The Discovery Institute has conducted a series
of related public relations campaigns which
seek to promote intelligent design while attempting
to discredit evolutionary biology, which the
Institute terms "Darwinism."
The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific
intelligent design movement and is represented
by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations
firm.Prominent Institute campaigns have been
to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical
Analysis of Evolution'.
Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent
design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg)
have been discriminated against, and thus
that Academic Freedom bills are needed to
protect academics' and teachers' ability to
criticise evolution, and that the development
of evolutionary theory was historically linked
to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics,
claims based on misrepresentation which have
been ridiculed by topic experts.
These three claims are all publicised in the
pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,
the Anti-Defamation League said the film's
attempt to blame science for the Nazi Holocaust
was outrageous.
Other campaigns have included petitions, most
notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.The
theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming
scientific consensus.
Intelligent design has been rejected, both
by the vast majority of scientists and by
court findings, such as Kitzmiller v. Dover,
as being a religious view and not science.
== Goal of the campaigns ==
The overarching goal of the Institute in conducting
the intelligent design campaigns is religious;
to replace science with "a science consonant
with Christian and theistic convictions."
To accomplish this the Institute has conducted
a number of public relations campaigns.
The governing strategy of these various campaigns
is called the Wedge strategy and was first
made public when the Institute's "Wedge Document"
was leaked on the World Wide Web in 1999.
The Discovery Institute argues that science,
due to its reliance on naturalism, is an inherently
materialistic and atheistic enterprise and
thus the source of many of society's ills,
and that "Design theory [intelligent design]
promises to reverse the stifling dominance
of the materialist worldview."None of the
campaigns are aimed at directly influencing
the scientific community, which the Institute
considers dogmatic and hidebound, but rather
are focused on swaying the opinions of the
public and public policy makers, which, if
effective, it is hoped will respond by forcing
the academic institutions supporting the scientific
community to accept the Discovery Institute's
redefinition of science.
Public high school science curricula has been
the most common and visible target of the
campaigns, with the Institute publishing its
own model lesson plan, the Critical Analysis
of Evolution.In a Seattle Weekly article,
Nina Shapiro quoted Institute founder and
president Bruce Chapman when she wrote that
behind all Discovery Institute programs there
is an underlying hidden religious agenda:
Yet the Discovery Institute as an organization
did not get involved in the issue in order
to solve the mysteries of the universe.
Chapman is up front about having a social
and political agenda.
He sees design intelligence as a way to combat
the growing reliance on genetic explanations
for human behavior and what he sees as an
undermining of personal responsibility.
As an example of this phenomenon, Chapman
cites the infamous "Twinkie defense" used
by a murder defendant claiming his sugar high
made him do it.
Others associated with the institute take
a bigger leap of logic to argue that welfare,
as currently dispensed, is a misguided consequence
of the Darwinian outlook.
"If you see human beings as nothing but matter
and motion, than all you do is treat them
like mouths to feed," says Jay Richards, program
director for the institute's Center for Science
and Culture.
"If they're more than that, you treat the
whole person," he argues, which would mean
looking at such things as family structure
and the role of moral and religious values
in their lives.
Do you really have to attack a whole branch
of science in order to counter liberal views
on welfare?
The Discovery Institute folk think they do.
"Unless you get the science right," Chapman
says, "it's very hard to contend with the
other arguments."
The Institute's approach has been to position
itself as opposed to any required teaching
intelligent design, while campaigns such as
Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis
of Evolution introduce high school students
to design arguments through the Discovery
Institute-drafted lesson plans.
Teach the Controversy and Free Speech on Evolution
both require that "competing" or "alternative"
"theories" to evolution to be presented while
the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson
plan fills that requirement by listing intelligent
design books by Institute Fellows as such
alternatives for students.
"Discovery Institute opposes mandating the
teaching of intelligent design, but it supports
requiring students to know about scientific
criticisms of Darwin's theory, which is the
approach adopted by the science standards
in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and currently
under discussion in Kansas.
Discovery Institute also supports the right
of teachers to voluntarily discuss the scientific
debate over intelligent design free from persecution
or intimidation."
== 
Campaign to "teach the controversy" ==
Previously, attempts to introduce creationism
into public high school science curricula
had been derailed when this was found to have
violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In an attempt to avoid repeating this violation,
the Institute today avoids directly advocating
for intelligent design in high school curricula.
