Discovery Institute’s finger in the pie

The Gradebook notes that the Discovery Institute is fully well aware of what’s going on here in Florida (who would think they didn’t?) and is offering advice to anyone seeking it.

The Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank best known for its support of intelligent design, has entered the fray over Florida’s science standards. Well, sort of. It acknowledged on its Evolution News & Views blog today that it provided information to Fred Cutting, the member of the standards-writing committee who recently submitted a minority report on the issue.

“we constantly receive inquiries from students, teachers, school board members and other educators from all around the United States who want information about how they can teach evolution in a more objective fashion, and we help out whenever we can.”

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Alert. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Discovery Institute’s finger in the pie

  1. firemancarl says:

    Well, now we know for sure that it’s a concerted effort by those IDiots to make our state devoid of functional thinking students.

  2. James says:

    Doesn’t surprise me at all – the Intelligent Deceit crowd apparently didn’t get the message after they got their clocks cleaned in Kitzmiller v. Dover. By a REPUBLICAN, BUSH APPOINTEE judge! Keep up the fight, guys – remember they are on record being fraudulent. You have two people on the board on your side, you need at least two more. Halfway there.

  3. So? Do you think that Darwinist outfits like the National Center for Science Education, the Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.), and the Darwin Day promoters do not also have their fingers in the pie?

  4. James Falvo says:


    The difference is, ID is not a scientific theory. If it were, they’d have peer-reviewed publications. They have none. Do you want an untested idea put into our classrooms without peer review? This is a political strategy, not a scientific one. It’s unconstitutional and anti-American, since it threatens to ruin our scientific standing in the world. If you want to discuss religion or social controversies, by all means do so in a social studies, law, or current events class.

  5. S.Scott says:

    “ID is religion”. We now have proof that Mr. Cutting’s motives were religiously motivated. May I suggest that everyone reading this post – save the article from the “DI” somewhere. They have a tendency to “Disappear” things.

  6. S.Scott says:

    Larry – you never responded to me on the other thread.

  7. Jonathan Smith says:

    Larry Fafarman is a troll,he spews forth his ID diatribe on any thread that he can worm his way into before he runs off, tail between his legs.
    Please ignore him.

  8. James Falvo Says:

    The difference is, ID is not a scientific theory. “–

    I was discussing who had their fingers in the pie, not whether or not ID is a scientific theory.

    S.Scott Says:
    –“Larry – you never responded to me on the other thread. “–

    What thread? Where? I often to do not return to old threads.

    Jonathan Smith Says:
    –“Larry Fafarman is a troll,he spews forth his ID diatribe on any thread that he can worm his way into before he runs off, tail between his legs.”–

    Wrong, dunghill — I am not even a big fan of ID. I prefer non-ID criticisms of evolution, e.g., criticism of the theory of the mutually beneficial co-evolution between two kinds of organisms that become dependent on each other, e.g., bees and flowering plants. In mutually beneficial co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent.

    “I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”

    — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

  9. S.Scott says:

    Those not in favor …

  10. Jonathan Smith says:

    Fafarman,the only butt you are able to kick is your own,it should be easy
    for you to perform the same physical contortions that you perform mentally
    when you try to comprehend Evolution.
    Not able to understand how co- evolution happened,well it must have been designed,right.
    If you do not like the theory of evolution,earn a PhD in Biology, gather evidence for the alternative theory of your choice and convince other scientists of your ideas. When your theory gains acceptance among the scientific community, then and only then, will we be convinced.
    Until then keep your mindless rantings to your self

  11. Noodlicious says:

    Larry might as well have said:
    “I’m completely ignorant about biology and co-evolution. I just regurgitate the propaganda the creationist salesmen put on all their websites. Evolutionary theory is too complicated for me to learn and understand. God did it! The bible says so…least that’s what my masters at church told me! I don’t need to know anything about evolution.”

    Larry your ignorance of the topic you are trying to comment on is fundamentally obvious. Just the usual for you. It’s why you’re ignored on every blog/forum you venture onto.

    Yep…a troll is a troll is a troll…..

    *imagining Larry kicking his own butt with his head already so far up it*


  12. Bill C says:

    It isn’t the Bible in Larry’s case. Although raised as a Jew, he doesn’t seem to believe in a god in the normal Judeo-Christian sense. He believes that there are extra-terrestrials actually pulling the strings. He once claimed as proof his theory that there are not enough factories to account for the number of consumer goods on the shelves of the stores and that they must be supplied by supernatural means. (sort of a cargo cult) He also pointed out the Los Angeles Times as proof in that he doesn’t believe that the number of copies that magically appear in diverse locations every day could not be printed and distributed without supernatural means.

    Other theories in Larry’s world have been that the Moon landings were faked and that meteors come from inside the atmosphere. He has backed off on the latter but his arguments are still here to see on the net.

Comments are closed.