Institute gets taken to school

"Breathtaking inanity" is my nominee for phrase of the year.

It was used yesterday by a federal judge in Pennsylvania to describe the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in science classrooms. Enough said, but Judge John E. Jones didn't stop there. He also had choice terms for the nation's leading hustler of intelligent design, Seattle's own Discovery Institute.

Like "disingenuous." And "canard."

And he called the institute and its followers out as scientific girlie men.

OK, he didn't really say that. But it's the gist of what the judge concluded about our most famous think tank and its promotion of the theory that life is so complicated it must be the work of a supernatural creator.

In a 139-page ruling issued after another Scopes-like evolution trial, Jones hit on the crux of the problem with the intelligent-design movement. It can't stand the heat of real science — doing experiments and publishing findings and stuff.

So to further what the judge called the institute's "religious, cultural and legal mission," Discovery has manufactured a bogus controversy about evolution, the judge said.

"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," the judge wrote. "This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

"The goal ... is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design."

I've argued much the same before, after reviewing the institute's materials and hearing the arguments of its fellows.

But forget godless old me. Here it is from a judge who is described as a Republican and a churchgoer. And who listened to days of testimony from some of the Discovery Institute's top people before concluding that the entire enterprise is a threat to rigorous science education.

The institute immediately accused Jones of being an "activist judge" who is trying to censor science classes.

"Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about," said John West, Discovery's associate director.

This is standard Discovery Institute fare — to act like you're some science pioneer being muzzled by the Darwinian establishment.

It's a line that's been working wonders for them for years. Last summer, something like it even fell from the lips of President Bush.

After all, what American could be against the free exchange of ideas, right?

But that's what's so damning about this ruling, particularly for the Discovery Institute. This judge is saying: You want to call your idea science? Then do some. Prove it. Then maybe we'll take you more seriously.

Americans can relate to this ethic, too. An Englishman named Charles Darwin gave us the idea of the survival of the fittest.

Or as we adapted it: Put up or shut up.

Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.