Therefore, the DI has a vested interest in why the film was dropped, and this is why they requrested the information, so they can conduct their own investigation, as is the right of any individual or organization under the freedom of information act.

Doesn’t a trial bear the risk for the DI of having to disclose their communication with the American Freedom Alliance?

“I thought the whole issue was about a screeing not organized by the Discovery Institute.”

I think you are correct that the screening was not organized by the DI. However, the DI is a thinktank, which supports the positive presentation of ID to the public. The film is an ID positive film. Therefore, the DI has a vested interest in why the film was dropped, and this is why they requrested the information, so they can conduct their own investigation, as is the right of any individual or organization under the freedom of information act.

I think it’s unlikely that Dr.s Dembski or Meyer will be called to the stand, but Casey Luskin may be.

I’m still curious about how the DI became aware of the documents (emails), but I think it’s a pretty sound lawsuit if they became aware of the emails through legitimate means. It’s sound because for similar reasons to the Climategate fiasco, there’s a freedom of information act in this country. The Science Center receives public funding, and therefore, is obligated to allow the presentation of issues from a number of perspectives, not simply from the scientific consensus. It is quite clear that there is some shenanigans going on there. If they had allowed the showing of the film in the first place, everyone would be happy.

2. They’ve seen one or more of them or seen references to them.

What are the documents that the DI wants disclosed that they know have not been. How do they know they exist?