Instead, it advocates teaching methods that
introduce intelligent design ideas (and textbooks)
indirectly through a campaign to "Teach the
Controversy" by portraying evolution as "a
theory in crisis" and "presenting all the
evidence, both for and against, evolution"
and teaching "Critical Analysis of Evolution"
(the name of the Institute's model lesson
plans on the subject).
The Discovery Institute describes their approach
as:
As a general approach, Discovery Institute
favors teaching students more about evolution,
not less.
We think students deserve to know not only
about the strengths of modern evolutionary
theory, but also about some of the theory's
weaknesses and unresolved issues.
In other words, students should be taught
that evolutionary theory, like any scientific
theory, continues to be open to analysis and
critical scrutiny.
According to opinion polls, this approach
is favored by the overwhelming majority of
the American public, and it has also been
endorsed by the U.S. Congress in report language
attached to the No Child Left Behind Act Conference
Report.
Gordy Slack of Salon interpreted this tactic
as: "the 'more' they want to teach, of course,
is what they see as evolution's shortcomings,
leaving an ecological niche that will then
be filled by intelligent design."In 2001 Robert
T. Pennock wrote that intelligent design proponents
are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain
the absence of scientific debate of their
claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists
as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part,
on the notion that these issues [surrounding
evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate
among biologists.
... according to neo-creationists, the apparent
absence of this discussion and the nearly
universal rejection of neo-creationist claims
must be due to the conspiracy among professional
biologists instead of a lack of scientific
merit."These teaching methods were promoted
by the Institute at the Kansas evolution hearings
in 2005, but were the subject of judicial
criticism later in that year in the decision
in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific
scrutiny which we have now determined that
it cannot withstand by advocating that the
controversy, but not ID itself, should be
taught in science class.
This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at
worst a canard.
The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical
thought, but to foment a revolution which
would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
The slogan "teach the controversy" has been
increasingly superseded by the more oblique
"Critical Analysis of Evolution".
== Campaigns claiming discrimination ==
The claim that "scientists, teachers, and
students are under attack for questioning
evolution" and have been discriminated against,
is the centerpiece of a number of campaigns
conducted by the Institute.
Notable among these campaigns is the Sternberg
peer review controversy and in the more recent
case of Guillermo Gonzalez's denial of tenure.
As part of a long term strategy the Institute
actively promotes an image of intelligent
design proponents suffering professional setbacks
or failing to advance as victims of "Darwinist
inquisitions" conducted by "Thought Police".
Critics of intelligent design and the Institute
such as PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and Barbara
Forrest frequently find themselves the subjects
of unflattering articles on the Institute's
blog which ignores or downplays the responses
of large scientific and academic organizations
rejecting intelligent design while portraying
opponents as members of an academic and scientific
fringe and minority.
Other methods employed by the Institute include
what they term "Public Education"; described
as exposing 'bigotry and intolerance' to 'public
disapproval' often through the Institute's
blog Evolutionnews.org, "Personal Assistance";
described as "providing assistance in locating
free legal representation from a network of
concerned lawyers across the nation" and "investigations"
and lobbying of officials by the Institute,
"Legal Defense" and "Grassroots Action".Other
purported instances of discrimination publicised
by the Discovery Institute include:
philosopher Francis J. Beckwith's initial
failure to gain tenure from Baylor University;
biology teacher Roger DeHart's reassignment
at, and later resignation from, Burlington-Edison
High School for teaching intelligent design;
Mississippi University for Women chemist Nancy
Bryson, who was removed as head of the science
and mathematics division, purportedly for
giving a presentation entitled "Critical Thinking
on Evolution", which claimed evidence for
intelligent design in nature.
After protests, the university decided Bryson
could keep the job and insisted her removal
had nothing to do with the lecture.
biologist Caroline Crocker, who was barred
by George Mason University from teaching a
Cell Biology class over her introduction of
intelligent design into it, and whose contract
at that university was not renewed;
The closure of the short-lived Evolutionary
Informatics Lab formed by Baylor University
engineering professor Robert J. Marks II,
which included Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary research professor in philosophy
William Dembski as a postdoctoral researcher.
The lab was shut down and its website was
deleted because Baylor's administration considered
that it violated university policy forbidding
professors from creating the impression that
their personal views represent Baylor as an
institution.
Baylor however permitted Marks to resume work
in the informatics lab on his own time and
maintain his website, provided a disclaimer
accompany any intelligent design-advancing
research makes clear that the work does not
represent the university's position.Court
cases (such as Webster v. New Lenox School
District and Bishop v. Aronov) have upheld
school districts' and universities' right
to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.
