Time for a quick quiz:
Question #1: Who is credited with this opinion about the current Texas brouhaha?
[They] are trying to settle a scientific debate through politics.
a. Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education
b. Casey Luskin, of the Discovery Institute
c. George W. Bush, formerly of (and soon to be back in) Texas
d. Dr. Harold Kroto, Nobelist
If you chose (b), you're correct!
This is another Luskinesque case of pot, meet kettle. The Discovery Institute has traveled the country meddling in state and local politics, but now that pro-science forces in Texas are fighting back, Luskin is whining "it's not fair."
Which brings us to...
Question #2: Which group promoted the publication "Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook"?
a. National Center for Science Education
b. National Science Teachers Association
c. American Association for the Advancement of Science
d. Discovery Institute
Choice (d) is correct! You see, despite Luskin's complaints about polluting science with politics, the Discovery Institute specializes in just that: mandating science curriculum based on popularity instead of evidence.
You might also recall that in 2005, Luskin himself stated that
"Nonetheless, intelligent design is a bona fide scientific theory, and there is nothing unconstitutional about teaching about intelligent design in the science classroom. Most important, as a matter of academic freedom, teachers should be able to mention these scientific ideas in the classroom without fear of threats from the ACLU."
Fast forward to 2008, where we read that
Luskin said the Discovery Institute does not seek to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in schools, but instead just wants a closer look at evolution.
The "academic freedom" template so helpfully provided by the DI states that science depends on open debate and critical inquiry. The DI left out the bit about research: you know, formulating a testable hypothesis, analyzing results, subjecting those results to peer review. Nowhere in any proposed/passed "academic freedom" legislation do you find that the process of science is recognized. Rhetoric is more valuable than research to the DI and its supporters.
Question #3: Luskin complains that since just under 50% of the Texas scientists who were contacted about the issue actually completed and returned the survey, the survey results showing ~98% support for no-ID-in-the-classroom were invalid. Which of the following statistics have probably been acknowledged by Luskin?
a. Only 0.07% of the world's biologists signed the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" statement.
b. The >11,000 signers of the Clergy Letter Project represent 3% of the ministers in the U.S.
c. A response rate of just under 50% is a statistician's dream.
d. Creationists/ID proponents have won exactly 0% of their court cases.
e. Creationists/ID proponents have had exactly 0 peer-reviewed publications which explicitly support intelligent design.
If you chose (f), "none of the above," I predict you're right on the money. Especially since there's such a greater proportion of clergy who explicitly support evolution than there are biologists who reject it.
At any rate, Luskin and the Discovery Institute once again cover themselves in hypocritical glory, as they try to portray themselves as being above the political fray when they're the ones who started the dustup in the first place.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
