Today, the Discovery Institute issued a press release in response to Judge Jones’s decision, criticizing it “as a futile attempt to censor science education.”
The Discovery Institute focused on issues of “academic freedom” in their release. At the plaintiff’s press conference in Harrisburg, today National Center of Science Education Director Eugenie Scott responded to that issue, in reference to the choice of the Gull Lake, Michigan school district to teach what Scott called a “shmorgesbord of creationism.” Scott said that “it was unwise” to assume that “teachers have a constitutional right to teach bad science.”
About that “bad science, the DI says this:
“A legal ruling can’t change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can’t be changed by legal decree.”
Yes, yes, and by “machine,” you mean machine. But, that is still not evidence of a designer.
In DI’s press release, Judge Jones was labeled an “activist judge” by DI, not once but twice, and accused of having “delusions of grandeur.” The judge anticipated their comments with this statement:
“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.”
Amy Laura in the Philadelphia Office