1. In recent weeks there has been a considerable degree of attention focused on the Texas State Board of Education. For those readers who are unaware, could you describe how the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture is involved?

We have produced a preliminary study (available on our website) of the accuracy of the treatment of Darwinian evolution in textbooks being proposed for use in Texas. (The study is focused only on this topic, and doesn’t evaluate the textbooks generally.) We sent our study to the Texas Board of Education, and later sent the Board additional information about the weaknesses in textbook presentations of evolution. We are focusing on correcting errors of fact in textbooks and on making sure that textbooks cover scientific weaknesses of neo-Darwinism. We are not advocating that intelligent design be included in textbooks. However, we do favor correcting inaccurate discussions of intelligent design that already appear in two of the textbooks under consideration.

Our position on public education and science textbooks is clearly articulated in a number of articles on our website, and a number of law review articles published by Fellows in recent years. However, it is rarely described accurately by critics. And regrettably, it has been misrepresented in a number of local news stories in Texas.

2. Some critics have charged that the Discovery Institute is hiding a religious and creationist agenda. They point to the notorious Wedge document, the stated motives of the Center (e.g., "renewal of science and culture"), the overwhelming Christian affiliation of most of the Center's Fellows, Center Fellow Jonathan Wells' vow to destroy Darwinism, other Fellows' young-earth creationist beliefs, and apologetic work done by many affiliated with the Center (e.g., Unapologetic Apologetics and the Touchstone Magazine special issue). How would you respond?

Although many of the accusations about various ID theorists religious motivations are inaccurate, I don’t spend a lot of time making that point. I would rather respond with a simple logical point. ID theorists aren’t offering testimony and asking everyone to trust us. We are making public arguments and citing publicly available evidence. So our motives are irrelevant. The same thing is true of the arguments that atheist Richard Dawkins makes in, say, The Blind Watchmaker. It would never even occur to me to dismiss his arguments because of his religious motivations.

This isn’t a difficult point. Consider an example. In Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells cites credible, published evidence and arguments for the conclusion that Ernst Haeckel’s famous diagram of vertebrate embryo similarities, and contemporary diagrams that bear relevant similarities to Haeckel’s diagram, do not accurately represent the facts about vertebrate embryo development. Many critics have responded by denouncing Wells’ religious background and supposed motivations. Even assuming that such claims are true, how does that affect his argument? The critics’ argument, properly exposed, is something like this: “Wells has a theological axe to grind. Therefore, Haeckel’s embryo diagrams, and textbooks that include them, are just fine.” Does anyone think that is a persuasive argument? How do Jonathan Wells’ religious views affect what vertebrate embryos look like, or whether Peppered Moths frequent tree trunks?

The apologetic use of ID arguments is also fairly non-controversial, or at least it should be. A good ID argument should appeal to public evidence, and use widely accepted premises, as opposed, for example, to depending on an interpretation of Genesis 1. So ID arguments don’t depend on theological or religious premises; but they do have theological and religious implications, which can be developed. In this respect, ID arguments are identical to various arguments for Darwinism, which also have theological implications. But the implications usually point in the opposite direction. Most criticisms of the religious motivations of ID theorists fail to make this crucial distinction between presupposition/premise on the one hand and implication on the other.

3. You have co-authored a manuscript with Guillermo Gonzalez in which you lay out your Privileged Planet idea. It is my understanding that you both have described this idea as a hypothesis, rather than the much-used term "theory." Is this intentional?

We don’t choose the word “hypothesis” over “theory” to preserve any sophisticated nuance. In fact, it’s hard to get a tight analytical distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. But generally, when an idea in science is new, but makes empirical claims and predictions, it’s considered a hypothesis. Only after it is widely accepted does it come to be called a theory. We’re just following that convention.

4. The Discovery Institute has often battled with the National Center for Science Education. After all these years, do you think any common ground has been established?

I’m not sure if there is much common ground, unless it’s something generic like: “It’s a good thing for high school students to know about Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Regrettably, it will be difficult to find common ground as long as the NCSE maintains its policy of misrepresenting our scientific and public policy positions.

5. Several authors have made changes to their biology textbooks, apparently in response to the Discovery Institute's campaign to teach criticism of Darwinism. Do you think Intelligent Design has matured to the degree required for it to be taught as an alternative theory, and as such should be included in textbooks?

We would support the right of a textbook author to give a fair presentation of ID in a textbook, but we are not advocating that ID be inserted into textbooks. Our focus is on correcting factual errors and making sure that scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism are fairly presented. Our science education policy, called “teach the controversy,” should be understood against the backdrop of the new federal requirement that states adopt educational standards. Within these standards, in most cases, is the requirement that students learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution. Given such a mandate, we think states should require that Darwin’s theory be taught fairly and honestly. That means exposing students the best arguments and evidence for and against it. Considering the furor in Texas, however, it is not obvious that our opponents are interested in what should be, from a pedagogical standpoint, a no-brainer. Every student should understand Darwin’s theory. Understanding requires education, not indoctrination.

Incidentally, the changes proposed thus far by publishers have been misreported. Most of the changes are minor, and most of the publishers don't want to make any substantive changes. However, a few texts are removing or changing their accounts of peppered moths, while a couple are adding qualifications to how they talk about the Miller-Urey experiment. These minor improvements, if adopted, are good, but there is a long, long way to go before textbooks treat Darwinian theory fully and accurately.