Kitzmiller v. Dover

behe-swamidass-unbelievable
Michael Behe vs. Joshua Swamidass on Unbelievable

The Kitzmiller v. Dover Trial and Intelligent Design Fifteen Years On

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 ›

gansos-en-la-laguna-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpeg
Gansos en la laguna

Sauce for the Goose

Judge Jones, in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion expressed an entrenched view common not only among members of the media and scientific establishment. But why isn’t the theory of intelligent design scientific? On what basis do critics of the theory make that claim? And is it justified? Read More ›
Bad poker gamble or unlucky hand concept with player going all in with 2 and 7 (two and seven) offsuit also called unsuited, considered the worst hand in poker preflop (before the flop is revealed)
Bad poker gamble or unlucky hand concept with player going all in with 2 and 7 (two and seven) offsuit also called unsuited, considered the worst hand in poker preflop (before the flop is revealed)

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information

[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 ›

DSF-Dallas-Science-Faith-2020-55-Michael-Behe
Photo by Chris Morgan, © Discovery Institute

Michael Behe: A Biography

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 ›

fred-hoyle-telescope-st-johns-college-2
Fred Hoyle Telescope at St. John's College Cambridge
"Fred Hoyle's Telescope" by Paul Everest via @flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

A Brief History of Intelligent Design

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 ›

Photo by The Climate Reality Project

ID is Constitutional and has Educational and Legal Merit

[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 ›

hildreth-meiere-national-academy-of-sciences-detail-of-dome
Art Deco ceiling of the National Academy of Sciences by Hildreth Meiere.
Art Deco ceiling of the National Academy of Sciences

The Facts about Intelligent Design

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.

Read More ›
kitzmiller-v-dover-courtroom

The Truth on the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

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 ›