Center for Science and Culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Center for Science and Culture
Center for Science and Culture (logo).jpg
Formation 1994
Type Part of the Discovery Institute
Legal status Non-profit
Purpose/focus Promote intelligent design
Headquarters Seattle, Washington, USA
Program Director Stephen C. Meyer
Budget $4.1 million
Staff 8[1]
Website www.discovery.org/csc/

The 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, a conservative Christian think tank[2] in the United States. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while casting doubt on the theory of evolution.[3] These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.[4]

The Center for Science and Culture serves as the hub of the intelligent design movement. Nearly all of the luminaries of intelligent design are either CSC advisors, officers, or fellows. Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow of the Discovery Institute and founder of the CSC, serves as Senior Fellow and Vice President, and Phillip E. Johnson is the Program Advisor. Johnson is commonly presented as the movement's "father" and architect of the center's Wedge strategy and "Teach the Controversy" campaign, as well as the Santorum Amendment.

History[edit]

In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard against creation science being taught in United States public school science classes. In reaction, the term intelligent design was coined as a substitute in drafts of the textbook Of Pandas and People, which was published in 1989, beginning the campaigning of the intelligent design movement under the leadership of Pandas editor Charles Thaxton.[5] The Edwards v. Aguillard ruling also inspired Phillip E. Johnson to begin anti-evolution campaigning. He met Stephen C. Meyer, and through him was introduced to others who were developing what became the wedge strategy, including Michael Denton,[6] Michael Behe and William Dembski, with Johnson becoming the de facto leader of the group. By 1995, Johnson was opposing the methodological naturalism of science in which "The Creator belongs to the realm of religion, not scientific investigation", and promoting "theistic realism" which "assumes that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God" and expects "this 'fact' of creation to have empirical, observable consequences."[7]

In December 1993, Bruce Chapman, president and founder of the Discovery Institute, noticed an essay in the Wall Street Journal by Meyer about a dispute when biology lecturer Dean H. Kenyon taught intelligent design creationism in introductory classes.[8][9] Kenyon had co-authored Of Pandas and People, and in 1993 Meyer had contributed to the teacher's notes for the second edition of Pandas. Meyer was an old friend of Discovery Institute co-founder George Gilder, and over dinner about a year later they formed the idea of a think tank opposed to materialism. In the summer of 1995 Chapman and Meyer met a representative of Howard Ahmanson, Jr.. Meyer, who had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science, recalls being asked "What could you do if you had some financial backing?"[8]

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, as it was originally named, grew out of a conference called "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture" that the Discovery Institute organised in the summer of 1995. It was founded in 1996 by the Discovery Institute with funding provided by Fieldstead & Company, the Stewardship Foundation, Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and the MacLellan Foundation.[7][8][10] The evolution of the Center's name in 2002 reflects its attempt to present itself as less religiously motivated in the public's eye.[11] The "renewal" in its name referred to its stated goal of "renewing" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in religion as outlined in the Wedge document.

The CSC continues to state as a goal a redefinition of science, and the philosophy on which it is based, particularly the exclusion of what it calls the "unscientific principle of materialism", and in particular the acceptance of what it calls "the scientific theory of intelligent design". The position of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is that the principle of naturalism allows falsifiability and that supernaturalism is unfalsifiable, meaning any suggested policies or curricula put forth by the Center that rest on supernatural suppositions would be by definition pseudoscience, not science. The Center maintains that the exclusion of supernatural explanations introduces a bias that is driven by materialism rather than being scientifically based.

CSC's Wedge strategy[edit]

An internal CSC report dating from 1998 which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID was leaked to the public in 1999. This plan became known as the Wedge strategy. The 'Wedge Document' explained the CSC's key aims are "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

The document sets as "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" and notably "To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda." This was seen in the following years, with public debates over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms taking place in many states as part of the Teach the Controversy campaign.

If the CSC's strategy is successful, within twenty years the goals are "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." The CSC has responded to controversy regarding the 'Wedge Document', saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the "Wedge" document."[12]

CSC campaigns[edit]

Teach the Controversy[edit]

The CSC's Teach the Controversy campaign seeks to promote the teaching of "the full range of scientific views" on evolution[13] on "unresolved issues" and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory".[14] Critics of the CSC's campaign say that they have manufactured the controversy and that they promote the false perception that evolution is "in crisis" and is a "dying theory".[3][15][16][17]

The strategy has been to move from standards battles, to curriculum writing, to textbook adoption, all the while undermining the central positions of evolution in biology and methodological naturalism in science. The CSC is the primary organizer and promoter of the Teach the Controversy campaign. Examples of Teach the Controversy in action were the Kansas evolution hearings, the Santorum Amendment, 2002 Ohio Board of Education intelligent design controversy, and the Dover, Pennsylvania Board of Education intelligent design controversy.[citation needed]

The CSC believe that the program and curricula they advocate presents evidence both for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Casting the conflicting points of view and agendas as an academic and scholarly controversy was proposed by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute in his book The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. In it, he writes of the 1999-2000 Kansas evolution hearings controversy over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms: "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the controversy."