None of these purported cases of discrimination
have been subjected to formal legal or congressional
scrutiny.In August 2007, an upcoming movie
publicising a number of these incidents was
announced, entitled Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed and starring Ben Stein.
=== Free Speech on Evolution campaign ===
The primary message of the campaign was:
"Across America, the freedom of scientists,
teachers, and students to question Darwin
is coming under increasing attack by what
can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.
These self-appointed defenders of the theory
of evolution are waging a malicious campaign
to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees
with them."
The term gained exposure when the Institute
was widely quoted in the press in 2005 after
president Bush publicly spoke in favor of
teaching intelligent design alongside evolution
as a competing theory and Institute fellow
John G. West responded with a statement framing
the issue as a matter of free speech: "President
Bush is to be commended for defending free
speech on evolution, and supporting the right
of students to hear about different scientific
views about evolution."A notable characteristic
of this campaign is the Institute's framing
of the issues as a confluence of free speech,
academic freedom and discrimination.The campaign
has found traction with the Discovery Institute's
constituency, conservative Christians, but
has failed to produce gains with a wider audience.
Critics of the Institute and intelligent design
have alleged that the campaign is founded
on intellectual dishonesty.
PZ Myers describes the "free speech on evolution
campaign" as promoting intolerance, lies and
distortions, while Wesley R. Elsberry says
'Free Speech on Evolution' is a "catchphrase"
describing false compromises offered by Institute
Fellows that introduce intelligent design
into science classes indirectly by having
teachers "teach the controversy."
=== Campaigns portraying books and sites as
banned ===
Banned Books Week is an awareness campaign,
led annually by the American Library Association,
in an attempt to protect freedom of speech
by celebrating books that the ALA claims others
have banned or attempted to ban from various
venues.
In 2006, Discovery Institute Fellow John West
nominated the book Of Pandas and People, on
the basis of it being "at the heart of" Kitzmiller
v. Dover Area School District.
However the decision in Kitzmiller made no
order regarding Pandas, rendering the basis
for considering it to be "banned" highly tenuous,
and the assertion was dismissed by Deborah
Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of the American
Library Association's Office for Intellectual
Freedom who does not consider the book banned.
The Discovery Institute continued to misrepresent
the book as banned in 2007, with the statement
that:
In 2005, a federal judge banned Pandas outright
from science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania
In 2007, the Discovery Institute nominated
Robert J. Marks' 'Evolutionary Informatics
Lab' web-site as "Banned Item of the Year",
after it was deleted from the Baylor University
server.
However, the site is still accessible, now
being hosted on a third party server.
=== Academic freedom campaign ===
Between 2004 and 2008 a number of anti-evolution
'Academic Freedom' bills were introduced in
State legislatures in Alabama, Oklahoma, Maryland,
Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Michigan,
based largely upon language drafted by the
Discovery Institute.
As of May 2008, none of them were successfully
passed into law.
They purport that teachers, students, and
college professors face intimidation and retaliation
when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution,
and therefore require protection.
Critics of the bills point out that there
are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.
Investigation of the allegations of intimidation
and retaliation have found no evidence that
it occurs.In February 2008, the Discovery
Institute announced the Academic Freedom Petition
campaign, which it is conducting with assistance
from Brian Gage Design who provides the Discovery
Institute graphic design professional services.
The petition states:
We, the undersigned American citizens, urge
the adoption of policies by our nation's academic
institutions to ensure teacher and student
academic freedom to discuss the scientific
strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.
Teachers should be protected from being fired,
harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against
for objectively presenting the scientific
strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory.
Students should be protected from being harassed,
intimidated, or discriminated against for
expressing their views about the scientific
strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory
in an appropriate manner.
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy
and legal affairs at Discovery Institute,
is the contact person for the campaign's Model
Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution.
== Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and
eugenics ==
In his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, Discovery
Institute fellow Richard Weikart links Charles
Darwin's Theory of Evolution to Nazism, concluding:
Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust,
but without Darwinism, especially in its social
Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither
Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had
the necessary scientific underpinnings to
convince themselves and their collaborators
that one of the world's greatest atrocities
was really morally praiseworthy.
Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic
interpretation of darwinism - succeeded in
turning morality on its head.
