Discovery Institute Responds

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

6 thoughts on “Discovery Institute Responds

  1. It looks like the DI created the press release before the ruling was released. They probably had one for victory, and one for this loss.

    They bring up things that are directly addressed in the ruling without acknowledging they’re there.

    For example: “Americans don’t like to be told there is some idea that they aren’t permitted to learn about.”

    If they had *read* the ruling, they would have seen that Judge Jones says the ID warrants further study, but *not in science class*

    I’m sure DI will continue to distort the truth, and the ID supporters will continue to believe it and pass it on.

    But distorting the facts is what this trial was all about anyway.

  2. I agree with Tired of Idiots, it looks like they have not fully read the opinion, certainly they obviously missed the prescient statement that he would be accused of being an activist judge.

  3. From the York Daily Record –
    But Max Mann of Dover Township believes that a judge can misconstrue what people say on the stand. Worse yet, he believes a judge can twist a witness’ words so that they sound more damaging.
    “We have so many liberal judges that his mind was made up before he heard the case,” Mann said.
    Being told that Judge John E. Jones III was appointed by George W. Bush did nothing to change Mann’s mind.

    I guess if Mr Mann thinks Judge Jones is a liberal activist I would probably qualify as a died in the wool deep-red communist! There is nothing like not letting the facts get in the way of prejudice.

Comments are closed.