Discovery Institute big-wig John G. West took time out of his day to excoriate Lauri Lebo for a recent article. Her putative sin? Not crediting the DI with coming up with innovative obfuscation prior to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
Lauri also rewrites history by suggesting that the focus on the critical analysis of Darwin’s theory (rather than the teaching of intelligent design) is somehow a post-Dover development:
As always, since intelligent design was ruled unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the introduced bills rely on such creationist code words as “teaching the controversy,” “academic freedom,” or “critical analysis.”
Discovery Institute articulated the same critical analysis approach two years earlier in Ohio, and it did the same in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and other states… all before the Dover lawsuit.
Swing and a miss, John. Lauri’s statement wasn’t about the ontology of DI word-smithing, but rather about the content of proposed legislation. Whether the DI had already cottoned on to the fact that “intelligent design” was past its sell-by date as early as 2002 doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t tenable to introduce legislation pushing “intelligent design” explicitly post-Dover. Do try to keep up.
Oh, and the folks in Ohio did figure out that “intelligent design” arguments were the content of “critical analysis” and deep-sixed the sham back in 2006. Call it what you want, John, but if it is always the same shoddy ensemble of arguments, it doesn’t make it good enough to teach students.<= get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>> = get_option(\'vc_text_before\') ?> 43885 = get_option(\'vc_human_count_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_preposition\') ?> 6223 = get_option(\'vc_human_viewers_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>>