In its early years, the CSC (then called the CRSC) offered science curriculum that assured teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars." This had the net effect of encouraging ID sympathetic teachers to side-step standard textbook adoption procedures. Anticipating a test case, Discovery Institute director Stephen C. Meyer along with David K. DeWolf and Mark Edward DeForrest published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction.[18]

According to published reports, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls, lobbying and media pieces that support intelligent design and their Teach the Controversy strategy.[19] In August 2005, The New York Times reported that since 2004 there have been 78 campaigns in 31 states to either Teach the Controversy or include intelligent design in science curricla, twice the number seen in 2002-2003.[20]

Intelligent design in higher education[edit]

The cultivation of support for ID and its social and political agenda in higher education is a very active part of CSC's strategy. The CSC has claimed that established scholars in the scientific community support intelligent design.[21]

CSC-recommended curricula benefits from special status at number of religious schools. Biola University and Oklahoma Baptist University are listed on the Access Research Network website as "ID Colleges." In addition, the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, which began as a student organization at the University of California, San Diego, helps establish student IDEA clubs on university and high school campuses. The Intelligent Design and Undergraduate Research Center, ARN's student division, also recruits and supports followers at universities. Campus youth ministries play an active role in bringing ID to university campuses through lectures by ID leaders Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and others. This activity takes place outside university science departments.

Several public universities, including the University of California, Berkeley and the University of New Mexico have had intelligent design often as freshman seminars, honors courses and other courses outside required curricula in which instructors have wider latitude regarding course content.[22]

Research fellowships[edit]

The CSC offers fellowships of up to $60,000 a year for "support of significant and original research in the natural sciences, the history and philosophy of science, cognitive science and related fields." Published reports state that the CSC has awarded $3.6 million in fellowships of $5,000 to $60,000 per year to 50 researchers since its founding in 1996.[23]

Among the Centre's publications are 50 books on intelligent design, such as those by William A. Dembski and two documentary films. Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and The Privileged Planet The former was broadcast briefly on public television creating a controversy.

Since its founding in 1996, the CSC has spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to Meyer, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can ponder intelligent design. Over those nine years, $792,585 was spent to finance laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 was spent to help graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy.[citation needed]

The results of this are found in Discovery Institute-authored science class curricula, "model lesson plans," that are at the center of many of the current debates about including intelligent design in public school science classes. These are promoted by the CSC which urges states and school boards to include criticism of evolution science lessons, to "Teach the Controversy," rather than actually teach intelligent design which is susceptible to legal challenges on First Amendment grounds.

Controversies[edit]

In May 2005, the Discovery Institute donated $16,000 to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and by museum policy, this minimum donation allowed them to celebrate their donation inside the museum in a gathering. The Discovery Institute decided to screen a film entitled The Privileged Planet, based on the book of the same name, written by two senior fellows of the Discovery Institute.[24] Notably, the video was also a production of Illustra Media,[25] which has been identified as a front for a creationist production company.[26] Upon further review, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History determined that the content of the video was inconsistent with the scientific research of the institution.[27] They therefore refunded the $16,000, clearly denied any endorsement of the content of the video or of the Discovery Institute, and allowed the film to be shown in the museum as per the original agreement. Editorials have decried as naïve and negligent the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's failure to identify the Discovery Institute as a creationist organization, exclude the video with its review process in the first place, and identify the entire incident as an example of Wedge Strategy in action.[28]

The Center also funded research for the controversial book From Darwin to Hitler by Center fellow Richard Weikart.[29] Weikart claims that Darwinism's impact on ethics and morality played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.

On September 6, 2006, on the center's Evolution News & Views blog Discovery Institute staffer Casey Luskin published a post entitled "Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries." There Luskin reprinted a letter from a reader complaining that Wikipedia's coverage of ID to be "one sided" and that pro-intelligent design editors were censored and attacked. Along with the letter, Luskin published a Wikipedia email address for general information and urged readers to "to contact Wikipedia to express your feelings about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design."[30]

Criticism[edit]

Most criticism of the CSC and the Discovery Institute is that the Institute intentionally misrepresents many facts in the promoting of its agenda. A wide spectrum of critics level this charge; from educators, scientists and the Smithsonian Institute to individuals who oppose the teaching of creationism alongside science on ideological grounds. The following are most common areas in which the Institute is accused of being intentionally misleading:

