Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

You can legitimately say that. The 'Iders' do not. The
concomittant proposal for an alternative is paramount to
them. Before 'ID' it was 'creation science'. They are not
in this fight for the science.

Check out their webpages and look into what other issues
they support. Their agenda will be clear.

The Creation Science guys (ICR) do have their own agenda Fred. They are
however different from ID.


Non Sequitor. Check out the 'Discovery Institute' webpages.
Current articles, in addition to 'ID' and anti-evolution stuff
include:

Well - here's a cut and paste from the website. This is from their position
statement the current ACLU suit against the Dover, PA school which is
requiring ID in the classroom...

"Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions
of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to
get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided
policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be
politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of
intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community,
points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy
in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about
intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it
accurately and objectively.

"Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we
recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian
evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also
scientific criticisms of the theory."

Hardly looks like a hiden ID agenda...

I am pleased to see that, for now, they stopped short of
demanding 'ID' be taught in the public schools.

DUnno abotu you but I do not believe there is "the ACLU's
effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal".
I am happy to believe that the ACLU opposes the teaching of
religous doctine, like 'ID' in public schools.

This is a position statement that is carefully
crafted to hide thier real agenda. Sort of like issuing an
order that prisoners are to be treated humanely followed by
a memo redefining torture such that water torture is not
torture. You would have to be drinking not to understand
the message.



Rediscovering Narnia: The Continuing Relevance of C.S. Lewis's Narnian
Chronicles

Please Fred - this is some sort of an upcoming event in what appears to be
an organization which concerns itself with more than issues of ID vs
evolution. Would you critique every university in America because of the
arts-fartsy stuff that goes on within the campus? I noticed that you
selected the more sensational events from their calendar and did not include
the likes of...
October 21, 2005
Darwin and Design, An International Science Conference
Prague, Czech Republic ...

I do not regard discussion of CS Lewis's works to be _sensational_.

I selected topics not directly related to ID, or even to science
per se so as to show that teh _discovery Institute_ rationale for
existance is not scientific discourse. Plainly they are lobbying
for Pat Robertson's values.




Miers: The Recusal Trap
Why the Senate should reject Harriet Miers' nomination

So - political opinions are now a component of validating a theory on the
origins of life?

I don't think so. Hence my opinion of their agenda. Opposing
her nomination is a component of Pat Robertson's values.



What is 'ICR'?

Institute For Creation Research.

Thanks.


Fred - I'm kind of surprised at the stab at Discover Institute - coming from
you. I didn't know a thing about DI before you raised the questions in your
post, and I don't know a lot more now given that I've only spent a short
time on their web site. What I did see though was a decent, thought
provoking presentation. What I did not see was a crack pot site that I was
prepared for based on your post. In short - I don't think you advanced any
cause with your post.


What I see is a lobbying organization. 'ID' is the _only_ scientific
movement they are promoting. This leads me to conclude that they
didn't pick 'ID' because of its alleged scientific merits, but
becuase of its compatiablility with their overall philosophy.
To understand what this implies, DAGS on 'Lysenko'.

You did not comment on their editorial on stem cell research, leaving
it out of your reply. Perhaps you had not had time to read it yet.
Please do. Their position appears to be based no what I would
personally consider to be perfectly legitimate considerations.

They are not scientific considerations.

--

FF