Travel (702)
Hotels (24)
Entertainment (867)
Vacations (508)
Cruises (144)
Health (144)
Accommodation (315)
Study abroad (282)
Transportation (260)
Destinations (988)
Food & Drinks (491)
Holidays type (352)
Organizations (270)





Public policy forum of CSC struggles for non-materialism in science

Added: 05/05/2006

CSC, the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, is probably a leading organization in the world that so actively promotes Anti-Darwinist theories and intellectual design science. The Center joins a great amount of scholars, who do research and counter materialistic theories of origins, oppose human cloning, gene engineering and embryonic stem cell researches.

In 1996, the Discovery Institute, a nonpartisan public policy tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis, established the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (further the Center for Science and Culture - CSC), a kind of public policy forum for anti-evolutionists.

The main purposes of the CSC are
1.To support researches by scientists and other scholars, who are critical to Darwin theories and other materialistic theories of origins, and to support those, who are developing an emerging scientific theory of intellectual design
2.To explore the larger philosophical or world-view implications of the scientific debate about design and other philosophically charged issues in the modern science
3.To explore the cultural implications of competing philosophies of science and worldviews.

Opposing the unscientific philosophy of materialism is a particular interest of public policy forum of the CSC. The public policy forum of the CSC is focused on scientific discoveries and theories that raise larger philosophical, world-view or cultural issues. The Center scholars investigate theories of biological and cosmopolitan origins and theories in the social and cognitive sciences that deal with questions about the human nature.

With these ideas in mind the public policy forum supports the research that counters theories, describing humans as completely determined machines or animals (such as behaviorism, artificial intelligence and other physical conceptions of mind). It also supports the research that counters neo-Darwinism, a chemical evolutionary theory and other cosmological views. In general, the public policy forum at the Discovery Institute counters and argues with theories that stabilized in our society centuries ago and are used as the basis for school, college and university education.

Many of scholars of the CSC work on developing competing hypothesis and theories, including theories of intelligent design and theories that defend the reality and irreducibility of human agency, responsibility and consciousness. Hence, the Discovery Institute and its Fellows (member scholars) highly oppose human cloning, gene engineering, and embryonic stem cell researches.

However, the Discovery Institute states in the Wedge Document (the major document that defines the objectives and activities of the SCS) that the public policy forum of the CSC does not support complete theocracy. The Center for Science and Culture rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the scientific practice. On the contrary, the scholars constantly struggle for providing scientific evidence to each theory or hypothesis they present as counter-arguments to existing materialistic views.

The scholars of the CSC defend the idea that human beings are created in the image of God and this influence is obvious in all greatest achievements and positive cultural correspondences. This idea makes the Discovery Institute members oppose to "materialism as a dehumanizing philosophy that has been used to justify genocide, infanticide and eugenics, among other evils".

Many critics and scientists consider these views as an attack on science and achievements of material sciences what arouses an enormous scandal around current activities of the Discovery Institute. In particular, the public policy forum of the CSC is blamed for leading an unwary public to reaching certain conclusions, creating intentional ambiguity, misrepresenting evidence and misquoting scientists and experts.


Rate this article:
Bad   Good
Post comment
Send to friend
Print version
Abuse report


Article comments:

No comments for this article yet. Post your comment now!

Return to top of the page

Индивидуальные туры