Buffaloed by a small cadre of loud, doctrinaire Darwinian enforcers, ID’s opponents are fearful of dissent, fearful of being suspected of dissent.
E-mail evidence disclosed during the case, as well as a myriad of other facts, directly contradicts CSC’s claims.
Is this the end of ID, as some commentators have suggested? Can the genetic code be constructed by virtue of undirected stereochemistry?
Readers who could use a bit of background to the unfolding media war about evidence of censorship by the CSC may find the following to be helpful.
When members of the Darwin lobby get caught in the act of discriminating against intelligent design (ID), their usual reflexive response is simply to deny the evidence of their intolerance.
“The going penalty for viewpoint discrimination against ID is about $100,000, though successfully defending freedom of ID expression is priceless.”
The AP story claims that the California Science Center is claiming that Discovery Institute issued “false and misleading press releases” in “an effort to drum up controversy.”
Free speech to most of the establishment means free speech for unpopular liberal causes.
Shapiro is not a promoter of the classical modern neo-Darwinian model of evolution. Rather, he believes that in a sense, biological organisms are programmed to evolve.
“This case warns bullies in the Darwin Lobby there will be consequences for trying to suppress free speech on evolution.”