Wedge Document: Shows that the Discovery Institute is pursuing a religious agenda, not science.

The policies and actions I'm referring to relate to the Discovery Institute pushing to have Intelligent Design creationism taught in grade schools despite the fact that it's not a scientific theory or accepted by scientists. They have recently changed tack and said they don't want IDC taught in classrooms, they just want the flaws in the theory of evolution discussed. That's like setting a $500 asking price for a broken toaster and then saying, "Okay, just to do you a favor I'll take $300." Real scientists don't seek the acceptance of impressionable children before they gain the acceptance of the scientific community.

One of the core arguments for Intelligent Design creationism is the idea that anyone who understands and supports the theory of evolution is well on their way to being a Nazi, racist, or murderer. What they're saying is that the problem with the scientific theory of evolution is that it doesn't teach morality and ethics. Essentially, evolution is wrong because it isn't pleasant. Wendy Wright resorted to this argument in her discussion with Dawkins, and it still pisses me off that he didn't hang her on it. Real scientists don't need to employ this sort of slander to accomplish their goals.

Discovery Institute regularly employs lies and misdirection on their site, www.evolutionnews.org. Even the site's name is misdirection. They claim that self published articles are legitimately peer reviewed work which contributes to the veracity of Intelligent Design creationism. They say the same thing about articles which merely rehash tired creationist dogma with new terms and articles merely describing what Intelligent Design creationism is. Even when they publish a legitimate scientific paper and get it peer reviewed, they frequently play fast and loose with the truth. I've seen at least one paper, I seem to recall it was by Dembski, where the peer reviewer said something along the lines of, "All the math is correct and this paper is well cited. Contrary to the author's claim, this relates to linear evolution, not biological evolution, but other than that it's fine." This was cited as a clear demonstration of how biological evolution couldn't possibly work. Real scientists don't have to lie to make their work appear legitimate.

There are a couple more items before I even touch on the quality of Discovery Institute's actual arguments, but I notice this comment is moving past "wall of text" into "citadel of text" so I'll stop. If, for some reason, you want me to go on, let me know.

TL;DR: Discovery Institute is clearly full of shit.