Heritage Foundation: Going Creationist?

WE don’t know what to make of this, so we’ll give you the information and let you decide for yourselves.

The Heritage Foundation, which we have always respected, has a mission statement describing its purpose:

To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

That sounds fine to us, so we are exceedingly disturbed by this notice that they are hosting a speech by Stephen C. Meyer, scheduled for 23 June.

Meyer is, as the Heritage notice says, a “Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.” But there’s more. In case you’ve forgotten, Wikipedia reminds us about the Peer review controversy:

On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. … The journal’s reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.

It should also be remembered, as we reported here, that Meyer was one of three creationist “experts” who were on the 6-member panel selected by Don McLeroy to testify before the Texas Board of Education regarding standards for science education.

Why is the Heritage Foundation giving Meyer a prestigious platform from which to speak? We don’t know. But it doesn’t look good.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Heritage Foundation: Going Creationist?

  1. waldteufel

    Dear respected and admired Curmudgeon,

    Why are you surprised? Over the past 8 years or so, the conservative movement has been co-opted by the radical religious right, who of course are the worthies who feed the otherwise unemployable frauds at the Discovery Institute.

    The Republican Party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights no longer exists as we once knew it. The party is now firmly in the control of theocratic wingnuts for whom ideological purity and political loyalty trump all else.

  2. waldteufel, I guess I’m not really surprised. Not any more. Just amazed that all resistance to the collapse of the republic has somehow disappeared; and the opposition party cares only about things like Noah’s Ark and condoms.

  3. Benjamin Franklin

    Curmugeonly One-

    This should come as no surprise to you. As I recall, last year, on or about April 15th Ben Stein addressed the Heritage Foundation’s Conservative Bloggers to pimp Expelled.

  4. Has the HF at least offered equal time to those like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, who represent the great majority of conservatives and devout theists who actually perform the relevant research?

  5. Frank J asks: “Has the HF at least offered equal time …?”

    I have no idea.

  6. waldteufel is “spot on” – that’s why I had to get out!!

  7. Differentiate between IDer and creationist…

  8. Teme says: “Differentiate between IDer and creationist…”

    Sure. A creationist doesn’t lie about the source of his beliefs.

  9. Sure. A creationist doesn’t lie about the source of his beliefs.

    Zing!

  10. Teme wrote: “Differentiate between IDer and creationist…”

    An IDer is someone who defines “creationist” only as a “Biblical literalist YEC.” They are mostly OECs or non-Biblical literalists, but neverthelss misrepresent evolution, and know that they indirectly promote all anti-evolution positions, including YEC. But they know that their critics and many fans too have much broader definitions of “creationist/creationism”, so they bait-and-switch at their convenience. Fans are excused for equating ID with creationism (or calling it a subset) but critics are not. Neat, huh?

  11. Dale Husband

    I think the Discovery Institute has other concerns besides Intelligent Design. Indeed, when it was first founded, it wasn’t about that at all. It IS a Conservative institution.

  12. Dale Husband says: “It IS a Conservative institution.”

    Yes, but only for a very peculiar definition of conservatism. See: Conservatives and Intelligent Design.