  • Teach the Controversy 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 overarching theory of evolution, and the controversy alleged by the Discovery Institute is manufactured.
  • Santorum Amendment Despite the amendment lacking the weight of law, consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy, the amendment's inclusion in the conference report of the No Child Left Behind Act is constantly cited by the Discovery Institute as evidence that "federal education policy" calls for a "teach the controversy approach".[31]
  • Wedge strategy and the Discovery Institute agenda A common allegation often leveled at the CSC by critics is that it is conducting a campaign, the ultimate goal of which is to reshape American culture by influencing public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. The Wedge document bolsters this claim. They claim that the Center's dismissal of the document and strategy is disingenuous, as when the Center's actions in the political sphere, such as its Teach the Controversy campaign, are taken into account it becomes apparent that the Wedge strategy is indeed being followed.
  • Peer review Though the CSC often claims that articles and books asserting intelligent design are published in the peer-reviewed scientific press, no pro-ID article has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[32][33] The one article that had been was quickly retracted by the publisher. The article, titled The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, was by the institute's Stephen C. Meyer and was published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. One month after its publication, the journal's publisher issued a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and as having sidestepped peer review (see Sternberg peer review controversy).[34]

Intellectual dishonesty, in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence and a lack of rigour is one of the most common criticisms of the Center.[35] It is alleged that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Its critics, such as Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock and Barbara Forrest, claim that the CSC knowingly misquotes scientists and other experts, deceptively omits contextual text through ellipsis, and makes unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials.

Barbara Forrest, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and Glenn Branch say that the CSC uses academic credentials and affiliations opportunistically.[36] In 2001 the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications (the New York Review of Books, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard) to proclaim the adherence of approximately 100 scientists to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similarly confusing lists of local scientists were circulated.[neutrality is disputed]

In another instance, the CSC frequently mentions the Nobel Prize in connection with Henry F. Schaefer, a CSC fellow, and chemist at the University of Georgia. Critics[who?] allege that CSC is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" since Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.

Alongside the allegation that the center intentionally misrepresents facts, Eugenie Scott and other critics say there is a noticeable conflict between what the CSC tells the public through the media and what they say before conservative Christian audiences. They contend that this is a studied and deliberate attempt at the obfuscation advocated by Wedge strategy author Phillip E. Johnson.[37] When speaking to a mainstream audience and to the media, the institute portrays ID as a secular, scientific theory, that the teaching the controversy campaign does not promote ID, and that their agenda is not religiously motivated. But when speaking to what the Wedge document calls their "natural constituency, namely (conservative) Christians," the institute's officers express themselves in unambiguously religious language that contradicts these statements. This in the belief that they cannot afford to alienate their constituency and major funding sources, virtually all of which are conservative religious organizations and individuals such as Howard Ahmanson, Jr..[citation needed]

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."[19]

In 2004 Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross published Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design documenting the history of the intelligent design movement and the DI's Center for Science and Culture as well as critiquing the ID "research"(Oxford University Press).[38] Forrest and Gross referred to the group as an outgrowth of Johnson's religious mission and explored its plans for "a rigorously God-centered view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism."[39]

Funding[edit]

The Center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which is largely underwritten by grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups, such as Howard Ahmanson Jr., Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation.[40][41][42] [43]

Published reports place the Discovery Institute's budget for ID-related programs at over $4 million per year. The Center's expenditures can be assumed to be substantial based on the scope and quality of the Center's extensive public relations campaigns, materials and contributions to local and regional ID and Teach the Controversy efforts.

CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, admits most of the Center's money comes from wealthy donors from the Christian right.[41] Howard Ahmanson Jr., who provided $1.5 million in funding that established the Center, has said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[44] The MacLellan Foundation commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."[45] Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the Bush campaign. Until 1995, Ahmanson sat on the board of the Christian reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation,[46] and funds many causes important to the Christian right, including Christian Reconstructionism.

Fellows[edit]

Senior fellows[edit]

Fellows[edit]

Former Fellows[edit]

Staff[edit]

  • Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs.[52] Luskin has helped promote the Academic Freedom bills in Florida[53] alongside Ben Stein.[54] Luskin also writes for the Discovery Institute's blog, offering critiques of evolution, which have been met with stiff criticism and rebuttal from the scientific community.[55][56]
  • Robert L. Crowther, Director of Communications[57]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Fellows
  2. ^ Patricia O’Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that "religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute" are part of the "religious landscape" of that area. Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse, A Conversation With Barbara Forrest, Church & State, Feb 2005
  3. ^ a b Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy at the Wayback Machine (archived June 30, 2007), Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  4. ^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Cynthia Delgado, Finding the Evolution in Medicine, nih record, Vol. LVIII, No. 15 National Institutes of Health. July 28, 2006
  5. ^ Daily Kos: Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies, by DarkSyde, Mar 11, 2006, interview with Barbara Forrest.
  6. ^ How Not to Critique Intelligent Design Theory Del Ratzsch.
  7. ^ a b The Wedge at Work, Barbara Forrest
  8. ^ a b c Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21, 2005.
  9. ^ Stephen C. Meyer (1993-12-06). "Open Debate on Life's Origins: Meyer, Stephen C.". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  10. ^ Discovery Institute Press Release August 10, 1996 at the Wayback Machine (archived November 3, 1996)
  11. ^ Barbara Forrest; Glenn Branch (January–February 2005). "AAUP: Wedging Creationism into the Academy". Academe Online. American Association of University Professors. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  12. ^ The "Wedge Document": So What? Discovery Institute staff, February 3, 2006
  13. ^ Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute staff. August 21, 2007.
  14. ^ CSC Questions about Science Education Policy Discovery Institute staff.
  15. ^ "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." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
  16. ^ "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
  17. ^ "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." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
  18. ^ Santorum Language on Evolution, Center for Science and Culture
  19. ^ a b Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens, Peter Slevin, Washington Post, March 14, 2005
  20. ^ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21, 2005.
  21. ^ CSC Frequently Asked Questions Center for Science and Culture.
  22. ^ Darwinism Under Attack, Beth McMurtrie, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21, 2001
  23. ^ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive, Jody Wilgoren, The New York Times, August 21, 2005
  24. ^ The Privileged Planet, The Discovery Institute.
  25. ^ The Privileged Planet
  26. ^ The Smoking Gun - "Intelligent Design" IS Religious Creationism!, Dave Thomas, New Mexicans for Science and Reason
  27. ^ The Panda's Thumb: Smithsonian Institution Statement
  28. ^ Dissing Darwin, Washington Post, June 3, 2005
  29. ^ From Darwin to Hitler
  30. ^ Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries Casey Luskin, Evolution News & Views, September 6, 2006.
  31. ^ Controversy over life's origins, Stephen C. Meyer, John Angus Campbell, San Francisco Chronicle, December 10, 2004
  32. ^ Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007.
  33. ^ Ruling, Whether ID is Science Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December 5, 2005. p. 87
  34. ^ BSW repudiates Meyer, National Center for Science Education, September 7, 2004
  35. ^ "ID supporters present fallacious arguments, use dishonest rhetoric, and often present non-contemptuous responses as evidence that their theories are gaining acceptance." Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent Design Movement Jason Rosenhouse. BioScience, Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2003.
  36. ^ Wedging Creationism into the Academy Proponents of a controversial theory struggle to gain purchase within academia. A case study of the quest for academic legitimacy. Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch. January–February 2005. Academe, a publication of the American Association of University Professors
  37. ^ "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone Magazine June 2002
  38. ^ Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. 2004
  39. ^ Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. 2004, page 19 and 23
  40. ^ Discovery Institute emerging as force in creation, public policy Karen L. Willoughby. Baptist2Baptist, May 15, 2001.
  41. ^ a b Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens Peter Slevin. Washington Post, March 14, 2005.
  42. ^ "Nearly all of the Discovery Institute's money for the Intelligent Design project comes in the form of grants from wealthy fundamentalists and from Christian political groups. In 2003, the Discovery Institute received some $4.1 million in donations and grants. At least twenty-two different foundations give money to the Intelligent Design project; two-thirds of these are religious institutions with explicitly Christian aims and goals." Deception by Design Lenny Flank. TalkReason.org
  43. ^ "Financed by some of the same Christian conservatives who helped Mr. Bush win the White House, the organization's intellectual core is a scattered group of scholars who for nearly a decade have explored the unorthodox explanation of life's origins known as intelligent design." ... "The records show financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of them with explicitly religious missions." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21, 2005.
  44. ^ Blumenthal, Max (2004-01-06). "Avenging angel of the religious right". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-05-17. 
  45. ^ Selvin, Peter (2005-03-14). "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-17. 
  46. ^ Christian Reconstructionism, Frederick Clarkson, The Public Eye, March and June 1994
  47. ^ Jack Collins, Fellow - CSC, Discovery Institute
  48. ^ Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press, 2004. page 153
  49. ^ Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. 2004, page 59
  50. ^ Edie Lau, "Some find middle ground in science-theology clash," Sacramento Bee, October 3, 2005
  51. ^ "The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss", The Panda's Thumb, August 12, 2008
  52. ^ "Casey Luskin, Staff - Discovery Institute". Center for Science and Culture. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-17. 
  53. ^ "Let There Be Open Debate Over Evolution". The Tampa Tribune. February 18, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-16. 
  54. ^ "Prepared Remarks by Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute, for Press Conference on Florida Academic Freedom Act". Center for Science and Culture. March 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-17. 
  55. ^ "Response to Casey Luskin". TalkOrigins Archive. March 10, 2002. Retrieved 2008-05-17. 
  56. ^ "Missing The Wrist". Discover (magazine). July 14, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-18. 
  57. ^ Robert L.. Crowther, II

External links[edit]

Articles