The Discovery Institute understands this: In its statement on this case, Discovery opposes “efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design.” It sees the divisiveness engendered by such policies as likely hindering “a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community . . . ” What’s more, Discovery doubts that most teachers know enough about ID to “teach about it accurately and objectively.”
“How can I be an optimist,” you ask, “in the face of yesterday’s decision?” Because I know that if we equip ourselves and do our job, truth will out. We should not despair. Our case is compelling if we frame it carefully, ask the right questions, and expose the claims of Darwinists.
To do this, it means you and I need to equip ourselves. My suggestion to you is that you call us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) so we can tell you how to get your hands on material that will equip you well to make a case—a case that is strong and will withstand constitutional challenge.
For further reading and information:
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.
Martha Raffaele, “Judge Rules against Pa. Biology Curriculum,” Associated Press, 21 December 2005.
John G. West, “Discovery Institute’s Position on Dover, PA ‘Intelligent Design’ Case,” Discovery Institute, 21 September 2005.
“Excerpts from ‘Intelligent Design’ Ruling,” Washington Post, 20 December 2005.
Amy Worden, “Federal judge: Intelligent design unconstitutional,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 20 December 2005.
See BreakPoint’s research and information page on intelligent design and evolution.
Burke opposes out-of-state political contributions – unless they help her campaign | Adam Tobias | 352
After film crew shot, Omaha mayor says ride-along decision left to police chief | Deena Winter | 166