David K. DeWolf

Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture

David K. DeWolf is a Professor Emeritus of Law at Gonzaga School of Law in Spokane, Washington and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School, Professor DeWolf has clerked for the Honorable Stephen Bistline of the Idaho Supreme Court. He has written a briefing book for public school administrators, Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Curriculum.


Law Professor David DeWolf on the History of the Santorum Amendment

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David DeWolf, a law professor at Gonzaga University School of Law and author of the 2009 law review article “The ‘Teach the Controversy’ Controversy” on the history of the “Santorum Amendment.” In the podcast, DeWolf and Luskin discuss the 2001 “Santorum Amendment,” which encouraged schools to teach the scientific controversy over biological evolution. The amendment, submitted by then-Senator Rick Santorum, passed the Senate by a vote of 91-8, and its language was later adopted by Congress into the Conference Report of the 2001 No Child Left Behind act. Listen in as they talk about what the Santorum Amendment said, and how it shows U.S.

David DeWolf on the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill

On this episode of ID the Future, Robert Crowther interviews Discovery Institute senior fellow David DeWolf, a leading expert on the legalities of teaching evolution who helped shape the sample academic freedom legislation available at www.AcademicFreedomPetition.com. Dr. DeWolf explains the idea behind the academic freedom bill currently moving forward in Louisiana and what it means to teach the controversy over evolution. Should teachers have the freedom to treat Darwinism as an open and interesting question? Listen in and decide for

Decent Dissent: Seeking an Open Evolution Debate

In this installment of ID The Future, Gonzaga Law School professor David K. DeWolf discusses the ongoing battle between Darwinism and intelligent design as it resonates through education, politics, and recent presidential debates. DeWolf argues that, rather than unfairly framing the evolution debate or denying tenure to pro-intelligent design college professors, personal agendas should be dismissed so both sides of the issue can be critically investigated. DeWolf’s comments first appeared on June 11th in The Boston

A Discussion of the Montana Law Review’s Recent Publication of Articles about the Dover Intelligent Design Ruling

On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin discusses with senior fellow David DeWolf the current issue of the Montana Law Review which features a lively exchange of views about the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design decision. The Kitzmiller decision isn’t wearing well even among legal scholars who are critical of intelligent design, and Irons’ article does little to seriously defend Judge Jones’ ruling. The lead article on the Dover decision (“Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover”) was co-authored by David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin. A second article by Peter Irons (“Disaster in Dover”) responds to the first article, followed by a short rebuttal by DeWolf, West, and

Evolution and Dissent

It’s the question that won’t go away. Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. For example, in the California debate all the candidates were asked to respond to the question of whether they believed in evolution. In the New Hampshire debate, follow-up questions were asked of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. At the Sojourners Forum debate, John Edwards was asked, “Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?” As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because “evolution” was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it

Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover

The Winter 2007 issue of Montana Law Review features an exchange of views about the Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) intelligent design ruling. The lead article in the issue, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover” is authored by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows David DeWolf and John West along with Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs Casey Luskin. A second article by Peter Irons (“Disaster in Dover”) responds to the first article, followed by a brief rebuttal to Irons from DeWolf, West, and Luskin: DeWolf, West, and Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover.” Irons, “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design.” DeWolf, West, and Luskin, “Rebuttal to

Teaching About Evolution in the Public Schools

A Short Summary of the Law
A new approach to teaching about evolution has been developed to meet the test of good science and satisfy the courts’ standards of constitutionality. "Teach the controversy" is tje idea is to use scientific disagreements over evolution to help students learn more about evolution, and about how science deals with controversy.

An Interview with David DeWolf, co-author of Traipsing Into Evolution

This week Discovery President Bruce Chapman interviews Gonzaga law school professor, and Discovery senior fellow, David DeWolf about last year’s federal intelligent design trial, Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District. DeWolf is the co-author of the new book “Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision” a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones’s decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the first trial to attempt to address the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones’s Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the

Traipsing Into Evolution

Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision
This book offers a detailed critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the first trial concerning the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.

Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts

In his opinion in the Kitzmiller case, Judge Jones accepted virtually every argument made by the ACLU. To be fair, the ACLU did present testimony supporting the plaintiffs’ claim that the school board had acted for religious motives in adopting the policy requiring that a four-paragraph statement be read. If Jones had stopped there, few would have quarreled with his decision. However, he went on to address the question of whether intelligent design is science. He did so based on his belief that “no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred

Remarks of Sr. Fellow David DeWolf to Darby, MT School Board

Remarks of Discovery Institute Sr. Fellow David Dewolf, Professor of Law Gonzaga Law School to Darby School DistrictJanuary 28, 2004 Thank you. I am very appreciative of your allowing me to offer my reflections on the proposed policy. Before I do so, I’d like to clarify my role in this process. Although I have an opinion regarding the constitutionality of the proposed policy, I want to make clear that I am not purporting to give advice to a client. Obviously, the Darby School District must retain its own legal counsel for advice, and you would presumably want to hear that advice in a more confidential setting than one provided at a public meeting. On the other hand, I think I can be helpful to the board in its effort to evaluate the legal issues that the Board is

Darwinism, Design, and Public Education

This balanced volume contains essays by both supporters and critics debating intelligent design and whether design should be allowed in public school science classes. The scholars approach the question from the standpoints of constitutional law, philosophy, rhetoric, education, and science.

Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula

A Legal Guidebook
A Legal Guidebook presenting the U.S. law and case histories that support the teaching of intelligent design in public school science curriculum. Teachers, administrators, and school board attorneys will benefit from the support given to teachers to use important supplemental information in the teaching of origins as is presented in Of Pandas and People. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies – by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics seeks to restore freedom of

A Pro-Life Case for the Daschle Bill

Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) has authored legislation that would ban most late-term abortions, whether performed by the partial-birth procedure or not.

Fetal Position

Since their dramatic election victory last November, Republicans have been urged to avoid getting “bogged down in divisive social issues.” Yet as the controversy over President Clinton’s nomination of Henry Foster for surgeon general has shown, Americans are more concerned about so-called social issues than media coverage and elite opinion would indicate. This is particularly true of abortion, ostensibly the most divisive of all social issues. Candidates committed to a pro-life agenda actually did disproportionately well in 1994. Not a single pro-life incumbent of either party lost to a pro-choice challenger in a gubernatorial, House, or Senate race. Pro-life challengers also did well: 64 of the 72 GOP House freshmen are clearly pro-life, as are 2 of the 14 new

Trouble in Political Paradise

When House Speaker Tom Foley and his GOP challenger George Nethercutt debate next week at the Gonzaga University Law School more than just Spokane will be watching-and with good reason. CPAN’s decision to carry the debate nationwide reflects a growing sense that something almost cataclysmic is happening across the American political landscape from Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts to Tom Foley’s Eastern Washington. By now most people have heard predictions of a big Republican year. Beltway pundits have been figuring on Republican gains in Congress for several months. Yet as dramatic as these predictions have seemed, most understate both the scope and significance of the potential eruption brewing “out there in the country” (as they often call us). “Out