Discovery Institute Exposed

I am sorry not to have some sort of piece of a transcript to provide and it will take just a bit to get into the full discussion here but I found it rather mind-numbing to see what appears to me to be simply blatant Lies by individuals that are associated with The Discovery Institute - which seems to be a pattern.

If Jesus of Nazareth means anything I have to assume “Integrity” is a foundational item

1 Like

I’ve seen this video and it’s very good. The Discovery Institute is often called the Dishonesty Institute

This banal video smacks of atheist paranoia … anyone who’s religious and opposes the sacred cow of the godless - Darwinism - is the enemy.

And despite the non-stop stream of accusations, I didn’t detect any lies or dishonesty from Casey Luskin in that video. Funny that.

But here’s what I am convinced is a lie:
The history of life on earth can be attributed to a purely natural process of evolution. Evolutionary science spreads atheist (read: demonic) propaganda, imo

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” - William Provine

“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.” (Matt 5:11)

The Discovery Institute promotes a number of things, such as denying that global warming is a problem, as well as attacking “Darwinian” evolution, whatever that means (both within and outside the DI, the definition of Darwinian varies quite a bit).

Biological evolution does a good job of describing the history of life, as far was we can tell from biological and paleontological evidence. And anti-evolution arguments are consistently of poor quality. That doesn’t provide any good reason for atheism; Provine and Dawkins and their like are looking for excuses to justify atheism just as carelessly as the DI is looking for excuses to justify rejecting evolution.


Do you believe in God’s sovereignty?

Please don’t play the false nobility card.

Biological evolution does a poor job of describing the pattern of stasis followed by saltations that is evident throughout the fossil record … and I haven’t even got to the Cambrian explosion yet. Biological evolution also does a poor job of explaining the appearance of novel organs and body plans.

ID does a better job than Darwinism ever will. ToE is a simplistic nineteenth-century idea that fails.

The aim of ID is to promote faith in the Creator … as opposed to Darwinism, the aim of which is to promote atheism.

So I don’t understand Christians who attack ID as if it’s a great evil. Bizarre.

Yes, of course.

He is sovereign over mutations in DNA.

1 Like

Are you familiar with neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution?

While it’s true that science is materialistic it has nothing to do with materialism (ideology) as author of video suggests.

It’s better for everyone to see science as what it is, a pursuit to understand material world as objectively as possible, assigning any kind of ideology to it would just insert unnecessary subjectivity into science.

Saying science is equal to materialism only hurts science in the a long run, because everyone who doesn’t agree with materialism will see science as biased and will be more likely to reject it and create opinions like this:


You have wrested and twisted so many things, it’d be impossible to untie them.

I’m sorry to see just how much you’ve been given over to such a spirit of deceit…


Where does biological evolution poorly describe the greetings evident in the fossil record?

1 Like

Now, @Klax, - play nice! I’m pretty sure Buzzard meant “saltations” there. But maybe autocorrect knows something we don’t? Perhaps the spirit blows where it will, and salutations are often the order of the day from rocks, trees, and fossils!


Only at the most fundamental level … so, not really.

Yes, sorry … thank you for the correction. Fatigue is a killer.


Agreed. The design inference was always just a smokescreen.

I suppose Darwinism is ID speak for evolution.

Evolution is just biology over time.
Biology is just a snapshot of unfolding evolution.
The aim of biology is understanding life and has nothing to do with atheism.

I actually do not have a general difficulty with ID in principle. It is just that my expectations are low given that the Discovery Institute has failed to deliver so much as a single compelling example or argument despite their volumes of output.

While some of that video, IMHO, came across as an untethered rant, the central exhibit of Luskin’s calculated false witness is libelous, egregious, and culpable. If that is OK by you, suit yourself.


I’ve come across quite a few atheists online who were once Christians but lost their faith on account of evolution.

And I distinctly remember the Catholic nun who taught me in Grade 9 saying angrily, “They told us we were created … but we weren’t - we evolved.” A few years later she was no longer a nun.


Exhibit A: the Cambrian explosion

Please cite an example of “Luskin’s calculated false witness” that is “libelous, egregious, and culpable.”

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.