LA Philanthropy Watch

Post #5 – Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture regards its opposition to evolution and its promotion of intelligent design as scientific; the scientific community disagrees.

Intelligent design (which has replaced creationism as American religious conservatives’ alternative to the theory of evolution) suggests that only appeal to an intelligent agent can possibly explain the universe and life on earth.  The “irreducible complexity” we find in nature, and the narrowly circumscribed, “finely-tuned” conditions required for life on earth to thrive, simply can’t be explained by “natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process.”

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

In essence: there are gaps in the theory of evolution as embraced by contemporary scientists that can only be explained if an intelligent agent – in other words, God – exists.  This reasoning is a contemporary version of a teleological argument for the existence of God.  God must exist, because no explanation other than God’s handiwork can explain the natural world.

Advocates of intelligent design go further, however, and insist that their reasoning, observations, and conclusions about an intelligent agent are scientific – not founded on religious belief, or philosophical reflections, or matters of faith.  Discovery Institute’s website is replete with references to individual scientists and scientific papers, journals, and books, as well as writings by advocates of intelligent design on “gaps” in science, the failures of scientific theory and practice, and of the myopia of the scientific establishment.  (The website has an excellent search function: plug in ‘California Science Center,’ or ‘intelligent design,’ or ‘irreducible complexity,’ for instance, for a comprehensive list of articles and blog posts on the subject of your search.)

The conclusion that intelligent design is science is not accepted by the scientific establishment.  While working scientists may or may not believe in God (and there are many theists, including Christians, conducting research in the life sciences), there is a broad consensus in the scientific community that appeals to divine intervention are not part of the scientific method.

A statement of the National Academy of Sciences, “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,” suggests that the supernatural realm is beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry:

“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

In a statement, “Intelligent Design and Peer Review,” the American Association for the Advancement of Science dismisses “the so-called ‘intelligent design movement’” and notes that “in the light of broad scientific criticism of the ID position, advocates have consistently published outside the normal scientific literature.”  The AAAS statement addresses the exception to this rule, a 2004 paper by Steven C. Meyer (Director of the Center for Science and Culture), and references a scientific critique of the paper (which appears at Panda’s Thumb):

“There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom – continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the ‘intelligent design’ movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They’re not even playing the same sport.”

The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine highlight a 2005 United States District Court decision after a trial in which parents in Dover, PA objected to a local school board policy requiring presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  The judge’s 139-page findings of fact included this conclusion:

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005
“[W]e find that ID [intelligent design] is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science…. Moreover, 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. The goal of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”

The scientific community – consisting of people who teach life sciences at universities and medical schools, conduct bench research, attend scientific meetings, and publish in peer-review journals – does not accept intelligent design as science.  Whatever one thinks of the enterprise that Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is engaged in, it is political or cultural; it is not science.

Discovery Institute has responded to this dismissal by the scientific community with a well-recognized strategy: a manufactured controversy.  This manufactured controversy is – at root – the basis for the dispute between the California Science Center, on one side, and the American Freedom Alliance (and Discovery Institute), on the other.  In my next post, we will look at the strategy of manufacturing a controversy.

(Detail of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel fresco via Wikimedia Commons.)

Next post: Discovery Institute and the Strategy of Manufactured Controversy

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post: Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, and Neo-Darwinism
• Third post: American Freedom Alliance and the Scientific Establishment
• Second post: California Science Center: A Public-Private Partnership
• First post: California Science Center Sued by American Freedom Alliance

Post #4 – A profile of Discovery Institute, which is involved in the legal skirmish over the screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma.”

On October 9, 2009 Discovery Institute joined the dispute between the California Science Center and the American Freedom Alliance by filing a public document request with the Science Center; on December 2, the Institute announced that it had filed suit against the Science Center because it had failed to disclose all relevant documents as required by California’s Public Records Act.

Discovery Institute – through its Center for Science and Culture – is the most prominent opponent of the theory (and teaching) of evolution in the country.  Based in Seattle (with an office in Washington, DC), Discovery Institute engages in public policy research and advocacy in many areas, including regional transportation, defense policy, legal reform, the environment and the economy, entitlement spending, and religion and public life.

“Discovery Institute’s mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty.”

A distinct perspective shapes the Discovery Institute’s research program:

“The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.”

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) opposes the theory of evolution (“neo-Darwinian theory”), while promoting the theory of intelligent design.  This attention on evolutionary biology stems from CSC’s focus on “scientific discoveries and theories that raise larger philosophical, world-view or cultural issues.”  Discovery Institute’s concern is not with all scientific discoveries and theories, but only those that lend support for “scientific materialism – the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone.” [The link is to a pdf of Discovery Institute's: The "Wedge Document": "So What?"]

The Center for Science and Culture’s opposition to scientific materialism is at the heart of Discovery Institute’s interest in presentation of “Darwin’s Dilemma.”  It is a religious objection.  In this view, the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition created the world and human beings within this world, and thus the theory of evolution and natural selection – which leaves an intelligent agent / creator out of the picture – cannot be true.

Discovery Institute takes pains to distinguish between creationism, which begins with reference to religious belief, and intelligent design, which presents itself as scientific.  “Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.”

In my next post, we will look more closely at the Center for Science and Culture’s strategy and approach in opposing evolution and advancing intelligent design.

(Photograph of Charles Darwin, age 51, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Next post: Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design, Intelligent Agency, and Science

Previous posts:

• Third post: American Freedom Alliance and the Scientific Establishment
• Second post: California Science Center: A Public-Private Partnership
• First post: California Science Center Sued by American Freedom Alliance

Post #3 – A profile of the American Freedom Alliance, which is involved in the legal skirmish over the screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma.”

Avi Davis, executive director and senior fellow at the American Freedom Alliance, a small nonprofit founded in 2008, described his organization for the LA Times as a “think tank and activist network promoting Western values and ideals.”

AFI presents its mission in these words: “The American Freedom Aliance [sic] is a non-political, non-partisan movement which promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals. The AFA sponsors conferences, publishes opinions, distributes information and creates networking groups to identify threats to Western civilization and to motivate, educate and unite citizens in support of that cause.”  [A number of typos appear on the Alliance’s website, including the spelling of the organization’s name in this quotation.  I assume that as a small start-up organization, AFA has few resources to spare for website design and maintenance.] 

While the organization may well be non-partisan, the reference to “non-political” is puzzling (perhaps evincing its founders’ uncertainty about which activities might threaten its 501(c)(3) status).  The AFA, as a brief review of its website confirms, is a conservative (if not neoconservative) advocacy group immersed in highly charged political disputes; this is a feature, not a bug.  The organization is allied with other (prototypically political) conservative organizations – such as another local nonprofit, the David Horowitz Freedom Center – and with Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit, which filed a separate suit against the California Science Center on December 1.

Avi Davis has written widely on Israel and the Middle East, including a number of op-eds in the Los Angeles Times (from 1998 to 2002).  Issues emphasized on AFA’s website include academic freedom, media bias, missile defense, and threats posed by “radical Islam, moral and cultural relativism, appeasement and excessive emphasis on multiculturalism.”

There is no reason to deny the inherently political nature of the American Freedom Alliance.  Organizations focused on discourse and advocacy are part of a rich tradition in America – celebrated by Tocqueville more than a century and half ago.  Furthermore, AFA’s mission and activities are consistent with the requirements established by the IRS for a 501(c)(3) organization.  The American Freedom Alliance joins a thriving conservative infrastructure (including, though hardly limited to, many nonprofit institutions), which has enjoyed a commanding presence in American political and cultural discourse during the past three decades.

Why would AFA be interested in “Darwin’s Dilemma”?  Does it wish to promote the theory of intelligent design or criticize the theory of evolution?  No.  Quite the contrary, as Mike Boehm notes in his LA Times article, “The AFA’s Davis said his group has no position on Darwinism and intelligent design but is concerned that debate is being stifled by the scientific establishment.”

To put this debate into context, my next post will focus on Discovery Institute, which has an avid interest in what it refers to as “neo-Darwinian theory.”

Next post – Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, and Neo-Darwinism

Previous posts in this series:

• Second post: California Science Center: A Public-Private Partnership
• First post:  California Science Center Sued by American Freedom Alliance

Post #2 – A profile of the California Science Center, which is involved in the legal skirmish over the screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma.”

The California Science Center, one of the prime attractions in Exposition Park, has a venerable history.  The State Exposition Building, which opened in 1912 on the current site, became the California Museum of Science and Industry in 1951.  The museum was transformed – and rechristened the California Science Center – following completion of a 1987 master plan.

In its current incarnation, the California Science Center seeks to educate the public about science and to make the experience fun.  A kid-friendly place with cool, hands-on activities, the Science Center features a number of interactive worlds (focusing on different areas of scientific inquiry).  A new world – Ecosystems – will debut on March 25.  I have visited the Science Center only a handful of times with my not-quite-teenage son, but we invariably have a great time and learn something while we are there.  General admission is free, though special exhibits may carry additional charges.

“The California Science Center is a public-private partnership between the State of California and the not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation.”  The Science Center is governed by a 9-person board of directors; the affiliated foundation, a 501(c)(3) founded in 1950, is governed by a huge board of trustees.  (In contrast, two other popular cultural institutions in LA take a different approach to linking the public and the private:  LACMA, although operated as a nonprofit organization, is also a department of the County of Los Angeles ; while Griffith Observatory, operated by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, has a nonprofit support group.)

