Both the York Daily Record and the Harrisburg Patriot-News have articles up on the growing friction between the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center. Richard Thompson of the TMLC accuses the Discovery Institute of undermining their case and says that the Dover school board is a "victim" of their compromises. I'm with Ken Miller; I'm enjoying this.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I reported yesterday about William Dembski, John Campbell and Stephen Meyer being withdrawn as expert witnesses by the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover lawsuit. There is now developing some contradictory explanations for that withdrawal. The York Daily Record reported that the TMLC refused to…
I've said many times that there are clearly problems between the Discovery Institute, the primary thinktank of the ID movement, and the Thomas More Law Center, the legal group defending the school board in Dover (and involved in the Gull Lake situation here in Michigan as well). Three DI fellows…
Interesting follow up on the question of whether the new school board could get the Dover lawsuit mooted or not. It turns out that at least one person on the old school board wanted to attempt it. The old school board had one last meeting on Monday night before the new board takes over next month…
This story has finally been made public so I can talk about it. Within the last couple weeks, three of the main experts for the defense in the Dover ID trial - William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell - have all been withdrawn as expert witnesses in the case. The York Daily Record reports…
"DI's consistent message to the Dover board from the start was to adopt our teach the controversy approach -- teach scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory, but don't mandate that students learn about (intelligent) design.."
I can't think of an analogy that represents just how stupid these people must think other people are. If one took this statement at face value, one could easily show that most teaching of evolution includes scientific criticisms of various aspects of the theory and subsequent revisions, investigations, and so forth. That of course is part and parcel of science. Therefore what would be the benefit for DI and the intelligent design community to not discuss ID? There must be a component of teaching "their" critical scientific method that includes their labels and concepts of intelligent design.
Recall the contemptuous language about Dover, PA used by the Discovery Institute themselves:
Well … contemptuous but accurate. No wonder these two can't stand each other.
Ed: Frankly I don't think the TMLC needs any help in undermining its case.
Spyder: it's even more disingenuous than that. The whole point of ID is that it consists solely of "scientific [sic] criticisms of evolution". The only positive claim it makes is "That thing could not have evolved, therefore God (sorry, Designer)". ID is so nebulous that teaching what the DI considers scientific criticisms of evolution is by definition teaching ID.