article he went on to explain how this relates to public education. He notes how science education might be improved by adopting a teach the controversy policy and methodology:

"If the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But skepticism of that kind might spread and threaten the whole system of naturalistic belief. Why is the fossil record overall so difficult to reconcile with the steady process of gradual transformation predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory? How would the theory fare if we did not assume at the start that nature had to do its own creating, so a naturalistic creation mechanism simply has to exist regardless of the evidence? These are the kinds of questions the Darwinists don't want to encourage students to ask...."
"This doesn't mean that students in Kansas or elsewhere shouldn't be taught about evolution. In context, the Kansas action was a protest against enshrining a particular worldview as a scientific fact and against making "evolution" an exception to the usual American tradition that the people have a right to disagree with the experts. Take evolution away from the worldview promoters and return it to the real scientific investigators, and a chronic social conflict will become an exciting intellectual adventure."[23]

A clear example of the religious roots of Johnson's philosophical bias is apparent when Johnson told an assembly at a fundamentalist Christian conference entitled, Reclaiming America For Christ:

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus." [24]

In speaking to the audience of the Christian media group and church, Coral Ridge Ministries, [25], Johnson expanded on his goal and method of expanding religion's role in public education:

"In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America." [26]

When speaking to the same audience on a different occasion, Johnson said the following:

"What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it."
"You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence." [27]

Criticisms

Mainstream scientific organizations maintain that there is no controversy to teach, in the sense that the theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community. Such controversies that do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution. Critics have alleged that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) has a hidden agenda: that of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that in press releases intended for the general public, the CSC describes itself as "the nation's leading think-tank researching scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution." But in press releases for members only, the CSC assured them that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."

Because of such policy statements, a common allegation often leveled by critics is "At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise." and "The ID movement is advancing its strategy but its tactics are no substitute for real science." [28]

Critics can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has voiced First Amendment concerns over Discovery Institute's activities. He described the approach of the teach the controversy movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry."

"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God." [29]

Given the history of the Discovery Institute as an organization committed to opposing any scientific theory inconsistent with "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" [30] and the tactics outlined above it is not surprising that many scientists and mainstream scientific organizations regard the movement as a ploy to introduce creationism into the science curriculum rather than as a serious attempt to discuss scientific evidence.

Critics note that the Discovery Institute's alleged favoring ideology over the conditional reliance on observation of the natural world that science demands is wholly consistant with the goals of the the The Wedge Strategy document:

Governing Goals

  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

In March 2004 the Institute published a more specific and controversial statement of conviction in which it denied that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. It sought to challenge "false scientific theories" that support scientific materialism. Amongst the theories and ideas that the Discovery Institute seeks to refute are:

Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, chemical evolutionary theory, 'many worlds' cosmologies, behaviorism, strong artificial intelligence and 'other physicalist conceptions of mind', Marxism, and Freudian psychology,

Critics have responded by stating that the "real" objectives of the Discovery Institute are those stated in its 'Wedge Document' which seeks to "defeat materialistic science", and not those in its public profile of "Teach the Controversy" which claims that it is inclusionist.

Critics have often alleged that the actual agenda of the Discovery Institute is no less than the return of the teaching of biblical creationism to the public school classroom. In support of this allegation they cite the 1997 mission statement of the the Center for Science and Culture (then called the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), and since re-written) [31], reads in its entirety:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed human beings not as eternal and accountable beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by chance and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and music.
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective standards binding on all cultures, claiming that environment dictates our moral beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

Programs

At the heart of the Discovery Instutute are the teachings of C.S. Lewis and his interpretation of Western society from a Christian perspective. From this nucleus flow various projects concerned with technology and democracy; transportation in the American and Canadian northwest; a bioethics program opposed to assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human genetic manipulation, human cloning, and the animal rights movement.

Its economics and legal programs advocate tort reform, lower taxation, and reduced economic regulation of individuals and groups as the best economic policy.

Funding

The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has said much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." [32]


There are several interrelated articles on Wikipedia about this subject, see:
Phillip E. Johnson; Teach the Controversy; Wedge strategy; Howard Ahmanson, Jr

See also

External links







Links: Addme | Keyword Research | Paid Inclusion | Femail | Software | Completive Intelligence

Add URL | About Slider | FREE Slider Toolbar - Simply Amazing
Copyright © 2000-2008 Slider.com. All rights reserved.
Content is distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License.