Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Physicians And Surgeons For Scientific Integrity
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative think tank that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1991 in Seattle as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.

Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over whether evolution is a reality, when in fact there is none.

History

The institute was cofounded in 1991 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank. It was started as a branch organization of the Hudson Institute, an Indianapolis-based conservative think tank. It is named after the Royal Navy ship HMS Discovery in which George Vancouver explored Puget Sound in 1792. The organization was incorporated in 1991.

Discovery Institute Press

Discovery Institute Press is the institute's publishing arm and has published intelligent design books by its fellows including David Berlinski's Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (2010), Jonathan Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) and an edited volume titled Signature Of Controversy, which contains apologetics in defense of the institute's Center for Science and Culture director Stephen C. Meyer.

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

The Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), formally registered as PSSI International Inc., is a United States 501(c)(3) nonprofit anti-evolution organization, based in Clearwater, Florida, promoting the pseudoscience of intelligent design associated with the Discovery Institute. While in the past, the organization sponsored events promoting intelligent design and fundamentalist Christianity, it is currently largely inactive. The PSSI was established in early 2006 by Rich Akin. Geoffrey Simmons, Discovery Institute fellow, is one of the directors of the PSSI.

The PSSI created a public list of medical professionals who dissent from Darwinism. This list is used by the Discovery Institute in its anti-evolution campaigns. The list is used in support of the Discovery Institute claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid while asserting that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

The PSSI, which was active between 2006 and 2008, held a "Doctors Doubting Darwin" rally at the University of South Florida's Sun Dome in September 2006. Attendance was estimated at 3,500 to 4,000 people by a local reporter. Apologetic organizations promoting the event had hoped to fill all 7,700 seats in the Sun Dome. This meeting featured the Discovery Institute's Jonathan Wells and fellow Michael Behe, and received local radio coverage. This rally was opposed by the Florida Citizens for Science.

Teach the Controversy

Main article: Teach the Controversy

Teach the Controversy is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.

The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy is a religious and political one. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In the December 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

Wedge strategy

Main article: Wedge strategy

The Wedge Strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the institute. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the "Wedge Document". Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log. In Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) the authors wrote "Although its religious orientation is explicit, the long-term plan outlined in the Wedge Document also displays the Discovery Institute's political agenda very clearly. In ten years, the Wedge strategy was to be extended to ethics, politics, theology; the humanities, and the arts. The ultimate goal of the Discovery Institute is to "overthrow" materialism and "renew" American culture to reflect right-wing Christian values."

Center for Science and Culture

Main article: Center for Science and Culture

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, beside other connected sites, such as Mind Matters, operated by the non-profit Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence at Discovery Institute. It publishes the blog Evolution News & Science Today (formerly Evolution News & Views and often shortened to Evolution News (EN)), that promotes "a rigorously God-centered view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism."

Other issues

Homelessness

Christopher Rufo, an activist who later became famous for opposing the teaching of critical race theory, wrote frequently on the subject of homelessness while he worked for the Discovery Institute. In his 2018 Discovery Institute-funded policy paper "Seattle Under Siege: How Seattle's Homelessness Policy Perpetuates the Crisis and How We Can Fix It," Rufo said that four groups—"socialist intellectuals", "compassion brigades", the "homeless-industrial complex", and the "addiction evangelists"—had successfully framed the debate on homelessness and diverted funding to their projects. He described how the "compassion brigade" had called for social justice using terms such as "compassion, empathy, bias, inequality, root causes, systemic racism." Rufo brought negative attention to All Home, which at the time was King County, Washington's homelessness agency, by sharing a video of an adult entertainer performing at a conference on homelessness. All Home's director was placed on administrative leave and resigned shortly thereafter.

Caitlin Bassett of the Discovery Institute has contributed opinion articles that criticize governmental response to homelessness as wasteful and counterproductive to the goal of ending homelessness. The Discovery Institute opposes the Housing First approach, preferring to prioritize treating homeless people for mental illness or drug addiction.

2020 United States presidential election

Scott S. Powell, a senior fellow of the Institute, has promoted the false claim that the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen.

Climate change

The Discovery Institute website has posted articles denying the scientific consensus on climate change.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Buri became president in December 2011
  2. ^ Chapman became chairman in 2011