This conclusion is however controversial,
with professor of history at the University
of Louisville Ann Taylor Allen giving the
opinion that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism"
is not based on any careful reading of Darwin
himself but on vague ideas by a variety of
people who presented themselves as "Darwinian."
Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like
anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism
since it predates evolutionary theory.
Allen concluded:
This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome
of a 'culture war' between religion and science
leads to serious distortions on both sides.
The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically
associated here with many beliefs — such
as opposition to birth control, legalized
abortion, and assisted suicide--that many
believing Christians and Jews would reject.
And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge
of ideas about race, politics, and social
issues.
If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved
obsolescence, this would in no way detract
from the validity of Darwin's contributions
to modern biological science.
Neither religion nor science is well served
by this oversimplified view of their complex
history.
Discovery Institute Center for Science and
Culture Associate Director John G. West, in
both his book Darwin Day in America and in
lectures, has attempted to link Darwin to
the eugenics movement.
However, critics point out that:
this movement came to prominence during the
'eclipse' of Darwinian evolution in the early
20th century;
the popular support for eugenics was matched
with popular opposition to teaching evolution;
"while many biologists did support eugenic
policies, many important biologists did not";
it was evolutionary biology that provided
information debunking eugenics;
West quoted Darwin out of context in order
to misrepresent him as supporting eugenics;
and
prominent evolutionary biologists, such as
Stephen Jay Gould have spoken out against
eugenics.
"on the whole the evangelical mainstream [...] appeared
apathetic, acquiescent, or at times downright
supportive of the eugenics movement" between
1900 and 1940.
== Campaign to discredit the Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District decision ==
=== 
For deciding whether intelligent design is
science ===
David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin,
senior fellows or officers of the Discovery
Institute, argued that intelligent design
is a valid scientific theory, that the Jones
court should not have addressed the question
of whether it was a scientific theory, and
that the decision will have no effect on the
development and adoption of intelligent design
as an alternative to standard evolutionary
theory.
Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al.
article, arguing that the decision was extremely
well reasoned, and that it marks the end to
legal efforts by the intelligent design movement
to introduce creationism in public schools.
DeWolf et al. responded to the Irons article
in the same issue.
=== "Study" criticizing Judge Jones ===
The Discovery Institute and its fellows published
several articles describing a "study" performed
by the Discovery Institute criticizing the
judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District trial.
It claims that "90.9% of Judge Jones’ [opinion]
on intelligent design as science was taken
virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed
'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law'
submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before
his ruling."
The study, though making no specific allegations
of wrongdoing, implies that Judge Jones relied
upon the plaintiff's submissions in writing
his own conclusions of law.
Within a day, the president of the York County
Bar Association wrote that parties are required
by the courts to submit findings of fact and
"a judge can adopt some, all or none of the
proposed findings."
She added that in the final ruling, a judge's
decision "is the judge's findings and it doesn't
matter who submitted them".
A partner in a York law firm said that "Any
attempt to make a stink out of it is absurd."Several
commentators described a number of critical
flaws in the study from both a numerical and
legal standpoint.
Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU
of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney
on the case called the Institute's report
a stunt: "They're getting no traction in the
scientific world so they're trying to do something
... as a PR stunt to get attention, ... That's
not how scientists work, ... Discovery Institute
is trying to litigate a year-old case in the
media."
He also said the Discovery Institute staff
is not, as it claims, interested in finding
scientific truths; it is more interested in
a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent
design and publicly criticizing a judge.A
subsequent review of the study performed by
Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison
program that was partly responsible for the
decision in the case, indicated that only
38% of the complete ruling by Judge Jones
actually incorporated the findings of fact
and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs
proposed that he incorporate, and only 66%
of the section (on whether intelligent design
was science) incorporated the proposals, not
the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed
was copied in that section.
Significantly, Judge Jones adopted only 48%
of the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of
fact for that section, and rejected 52%, clearly
showing that he did not accept the section
verbatim.
== "Intelligent design is not creationism"
==
One of the principal rationales behind intelligent
design's neo-creationist strategy is to separate
intelligent design from previous, more explicitly
religious, forms of creationism, and the legal
defeats that prohibit them from public school
science classrooms.
For this reason, the Discovery Institute (and
its supporters) make frequent and vehement
denials of any connection between intelligent
design and creationism.
These denials are at times bitter and abrasive,
for example:
[John Derbyshire] still can't understand the
obvious differences between creationism and
intelligent design, continually conflating
the two and looking like an ill-informed crank.
