Discovery Institute | Page 627 | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.

It’s unfortunate that intelligent design is standing trial in Pennsylvania. Scientific theories require decades, sometimes centuries, to develop, to withstand scrutiny before they are accepted as legitimate. Trying to force acceptance – or denial – quickly is an end-run around the scientific method and the spirit of free inquiry. Whatever the lower courts decide about whether intelligent design can be Read More ›

NOTE: This is a rush transcript of the Nightline interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute on August 8, 2005. The interview took place in Discovery Institute’s office in Seattle, Washington. The transcript was prepared from an audio tape of the interview and has not been corrected by Dr. Meyer or the other participants. Click here to download and Read More ›

This week, about 100 miles from the Liberty Bell, a trial is taking place in Harrisburg over the teaching of “intelligent design.” This is an opportunity for a federal judge to heal a crack in the law over how biological origins is taught in public schools. The Dover school board has mandated that teachers discuss intelligent design in science courses. Read More ›

Click here to listen to an MP3 recording of the radio appearance by George Gilder and Richard Dawkins, or click here for a RealAudio version. Seattle — Minutes before a scheduled NPR radio debate with Discovery Sr. Fellow George Gilder today, Oxford-based Darwinist Richard Dawkins advised the producers he would not debate after all, but only present his views, which appeared Read More ›

Should government regulate business? I expect most people would answer “yes” to that question, but if you ask them why, I expect these same people will have a harder time giving an answer that makes sense.

Some may say, “in order to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or misrepresentation.” But we do not need regulation to do that; there are already many federal, state and local statutes against fraud and misrepresentation, and businesses that behave badly can be dealt with through normal civil and criminal legal means. Others who are a bit more sophisticated might argue that we need to regulate business in order to protect people from “market failures.” However, the empirical evidence is that there are far fewer “market failures” than commonly imagined, and many of these so-called market failures are actually a result of misguided government policy or regulation.

For a minute, try to imagine a world without government regulation, but where all of the standard laws against theft, fraud, misrepresentation and bodily injury still exist. Under such a scenario, what do you think would happen if we had no food and drug administration to tell us what was safe to consume? No financial regulators to protect us from bank failures and financial scams? No health and safety regulators to protect us from unsafe products? Would we all die? Not likely, because the judicial system, coupled with private standard setting associations, would likely give us an equal, if not a higher, level of protection than we have now.

Over the past several months, there has been a growing public debate about the theory of intelligent design, whether it is science, and whether it should be taught in public schools. President Bush’s recent endorsement of teaching about different ideas when studying evolution, including intelligent design, is sure to add fuel to the controversy.

Unfortunately, all the attention has not necessarily led to greater public understanding of the theory of intelligent design or the views of the scientists who support it. Indeed, as intelligent design has become more prominent, foes and friends alike have latched onto it to promote their own agendas. For foes, intelligent design is merely the latest tactic by the “religious right” to use government to impose “creationism” on unsuspecting students and teachers. These critics of intelligent design typically depict scientists who support the theory as zealots determined to twist the findings of science to support their faith in God. If foes are guilty of misappropriating intelligent design, however, so are some of its newfound friends.

As intelligent design has become a household term, a few well-meaning but misguided public officials have conflated the theory of design with creationism or tried to impose it by legislation.

This article, published by Chron, mentions Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Stephen C. Meyer: In a Freudian slip of biblical proportions, the reporter misquoted Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, an advocacy group for ID. The rest of the article can be found here.

Since the Theory of Evolution touches on the subject of human origins, the Catholic Church naturally has a deep interest in the topic. There are three important questions: How does the creation account in Genesis square with what science can reasonably demonstrate about the origin of the universe and mankind? What are the implications of Darwinian anthropology, which understands the Read More ›

In the 1925 Scopes Trial, a young science teacher by the name of John T. Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution in a public school — an act prohibited by a Tennessee statute. Although the trial court ruled against Scopes, the judgment was less important than its wider impact on culture. The historian George Marsden points out that “it was Read More ›