The California Science Center Foundation runs Event Services, which approved (and then canceled) the rental agreement with the American Freedom Alliance.  But it is the public side of the Science Center partnership that allowed the AFA lawsuit to go forward, since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – guaranteeing freedom of speech – applies to the State of California.  As a public institution, the actions of the California Science Center are subject to Constitutional constraints.  Unlike a basic nonprofit (without the public dimension), the Science Center is also subject to the California Public Records Act.  (Discovery Institute, the subject of a future post, is taking full advantage of First Amendment law and California’s transparency in government requirements in its legal skirmish with the Science Center.)

The Science Center’s mission statement:  “We aspire to stimulate curiosity and inspire science learning in everyone by creating fun, memorable experiences, because we value science as an indispensable tool for understanding our world, accessibility and inclusiveness, and enriching people’s lives.”

This simple embrace of science set up a conflict with the American Freedom Alliance, which will be the subject of tomorrow’s post.

Next post: American Freedom Alliance and the Scientific Establishment

Initial post in this series: California Science Center Sued by American Freedom Aliance

Update: See Post #5 in my series, which makes reference to the court case mentioned in Mitchell’s comment.

Over ten years ago Victor Dorff, clutching a thick stack of mail, observed that there were more solicitations for charitable organizations than anything else.  Reflecting on the wastefulness of direct mail (see my previous post), and all the trees felled to keep the mail coming, he thought, “There has be a better way to do this.”

Lisa Sonne, Victor’s wife and co-founder of Charity Checks, recalls their question, “Why don’t we have a universal charitable giving certificate?”  An idea was born: Charity Checks.

Essentially a Charity Check is a gift certificate – which can be redeemed at any of the roughly 1 million nonprofit organizations in the U.S.

Back in the day – the late ’90s – it was not unheard of to receive, in lieu of a gift (on a birthday, at Christmas, or on another special occasion), a card that said something to the effect: A gift has been given in your name to the Surfrider Foundation.  (You can still do this, of course.)  And that was (and is) a wonderful way to support the environment and to involve a friend or family member in giving. But, what if the recipient of the gift doesn’t share the giver’s passion for Surfrider Foundation?  What if s/he happens to have a commitment to another philanthropic cause?

When Charity Checks giving certificates are given as gifts, recipients can give to any nonprofit – 501(c)(3) – of their choice.  Not just the giver’s favorite group, not just organizations from a select list, but any nonprofit organization in the country.  Just complete the ‘Pay to the Order Of’ line on the Charity Checks giving certificate and send it to the charity of your choice.  The charity can deposit the giving certificate (as they would any other donation check) and put the funds to use right away.  It’s that simple.

Since Charity Checks is a nonprofit organization, purchases of their charitable giving certificates are tax-deductible.  Some people purchase the giving certificates for themselves because they don’t wish to receive solicitations by mail during the year.  They send the giving certificates anonymously to the charities of their choice, get their tax deduction through Charity Checks, and shrink the stack of mail solicitations they receive.

Some people like to give now, but decide later.  “Some people like to make donations this year by December 31 and get the tax receipt, but then choose their charities next year when they have more time.  Or use their drawer full of Charity Checks for gifts in the New Year – birthdays, graduations, and special occasions as they occur,” said Ms. Sonne.  “We call it ‘pre-paid philanthropy.’  One tax receipt, multiple options.”

Here’s the most astonishing feature of Charity Checks: there are no administrative fees.  They simply ask donors to cover mailing costs.  (PayPal charges a credit card fee for transactions completed online, but Charity Checks doesn’t take a cut for reimbursement like some groups or add additional processing fees.)  When you purchase a Charity Checks giving certificate for $25 or $100 or whatever you wish, every cent of the check goes to the nonprofit of your choice.

How do Mr. Dorff and Ms. Sonne manage this?  It’s a labor of love inspired by a spirit of charity. The expenses they incur are recovered whenever a supporter makes a contribution to Charity Checks.

The  Dorff/Sonne family has also developed charitable literacy programs at schools in the region.  A sponsor purchases giving certificates for students, who learn about the world of nonprofits, do research on charities, and chose an organization to support.

Finally, a quick story – a ‘6 degrees of separation’ tale (or perhaps 2 degrees in this instance) – about how the idea for universal giving certificates transformed into an actual nonprofit organization.  A family friend, a landscape architect who worked for Scott Cook (co-founder of Intuit), offered to deliver a package of materials to him.  After reviewing the materials, Mr. Cook decided that he’d like to try out the idea.  In what was essentially a pilot program, he purchased 42 giving certificates for senior executives at Intuit.  He made the gifts and his executives selected their charities.  Everything worked without a hitch and Charity Checks was on its way.

I learned about Charity Checks when Lisa Sonne posted a comment on “A Look at Charitable Giving As a Tough Year Comes to an End.”   A follow-up phone call led to an engaging conversation and her story about the inspiration for and history of Charity Checks.

As we race toward the New Year, there is still time in the current tax year to make charitable contributions via Charity Checks.