Talk:Discovery Institute

Is it propaganda?

If DI is a propaganda mill (or ID is propaganda - same thing to my mind), then we ought to be able to point out which critics say so, and to describe their reasoning. For now, I changed the lede to say only:

• It has been denounced as a "propaganda mill" by various prominent critics.

This is mealy-mouthed, but I think it's better than letting people say, "According to Wikipedia . . ."

We should identify the ID critics who call it propaganda. Does the article do that? If so, please revert my recent change; if not, please help me to name these critics. Then I promise to work with you to summarize their arguments.

[Note: I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they don't seem to have any mention in the article.] --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• I found a source: Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, an associate writer covering breaking news at The New Republic. Her work has also appeared in The Daily Beast.

I also think this is really bad text. It is vague and full of value judgements. Like you say, it needs to name the critic, especially since it uses quotes, which implies it is a quote. And 'prominent' is a word that is so vague as to be impossible to verify. Better to state something about how made the quote. And WP policy says anything in the lede should be mentioned in the main article text. Furthermore, is there a single conservative think tank that hasn't been called "a propoganda mill" by someone? I really don't see what this sentence adds to the lede. We already say that it is supporting pseudoscience. Ashmoo (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Donald Prothero calls it a propaganda mill.[

See also "https://ncse.ngo/id-paper-continues-attract-scrutiny], Doug Weller talk 10:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"Religious think tank"

What is the reliable source for this change? The IRS and the organization's mission do not refer to it being a "religious think tank." PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They're creationists. They "educate" people on religious dogma. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like NPOV response. What reliable sources say they are a "religious think tank?" PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They only exist to promote ID, which has been found in a court to be the promotion of creationist (and therefore religious) dogma. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the basis for this statement?

"They only exist to promote ID," PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It's right on their website.

"The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design rather than a blind and undirected process." Lostsandwich (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say that it is a religious think tank. In fact, it says the opposite.

https://www.discovery.org/v/is-discovery-institute-a-religious-organization/

It is about being accurate and there hasn't been a reliable source that shows it is a religious organization when it was incorporated and approved by the IRS as an educational organization. Some editors might not agree with what they teach, but that doesn't make it religious. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You really could just look at Wikipedia Library:

1. AN ETERNAL MONKEY TRIAL? EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM IN U.S. SCHOOLS. By: Laats, Adam, Phi Delta Kappan, 00317217, Feb2021, Vol. 102, Issue 5 Other types of creationism have experienced similarly dizzying declines. Some creationists have tried stripping creationism of its overt religious content in order to seem more palatable to public schools. For example, institutions such as the Discovery Institute (DI) have promoted theories of "intelligent design." They have insisted that their ideas were not religious, but merely represented scientific objections to mainstream ideas about evolution (Branch, 2020). As did more traditional creationism, intelligent design had its day in court. In 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones decisively rejected such arguments (Goodstein, 2005). Intelligent design, Jones ruled, was not science, but only warmed-over religion.
2. Philosophy on the Stand in America's Evolution Wars. By: Branch, Glenn, Isis: A Journal of the History of Science in Society, 00211753, Jun2025, Vol. 116, Issue 2 In Kitzmiller, Dembski and Meyer were expected to testify that intelligent design qualified as science, both by reciting a subset of the standard creationist arguments against evolution and by defending the vernacular Newtonian appeal to the supernatural as legitimate in science. But neither took the stand, owing to conflict between the Thomas More Law Center, the right-wing Catholic public interest law firm representing the board, and the Discovery Institute.[24] The science and technology studies scholar Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick (who was trained as a philosopher) testified on behalf of the board, but his discussion, although calling on philosophy, was idiosyncratic and not helpful to the board's case.[25] In contrast, Forrest and Pennock testified effectively. The court held, reflecting Pennock's objections to vernacular Newtonianism, that intelligent design "is not science" in part because it "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."[26]
3. The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution. Authors: Barnes, Ralph1, Church, Rebecca2, Draznin-Nagy, Samuel1 Source:Science & Education. Mar2017, Vol. 26 Issue 1/2, p27-47. 21p.Neo-creationist organizations such as the Discovery Institute have been less forthcoming about their goals; however, their Bwedge document^ (see Forrest 2001) and their own response to criticisms of that document (Discovery Institute 2003) indicate that their primary goals are cultural and religious in nature.
4. On the historical roots of creationism and intelligent design: German Allmacht and Darwinian evolution in context. By: Watts, Elizabeth, Kutschera, Ulrich, Theory in Biosciences, 14317613, Jun2021, Vol. 140, Issue 2As detailed in a Letter published in Science in 2017, the adherents of creationism and intelligent design are still active in promoting their biblical-literalist views of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. In this contribution, we take a look at this ideological phenomenon in the USA and analyze the philosophical roots of this ongoing movement. Specifically, we discuss Vernon Kellogg's book entitled Headquarters Nights (1917) with reference to the German 'Allmacht' (English—omnipotence) and Darwinian evolution to demonstrate how this publication bolstered the development of active anti-evolutionism in the USA among American fundamentalist Christians, inclusive of the Intelligent Design (ID)-agenda. The current activities of creationist associations in the USA and Germany are summarized, with reference to a new pro-ID-group established in Austria in 2019 that is sponsored by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington (USA).
5. Creationism gaffe. New Scientist, 02624079, 6/11/2006, Vol. 186, Issue 2503 Nothing amiss was spotted when a public-relations firm booked the room for 23 June for the Discovery Institute, a pro-creationist think tank in Seattle. The event is an invitation-only showing of The Privileged Planet, described as a "scientific documentary" that ponders "purpose within cosmic evolution".
   Scientists say that it advocates creationism, and have berated the Smithsonian for allowing itself to be listed as a co-sponsor — standard practice on all hosted events. On 1 June, the museum admitted its error, saying the film "is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research". It has not cancelled the screening, but has refused the $16,000 fee and withdrawn co-sponsorship.

I could have gone on but I got tired of reading articles about creationist dissembling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

These citations say it advocates for creationism and that it isn't science. Great. But that doesn't make it a "religious think tank." It is pushing for intelligent design to be taught in school, by definition, that's education. Those citations might think that they are wrong but it isn't researching religion and the impact it has on society and religious principles. Below is an example of a couple of religious think tanks:

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/

https://www.acton.org/about

None of your citations say it is "religious think tank." PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

They say the discovery institute promotes warmed-over religion, that the discovery institute violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation, that their primary goals are cultural and religious in nature, that Intelligent Design, including the Discovery Institute, is a fundamentalist Christian ideological stance and that the Discovery Institute is pro-Creationist. I'm sorry but I don't understand how you missed these explicit statements from academic sources even when I directly quoted them for you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

It calls itself a think tank, because it is one, and it is religious and its purpose is promoting Intelligent Design.

It's not very complicated. Lostsandwich (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why "religious think tank" is contentious, anymore than we need a source showing basketball is a sport. It's what it is. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)