Take action now: Contact United Methodist officials and urge them to overturn their ban on Discovery Institute.

The Christian Post obtained a response from the United Methodist Church on the decision to bar Discovery Institute from participating as an exhibitor at the church’s upcoming General Conference:

Diane Degnan, spokeswoman for the UMC, told The Christian Post that this was the first General Conference to allow for “outside exhibitors.”

“The Commission on the General Conference determined that the application by the Discovery Institute did not meet the guidelines established for exhibitors in that it was not consistent with the purpose of the exhibitor program,” said Degnan.

“[The program] states that exhibits are not to provide a platform to survey or test ideas but to provide products, services and resources which are credible and proven to help local church ministries), and, in their opinion, it conflicted with our social principles.”

This rationale is the most obscure to be offered so far. The issue is that Discovery Institute sought “a platform to survey or test ideas”… What? Our interest was in sharing ideas with thoughtful adults, not “testing” them or “surveying” anyone. We test ideas in peer-reviewed science publications and other written forms, in the lab, in silico, in debates — not at church conferences.

Or the problem is that our “resources” aren’t “credible”? But if the United Methodist hierarchy can’t make the clear distinction between intelligent design and creationism, as Michael Flannery and Donald McLaughlin (both United Methodists themselves) pointed out yesterday, then I don’t see how these church officials are in a position to weigh the credibility of ID.

Some of this confusion is reproduced in the Christian Post article:

United Methodism’s official position on the Creation vs. evolution debate has been decidedly in favor of evolution, with their website offering links to works calling on Christians to embrace the theory.

In 2008, the UMC passed a resolution voicing opposition to any efforts to have ideas like Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism included in public education.

But for the umpteenth time, intelligent design is not about “Creation” or creationism. It is a scientific program that investigates evidence of purpose or teleology in nature. And Discovery Institute has consistently opposed pushing ID into public school education.

Or perhaps the problem is that our “resources” are of no “help” to “local church ministries”? Intelligent design is not a species of apologetics, but that’s one thing that makes it so credible and thus helpful, you would think. It does not seek to justify any particular reading of Scripture but pursues truth for its own sake. Michael Flannery, a science historian, writes today about his church’s teachings from a historical perspective, how Darwinism fares in light of those, and about the UMC’s misguided and ill-informed recent resolutions on science and faith. We’re supposed to believe that an objective account of biological origins, that happens to lend to support to Methodist tradition, is not “helpful” in serving the needs of church members? That makes no sense.

Fortunately, the Christian Post spoke to Discovery Institute vice president John West as well:

“We are a nonprofit educational and research organization, and we have sponsored information tables at a wide variety of conferences and events,” explained West.

“A staff member or ours who is a United Methodist brought to our attention the fact that the United Methodist General Conference would be held this year in Portland, Oregon, which is just a few hours away from our headquarters in Seattle.”

Last December, the Commission denied the Institute’s application and last Thursday reaffirmed the decision, reportedly referencing the 2008 resolution to justify their reasoning.

West told CP that he believed this reasoning was “ridiculous,” since his organization “does not favor introducing Intelligent Design into public school science classes” but rather thinks “students should learn about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of modern Darwinian theory.”

“More importantly, our information table was not focused on public school policy, but about resources dealing with science and faith; and nothing in the resolution they cited said United Methodists couldn’t believe in Intelligent Design or discuss it,” continued West.

“I would point out that the UMC’s slogan is ‘open hearts, open minds, open doors,’ and UMC leaders claim to be in favor of open dialogue. But banning us from even having an information table is not open-minded. It’s close-minded in the extreme.”

A friend points out the irony that a world-class atheist philosopher like Tom Nagel can praise ID as a credible challenge to Darwinian theory, even as Dr. Nagel resists it for his own reasons — but liberal Christians won’t even allow the idea to be discussed at their conference. More than just “close-minded,” that strikes me as almost surreal.

Image: UMC chapel, Kent, WA, by PFAStudent [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons.