Discovery Institute thoroughly confuses itself on Intelligent Design.

Sometimes, you have to wonder what those ID-friendly folks at the Discovery Institute are thinking. Exhibit A would be this statement at the Institute's web page promoting "academic freedom" and research with regards to ID:

85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory

Actually, that sounds good so far, I can't even argue with that. I think everyone should have the academic freedom to do research into whatever part of ID that they want. Go for it. More power to them. The statement continues:

Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

Again, no problem here. I can't imagine any respectable scientist objecting to the freedom to do whatever research interested them. So far, it's not clear why the DI is so hyped about this statement. And on it goes:

The signers of the brief, identified as “Amici curiae” include such notable scientists as Dr. Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Lyle H. Jensen a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Russell W. Carlson Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Executive Technical Director, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia.

“The advance of scientific knowledge depends on uninhibited, robust investigation seeking the best explanation,” said Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf, a senior fellow at Discovery Institute. “Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved in the laboratory not in the court room. Scientists are concerned that a Court ruling limiting the nature of science would have far-reaching detrimental effects beyond the schoolhouse doors and into the laboratories and careers of many legitimate scientists.”

Perfect -- couldn't have said it better myself. And if you read the whole thing, it proposes a perfectly reasonable scenario where scientists are free to do whatever research appeals to them, without dragging the courts into it.

So ... I'm confused. The DI is clearly taking the position that ID should stand or fall on its scientific merits, not on whether it can win the battle in the courtroom. For once, the DI and me agree on something. Which is exactly why I'm confused.