Tom Gilson

Discovery Institute: Indiana Bill “Bad Science and Bad Education”

A press release that just came from the Discovery Institute:

Indianapolis – A bill approved today by the Indiana Senate to allow the teaching of creationism in public schools is being criticized as bad science education by Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading intelligent design think tank.

[From Discovery Institute – Article Database – Leading Intelligent Design Think Tank Condemns Passage of Creationism Bill by Indiana Senate as Bad Science and Bad Education]

I’m afraid a lot of prejudiced people are going to think the DI is playing a game of subterfuge here. No need to worry about that: their message on this is consistent in print, on the web, and face to face.

13 thoughts on “Discovery Institute: Indiana Bill “Bad Science and Bad Education”

  1. I live in Indianapolis, and this bill is embarassing. I can appreciate the underlying aim of the bill — to present alternatives to the theory of evolution as it is currently taught in schools, i.e., in a fairly rigid and intolerant fashion — but legislatures look stupid, and violate the U.S. Constitution, when they do stuff like this. If one wants a creation alternative to be taught to her children, she should do so at home, and not rely upon and/or force public schools to do it. Again, I say, embarassing.

  2. Oddly enough, I’d say the same thing about evolution. If you want to teach fairy tales then fine. But do it at home. Not in schools.

  3. I believe this question fits nicely with your topic. Teaching the theory (religion) of evolution in our public schools should not be allowed unless the teaching of Christianity has equal time. Perhaps they should both be taught at home and I have no problem with that. However, I am very disturbed that Islam is being taught in our public schools and feel that this should not be allowed. I would like to refer you to the following video I received in my email

    In Christ,

  4. Richard – Are there any other parts of the science curriculum you feel shouldn’t be taught in schools, or just the one that conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible?

    Ron – Why do you consider evolution to be a religion?

  5. In Behe’s summary he says that the bacteria mutated in such a way as to interfere with some of its normal function, which had a side effect of stopping a virus from invading. He then classifies this as breaking its genes and therefore concludes that evolution did not occur.

    However, saying that it was breaking genes is really a matter of perspective is it not? I think you could equally well say it mutated to stop the invader while having the unfortunate side effect of…

    It is irrelevant anyway though, the point is, evolution is change over time, and that is exactly what the study shows. That a bacteria did not have a certain ability, and after 20,000 generation in the lab, a particular set of samples produced a beneficial change for its local environment.

    If I am misreading things or misrepresenting anyone please let me know, but this is how I see it.

  6. Evolution as “change over time” is utterly uncontroversial, and no one in this debate is anti-evolution in that sense of evolution. What’s in question is whether unguided evolution has the capability to generate new genetic information such as is required to explain all the diversity and development of biological structures and functions in nature. Lenski’s experiments have not produced any new genetic information, which was Behe’s point.

  7. Oh, I see what you mean, I clearly need to read a bit more carefully 🙂

    You said what is in question is whether evolution is unguided. Does that mean you believe in evolution but you think God had a hand in it? (sorry if you have answered this question before, I found your blog just today)

  8. I believe in evolution in the sense of change over time. God’s hand is in everything, so that takes care of that part of the question, except that what his metaphorical “hand” does differs in all cases, so I can’t make a blanket statement concerning what it means in regard to evolution in that sense.

    I disbelieve in unguided evolution, which you already know. For your newer question, I would refer you to some of what I have written previously about it (scroll to the bottom of that page). It’s not a short answer, I’m afraid.

  9. Thanks for the link. You are right, there is a lot there, I’ve just started getting into it, interesting so far.

    I must admit I have heard that ID was simply ‘creationism in disguise’ and never really thought about it much or looked into it myself (always a poor policy). This seems like as good a time as any to fix that.

  10. How about suggesting which one to three of these are most interesting and germane? Google searches producing multiple articles are of no interest to me; I’m a busy man.

    If the DI is wrong about this, it only takes one counter-example to prove it. That’s all I ask, though I wouldn’t object to a couple more being offered. I won’t read a hundred, and you wouldn’t either.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell


Blog Honors

Recent Comments

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this: