Editing Discovery Institute (section)

===Teach the Controversy===
{{Main|Teach the Controversy}}
[[Teach the Controversy]] is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific principle]] of [[intelligent design]], a variant of traditional [[creationism]], while attempting to discredit the teaching of [[evolution]] in United States public high school science courses.<ref name=ForrestMayPaper>{{Cite journal
|url=https://centerforinquiry.org/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf 
|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy 
|first1=Barbara 
|last1=Forrest 
|author-link=Barbara Forrest 
|date=May 2007 
|journal=Center for Inquiry, Inc. 
|place=Washington, D.C. 
|access-date=2007-08-06 
|url-status=dead 
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf 
|archive-date=2011-05-19 
}}</ref><ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110521051447/http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true |date=May 21, 2011 }} ABC News, November 9, 2005</ref><ref>"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser [[Bruce Chapman]] heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner [[George Gilder]] (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 [http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050405230851/http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html |date=2005-04-05}}</ref>

The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy is a religious and political one.<ref name="nejm"/><ref name="AAAS"/><ref name="nap">"Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." [https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150304062304/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066 |date=March 4, 2015 }} [[United States National Academy of Sciences]]</ref> A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], say the institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.<ref name="nejm">{{Cite journal|doi = 10.1056/NEJMlim055660|pmid = 16723620|title = Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom|journal = New England Journal of Medicine|volume = 354|issue = 21|pages = 2277–2281|year = 2006|last1 = Annas|first1 = George J.|url = https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1287|access-date = December 3, 2023|archive-date = April 9, 2023|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230409114847/https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1287/|url-status = live}}</ref><ref name=AAAS>"Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |date=2006-02-21}} American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006</ref><ref name="kitzmiller_pg89">"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." [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', page 89]]</ref><ref>[http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630002824/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf |date=2007-06-30}} [[Barbara Forrest]]. May, 2007.</ref> In the December 2005 ruling of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', Judge [[John E. Jones III]] concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".<ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#H.|''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', Conclusion]] (pages 136-138)</ref>