Editing Center for Science and Culture (section)

==Criticism==
Most criticism of the CSC and the Discovery Institute is that the institute intentionally misrepresents many facts in the promoting of its agenda. A wide spectrum of critics level this charge: from educators, scientists, and the Smithsonian Institution to individuals who oppose the teaching of creationism alongside science on ideological grounds. The following are the most common areas in which the institute is accused of intentionally misleading:
*'''Teach the Controversy''' Mainstream scientific organizations maintain that there is no controversy to teach, in the sense that the theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community. Such controversies that do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the overarching theory of evolution, and the controversy alleged by the Discovery Institute is manufactured.
*'''Santorum Amendment''' Despite the amendment lacking the weight of law, consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy, the amendment's inclusion in the conference report of the [[No Child Left Behind Act]] is constantly cited by the Discovery Institute as evidence that "federal education policy" calls for a "teach the controversy approach."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Controversy-over-life-s-origins-Students-should-2665488.php |last1=Meyer |first1=Stephen C. |last2=Campbell |first2=John Angus |author-link2=John Angus Campbell |title=Controversy over life's origins / Students should learn to assess competing theories |date=December 10, 2004 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=2014-05-19}}</ref>
*'''Wedge strategy and the Discovery Institute agenda''' A common allegation often leveled at the CSC by critics is that it is conducting a campaign, the ultimate goal of which is to reshape American culture by influencing public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. The Wedge Document bolsters this claim. They claim that the center's dismissal of the document and strategy is disingenuous, as when the center's actions in the political sphere, such as its Teach the Controversy campaign, are taken into account it becomes apparent that the Wedge strategy is indeed being followed.
*'''Peer review''' Though the CSC often claims that articles and books asserting intelligent design are published in the peer-reviewed scientific press, no pro-ID article has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml |title=Intelligent Design and Peer Review |website=American Association for the Advancement of Science |location=Washington, D.C. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312080527/http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml |archive-date=2007-03-12 |access-date=2014-05-19}}</ref><ref name="kitzruling_pg87">{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |volume=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 87 of 139|Whether ID is Science, p. 87]]</ref> with the exception of the one that had been quickly retracted by the publisher. That article, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", was by the institute's Stephen C. Meyer and was published in ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' in 2004. One month after its publication, the journal's publisher issued a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and as having sidestepped peer review (see [[Sternberg peer review controversy]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ncse.com/news/2004/09/bsw-repudiates-meyer-00552 |title=BSW repudiates Meyer |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2004 |website=[[National Center for Science Education]] |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2014-05-19}}</ref>

[[Intellectual dishonesty]], in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence; and a lack of [[rigor]] are the most common criticisms of the center.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |author-link=Jason Rosenhouse |date=January 2003 |title=Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent-Design Movement |journal=[[BioScience]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] on behalf of the [[American Institute of Biological Sciences]] |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=6–7 |doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0006:LAFITI]2.0.CO;2 |issn=0006-3568 |quote=ID supporters present fallacious arguments, use dishonest rhetoric, and often present non-contemptuous responses as evidence that their theories are gaining acceptance.|doi-access=free }}</ref> Critics have also stated that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Its critics, such as [[Eugenie Scott]], [[Robert T. Pennock|Robert Pennock]], and [[Barbara Forrest]], claim that the CSC knowingly misquotes scientists and other experts, deceptively omits contextual text through [[ellipsis]], and makes unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials.

[[Barbara Forrest]], author of ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]'' and [[Glenn Branch]] say that the CSC uses academic credentials and affiliations opportunistically.<ref name="acadme"/> In 2001 the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications (''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', ''[[The New Republic|New Republic]]'' and ''[[The Weekly Standard|Weekly Standard]]'') to proclaim the adherence of approximately 100 scientists to the following statement: "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."{{fact|date=March 2020}}

Such statements usually refer to the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.{{fact|date=March 2020}}

Alongside the allegation that the center intentionally misrepresents facts, [[Eugenie Scott]] and other critics say there is a noticeable conflict between what the CSC tells the public through the media and what they say before conservative Christian audiences. They contend that this is a studied and deliberate attempt at the obfuscation advocated by Wedge strategy author Phillip E. Johnson.<ref>[[#Johnson 2002|Johnson 2002]]. "So the question is: 'How to win?' That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing'—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."</ref>

Critics can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] has voiced [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] concerns over Discovery Institute's activities. He described the approach of the teach the controversy movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry":

{{Quote|"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God."<ref name="wp_slevin"/>}}

In 2004, [[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]] published ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]'' documenting the history of the intelligent design movement and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture as well as critiquing ID research.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Forrest |first1=Barbara |author-link1=Barbara Forrest |last2=Gross |first2=Paul R. |author-link2=Paul R. Gross |year=2004 |title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-515742-7 |oclc=50913078 |lccn=2002192677 |ref=Forrest & Gross 2004|title-link=Creationism's Trojan Horse }}</ref> Forrest and Gross referred to the group as an outgrowth of Johnson's religious mission and explored its plans for "a rigorously God-centered view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism."<ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]], pp. 19, 23</ref>