Kitzmiller v. Dover

In 2005 a high profile trial saw the Dover School District taken to court for promoting Intelligent Design (ID) as an alternative theory to evolution in classrooms. 15 years on Mike Behe, a prominent biochemist and ID advocate who took the stand as a defence witness, talks about what the case meant for the ID movement. Joshua Swamidass is a Read More ›

Casey Luskin on the background, mistakes, and consequences of Dover v. Kitzmiller.

PBS and NOVA’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” purports to re-tell the story of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, but portrays an extremely inaccurate, biased, and one-sided view of the case. Related

[Editor’s Note: This article is adapted from a series of posts originally posted on Evolution News and Views. The originals may be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8.] I. Introduction Not long before the beginning of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, then-National Center for Science Education staff Read More ›

Michael Behe (born 1952 in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is a biochemist and an influential intelligent-design theorist. A Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, he received his PhD in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. His dissertation was on aspects of sickle-cell disease, and his postdoctoral work Read More ›

Unfortunately, in his Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling, Judge Jones bought into the revisionist history of ID that claims ID is just repackaged creationism, and the Judge presented a sharply truncated and inaccurate view of the intellectual history of design. A correct history will make it clear that “intelligent design” was not a term invented to avoid the Edwards ruling, but Read More ›

[Editor’s note: This article was posted as part of a series of articles both for and against ID at OpposingViews.com.] “The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion”1 Jay D. Wexler, Anti-ID legal scholar at Read More ›

A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. Two years later, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its first Science and Creationism booklet, stating that science and religion occupy "separate and mutually exclusive realms." ¹Public skepticism of evolution remained high — a 1993 poll found that only 11% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.

Myth #1: There are no peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting intelligent design. Judge Jones said that ID “…has not generated peer-reviewed publications.” FACT: Judge Jones is simply wrong. Discovery Institute submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones that documented various peer-reviewed publications, which he accepted into evidence. This is a fact based question which is hard to get wrong. The fact Read More ›