Although it is generally accepted that ID
is creationism, one well-regarded historian
has presented a minority view:
Ronald L. Numbers concludes that it is inaccurate
to call it creationism—though it is "the
easiest way to discredit intelligent design."
However this assertion has been refuted both
in court and academia.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Judge John E. Jones III found that "the overwhelming
evidence at trial established that intelligent
design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling
of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
Numerous books have been written by prominent
academics documenting intelligent design as
a form of creationism, e.g.:
Creationism's Trojan Horse - The Wedge of
Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest and
Paul R. Gross
The Creationists, From Scientific Creationism
to Intelligent Design by Ronald Numbers
Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New
Creationism by Robert T. Pennock
== Petition campaigns ==
The Discovery Institute has created a number
of petitions to give the impression that there
are widespread doubts about the Theory of
Evolution among scientists and scientifically-literate
professionals.
These petitions include A Scientific Dissent
From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for
Scientific Integrity, Physicians and Surgeons
who Dissent from Darwinism, and the now-defunct
Stand Up For Science.
=== Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from
Darwinism ===
Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism
is a petition promoting intelligent design.
It consists of a list of people agreeing with
a statement casting doubt on evolution.
The petition was produced by the Physicians
and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI),
a nonprofit organization formed by the Discovery
Institute, and is intended to support the
Discovery Institute's campaign to portray
intelligent design as a scientifically valid
theory by creating the impression that evolution
lacks broad scientific support.
It is similar to the Discovery Institute intelligent
design campaigns to discredit evolution.
The document itself has been the subject of
controversy and extensive criticism from a
variety of sources.
The statement in the document has been branded
as poorly worded, misleading and vague.
This campaign, like the rest of the Discovery
Institute anti-evolution campaigns, has come
under criticism for being misleading and anti-science.
The list of signatories represents an insignificant
fraction of medical professionals (about 0.02%).
The evidence of evolution is not determined
by petitions or polls, but by scientific consensus.
This is the reason that the theory of evolution
is overwhelmingly accepted.
==== Statement ====
The medical doctors and comparable professionals
are signatories to a statement which disputes
evolution, which they refer to as "Darwinian
macroevolution" or "Darwinism", which are
both misleading terms.
The statement that the organization subscribes
to is titled "Physicians and Surgeons who
Dissent from Darwinism" and contains the following
text:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability
of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the origination and complexity
of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian
macroevolution as a viable theory.
This does not imply the endorsement of any
alternative theory.
Evolutionary synthesis and the theory of evolution
state that random mutation leads to inherited
traits that become more or less common due
to non-random natural selection and random
genetic drift, as well as other mechanisms.
Therefore, the PSSI statement is overly vague
and worded in a misleading fashion, since
few real evolutionary biologists would subscribe
to the version of evolution presented by the
statement.
Evolution does not include the study of the
origin of life, as the statement implies.
The wording of this statement is very similar
to the wording of the Discovery Institute's
petition, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism",
which has been widely criticized for being
inaccurate and misleading.
==== History ====
The Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific
Integrity was formed in 2006.
By May 8, 2006, the PSSI Dissent petition
had 34 signatories.
There were 100 signatories on July 30, 2006.
By December 2006, 167 had signed the statement.
By May 22, 2007, 252 appeared on the list.
As of July 30, 2007, the list included 264
names.The PSSI invites holders of the M.D.,
D.O., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., or similar degrees
to sign the Dissent petition.
==== Analysis ====
The statement is similar to the one of the
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism of the
Discovery Institute which has come under extensive
criticism from a variety of sources as misleading,
poorly phrased and containing only a tiny
fraction of professionals in relevant fields.
Statement of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism":
We are skeptical of claims for the ability
of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life.
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian
theory should be encouraged.
The value of the opinions of physicians, surgeons,
veterinarians, optometrists and other signatories
of this petition is not clear.
Referring to the number of people on the Scientific
Dissent from Darwinism list and their claimed
relevance, University of Minnesota biology
professor PZ Myers writes, "Not only is the
number that they cite pathetically small,
but they rely on getting scientists whose
expertise isn't relevant."
In analogy, it can be argued that the ‘Physicians’
list represents an insignificant fraction
of the total medical profession.
Addressing a specific example, Myers says
of neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, who signed
both lists, that "The Discovery Institute
may like to trumpet his expertise in neurosurgery
as an indicator of the significance of his
dissent from evolutionary biology, but I think
I'd rather trumpet his ignorance of evolutionary
biology as an indicator of the uselessness
of the Discovery Institute's list."
