Has the Discovery Institute's position on public education changed?

No, but I record it when it’s announced. And the Discovery policy against mandatory ID instruction in science class was announced well before the Dover trial, and has been maintained consistently ever since.

Anyhow, I would direct you to the title of this column. It concerns Peaceful Science, not Discovery, and it’s about arguments for the existence of God, not the Wedge Document. You are once again doing what you so frequently do – trying to turn a discussion about something else into another excuse for launching an attack on ID and the DI. That seems to be your main reason for participating on PS – to engage in ID-bashing. At least, that’s the most natural conclusion from the fact that it’s the main thing you do here.

1 Like

The way the DI is knee-jerk defended I’d bet the farm someone is getting a commission. :grin:

1 Like

If you have evidence for this, you should bring it forward. Otherwise just withdraw the comment.

1 Like

Just read all the comments knee-jerk defending the DI, like the one immediately above.

1 Like

Sorry, but the idea that someone hiding behind a pseudonym is the arbiter of DI policy is absurd.

Maybe you should consider not rambling on for pages. I’m only responding to an entire paragraph that you wrote; you changed the subject.

1 Like

@Eddie

Nope.
That is completely erroneous. Discovery is dancing with semantics.

They EXIST for the politics… not for the science.

2 Likes

The way ID and the DI are knee-jerk attacked on this site on virtually every single thread, no matter what the topic of the thread is supposed to be, I’d bet the farm that a good number of people are participating here exclusively or mainly to bash ID, not because they have any genuine interest in theology-science dialogue.

Why shouldn’t ID and the DI be attacked? ID has proven to be nothing but religiously motivated pseudoscience garbage while the DI is merely a religiously motivated propaganda organization trying to push that pseudoscience garbage back into U.S. public schools. Now the DI has admitted what science already knew, that the DI has been flat out lying for two decades about their religious motives for starting the ID movement. Must make you feel great to champion an organization which has been continually lying about science and trying to undercut science education is the U.S. all this time.

What was that Commandment again about not bearing false witness?

2 Likes

I said that I recorded the policy, not that I was the arbiter of it. Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the English word “arbiter.”

You’re off-topic. Read the title of this discussion again. Why do you regularly avoid discussing religious and theological questions and always bring every discussion, no matter what it starts out as, back to the subject of ID?

LOL! You’re the one who raised the topic of ID and the DI. :rofl:

1 Like

You’re off topic. :rofl:

arbiter [ahr-bi-ter] noun

  1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
  2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

I think I’m just fine with my usage, but thanks for your concern.

You clearly are claiming that your judgement is authoritative regarding the actual DI policy: whether it is the one that they lied to conceal then admitted was theirs (Wedge), or whether it is the one they currently claim to be their policy.

Can you try harder to prevent topics from turning into your pedantic claims of superiority over others and your lame credentialism, in which merely having a PhD represents some sort of pinnacle of achievement, and accomplishments after the PhD don’t seem to be relevant?

Hey! On the topic of credentialism, does physician Michael Egnor have any theological expertise in your view? His essay is featured on the DI site.

Yes, that is correct. And it’s quite obvious that I never claimed to be an “arbiter” of Discovery policy in either of these senses. The “arbiter” of Discovery policy is Discovery itself. I merely record and report what Discovery has said.

Please move all your future comments on this subject to the new discussion George has created. I will not respond to any future comments on this subject here. It’s a slight to Terrell’s efforts to drag the discussions of her question off-topic in this way.

@terrellclemmons,

An inference to design is not enough to qualify for public school instruction.

1 Like

No, Eddie, you make explicit claims about what is official and what is not official.

Explicit claims backed by every statement of education policy issued by Discovery since at least 2005. If you can produce counter-examples, then do so. Otherwise, concede that I have reported the policy correctly. That’s what someone who goes on endlessly about respecting empirical evidence ought to do, since the empirical evidence of the Discovery policy (i.e., the texts published on the Discovery site, and identified there as policy statements) is overwhelming.

I have given links to some statements in the other discussion, the one started by George. If you want to comment on those statements, or continue this discussion, do so there. I won’t be monitoring this thread any longer.

They’re still claims about what is or isn’t official. Thus, you are posing as an arbiter, not a reporter.

But at least we agree that the official position is to deceive people about the definition of the term "theory " in science.

I’m going go ahead and close the thread so you can keep it to one thread. You can always link back to posts here if you need to reference. Again, sorry that this is a little messy, that’s my fault.

1 Like

Look up the word “caviling,” then look in the mirror.