References

  1. ^ "Charity Navigator Rating - Discovery Institute". Charity Navigator. Glen Rock, NJ: Charity Navigator. Archived from the original on April 13, 2016. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
  2. ^ Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  3. ^ "Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse - A Conversation With Barbara Forrest". Church & State (Unabridged interview). Washington, D.C.: Americans United for Separation of Church and State. February 2005. ISSN 2163-3746. Archived from the original on May 17, 2014. Retrieved May 27, 2014.
  4. ^ Jones, Thomas (November 1, 2001). "Short Cuts". London Review of Books. 23 (21): 22. ISSN 0260-9592. Archived from the original on December 26, 2009. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  5. ^ Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press: 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Article available from Universiteit Gent Archived June 26, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–186. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022.
  7. ^ Perakh, Mark; Young, Matt (2004). "13. Is Intelligent Design Science?". In Young, Matt; Edis, Taner (eds.). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. pp. 195–196. ISBN 0-8135-3433-X. Archived from the original on March 27, 2023. Retrieved December 3, 2023.
  8. ^ "What we do". Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on October 31, 2023. Retrieved July 17, 2023.
  9. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 19, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
  10. ^ "Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". World News Tonight. New York: American Broadcasting Company. November 9, 2005. Archived from the original on May 21, 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  11. ^ Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect. 13 (22). Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on February 21, 2012. Retrieved July 23, 2008.
  12. ^ Dembski, William A. (2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When?". Access Research Network. Colorado Springs, CO. Archived from the original on April 7, 2023. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
  13. ^ "Discovery Institute: A Brief History" (PDF). Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on April 24, 2014. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  14. ^ "Discovery Institute Press". Discovery Institute Press. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on October 31, 2023. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
  15. ^ "Intelligent Design Presentation at USF Draws Crowds and Complaints From Darwinists - Evolution News & Views". Evolution News. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  16. ^ "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Part One". Podomatic. Archived from the original on April 9, 2023. Retrieved December 3, 2023.
  17. ^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals; A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Archived February 14, 2019, at the Wayback Machine Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  18. ^ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Archived February 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Hank Tippins, Tippin the Scales, The Observer News, Tampa Bay, Florida, October 21, 2006.
  19. ^ Recent Events Archive: Apologetics Events in the U.S. and Beyond Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, apologetics.org.
  20. ^ September 23, 2006 - News Archived September 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, Texans for Better Science Education Newsletter, Sept 23, 2006.
  21. ^ Florida Citizens for Science Archived November 20, 2023, at the Wayback Machine official webpage
  22. ^ Doomed in the Dome Archived November 23, 2023, at the Wayback Machine, Red State Rabble blog, September 28, 2006.
  23. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy" (PDF). Center for Inquiry, Inc. Washington, D.C. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 19, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
  24. ^ Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate Archived May 21, 2011, at the Wayback Machine ABC News, November 9, 2005
  25. ^ "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message Archived 2005-04-05 at the Wayback Machine
  26. ^ Annas, George J. (2006). "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom". New England Journal of Medicine. 354 (21): 2277–2281. doi:10.1056/NEJMlim055660. PMID 16723620. Archived from the original on April 9, 2023. Retrieved December 3, 2023.
  27. ^ "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 Archived 2006-02-21 at the Wayback Machine American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
  28. ^ "Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition Archived March 4, 2015, at the Wayback Machine United States National Academy of Sciences
  29. ^ "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
  30. ^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Archived 2007-06-30 at the Wayback Machine Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  31. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion (pages 136-138)
  32. ^ Young, Matt; Strode, Paul (May 15, 2009). Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). Rutgers University Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-8135-4864-7. Archived from the original on May 23, 2023. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
  33. ^ "Mind Matters". Mind Matters. Archived from the original on July 19, 2022. Retrieved July 10, 2022.
  34. ^ "Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence". Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. Archived from the original on July 10, 2022. Retrieved July 10, 2022.
  35. ^ *Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 19, 23. ISBN 0-19-515742-7. LCCN 2002192677. OCLC 50913078.
  36. ^ Jones, Sarah (July 11, 2021). "How to Manufacture a Moral Panic". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on July 11, 2021. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  37. ^ Walker, Meghan (November 2, 2018). "City council candidate Christopher Rufo takes on homelessness in upcoming public event". My Ballard. Ballard, Seattle. Archived from the original on November 19, 2022. Retrieved November 19, 2022.
  38. ^ Rufo, Christopher (October 16, 2018). The Politics of Ruinous Compassion: How Seattle's Homelessness Policy Perpetuates the Crisis And How We Can Fix It. Discovery Institute (Report). A Discovery Institute White Paper. Archived from the original on November 19, 2022. Retrieved November 19, 2022.
  39. ^ Lin, Summer (December 27, 2019). "Dancer was hired to strip at Seattle homelessness conference. The video leaked online". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on July 21, 2022. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  40. ^ Bassett, Caitlin; Marbut, Robert (March 28, 2022). "Opinion: Generous donation gone to waste on bad homelessness policy". Puget Sound Business Journal. American City Business Journals. Archived from the original on March 28, 2022. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  41. ^ Braterman, Paul (February 4, 2021). "Why creationism bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory". The Conversation. Archived from the original on August 11, 2022. Retrieved August 10, 2022.

Further reading

47°36′14.5″N 122°20′0.4″W / 47.604028°N 122.333444°W / 47.604028; -122.333444

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&oldid=1256842396#Physicians_and_Surgeons_for_Scientific_Integrity"