Myers continued to state that the signer "is
not only wrong, but he's pretty damn arrogant
about it — how else to explain someone who
is proud of the fact that he knows nothing
about a subject, and is proud of his inability
to find sources that would correct his ignorance,
even when they're pointed out to him directly?
He's like Michael Behe, in that we can plop
mountains of information in front of him,
and he'll just blithely claim it doesn't exist."The
compiled list of medical professionals is
available on the Internet, where each signatory
is listed three times: by last name, by country
and by specialty.
Most of the doctors who signed the statement
are from the United States.
As of May 22, 2007 there were 224 signatories
from the United States, two signatories from
Australia, four signatories from Canada, eight
signatories from the United Kingdom and another
14 from nine other countries.
However, this figure should be expected to
rise, based on a poll of 1472 US physicians
conducted by the "Louis Finkelstein Institute
for Social and Religious Research" at the
Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research
in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13–15,
2005.
This study showed that 34% of physician respondents
felt more comfortable with intelligent design
than evolution.
include doctors trained or working in a wide
range of disciplines, including, addiction
medicine, bariatrics (i.e., weight loss medicine),
dentistry, dermatology, hospice care, ophthalmology,
optometry, plastic surgery, psychiatry, radiology,
urology and veterinary medicine.
The American Medical Association estimates
that in 2006, there were more than 884,000
physicians in the United States.
In addition, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimated that in May 2003 the US had 97,090
dentists, 63,780 opticians, 22,740 optometrists
and 43,890 veterinarians.Therefore, the total
number of US professionals in the fields represented
by the "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific
Integrity" Dissent petition is at least 1,111,500.
That is, the 224 US signatories of the statement
represent approximately 0.02% of the total
number of US professionals in these fields.
=== Stand Up For Science ===
The Stand Up For Science campaign originated
in July 2006 leading up to the showdown in
the Kansas Board of Education that began with
Kansas evolution hearings, which was also
driven by the Discovery Institute.
The Institute's online petition and Stand
Up For Science website where one could sign
the petition were prominent features of the
campaign.
During the period leading up to the Kansas
evolution hearings the Institute ran a number
radio and print ads across Kansas incorporating
many of its slogans, such as "Teach the Controversy",
"Free Speech on Evolution", and "Critical
Analysis of Evolution", and directing readers
and listeners to the Discovery Institute website.
As the Kansas debate over the teaching of
evolution wound down in Fall 2006 after the
conservative Republicans who approved the
Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards
lost their majority in a primary election
and the moderate Republicans and Democrats
vowed to overturn Discovery Institute-influenced
2005 school science standards and adopt those
recommended by a State Board Science Hearing
Committee that were rejected by the previous
board, the Institute shifted the focus of
The Stand Up For Science campaign from Kansas
to Texas.
The scientific and science education communities
reacted to campaign by saying that it was
a misinformation campaign.
Nick Matzke described the campaign's support
for science as "irony-meter-busting".
In response to the campaign Kansas biology
teacher Jeremy Mohn founded the competing
website, Stand Up for REAL Science.
== Theistic evolution ==
On May 26, 2009, the Discovery Institute announced
a new website, FaithandEvolution.Org.
The site attacks theistic evolution, and New
Scientist suggests that it is in response
to Francis Collins' recent launch of the BioLogos
Institute to promote theistic evolution.
== Criticism ==
Every leading scientific professional organization
has through position statements unequivocally
endorsed evolution as a widely accepted and
well-proven theory.
McGill University Professor of Education Brian
Alters states in an article published by the
NIH that "99.9 percent of scientists accept
evolution".Critics say that the Institute
is conducting a deliberate disinformation
campaign.
One common criticism is that the rhetoric
employed by the Institute in its campaigns
is intentionally vague and misleading and
that the campaigns mask a near total absence
of scientific support and productive research
programs.
The Templeton Foundation, who once provided
grants for conferences and courses to debate
intelligent design has since rejected the
Discovery Institute's entreaties for more
funding, Foundation senior vice president
Charles L. Harper Jr. said "They're political
- that for us is problematic," and that while
Discovery has "always claimed to be focused
on the science," "what I see is much more
focused on public policy, on public persuasion,
on educational advocacy and so forth."In one
of a series of articles in Skeptic on the
movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, ID
critic Ed Brayton noted:
== See also ==
Intelligent design in politics
