Jonathan Witt

HARRISBURG, PA — The ACLU’s lawsuit against a Dover, Pennsylvania school district began today with biologist and evolutionist Kenneth Miller taking the stand as the first witness. The school district’s policy calls for administrators to read a brief statement to biology students indicating that Darwinism is a theory, and that if students want to learn about a contrary explanation for the origin of living things, they can find a supplementary science textbook, Of Pandas and People, in the school library. The plaintiff is arguing that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a religion because intelligent design is merely the creationism that was on trial in the Supreme Court decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987), where the court ruled that Louisiana could not mandate equal-time teaching of biblical creationism.

Just in time for Monday’s thought-crime trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, H. Wayne House has an extensive review here of cases in the U.S. dealing with Darwinism and the public schools: “Darwinism and the Law: Can Non-Naturalistic Scientific Theories Survive Constitutional Challenge?” It’s an excellent resource for anyone covering the trial, though I could quibble with a few elements. For instance, if House means to include contemporary design arguments in biology, it would be more precise to say “Non-Materialist Scientific Theories.”

I’ll be flying to Harrisburg, PA to cover the Dover trial. It begins in federal court Monday. As Discovery Institute explains here:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy that requires students to be informed about the theory of intelligent design. The ACLU claims that the Dover policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by promoting a religious doctrine.

What does the Dover policy consist of? Administrators read the following statement to biology students:

A recent essay in The Scientist and a second piece newly available here show that Darwinism is not the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. I blogged Philip Skell’s essay from The Scientist on Tuesday. There’s now also available online a paper by Roland Hirsch arguing, as William Dembski explains in the introduction to the book of essays where it’s found, “Roland Hirsch overviews many of the recent advances in molecular biology and biochemistry, showing how Darwinism has failed both to anticipate and to explain them.” The International Society for Complexity, Information and Design website says that Hirsch is the “program manager in the Medical Sciences Division in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the DOE, where he is Read More ›

(Updated) Despite getting plenty of ink, the Darwinists don’t come off looking so well in Kenneth Chang’s story about intelligent design in the Science section of today’s New York Times.

Imagine intelligent design is an elephant in the next room. A cat lies crushed on the floor before us, with the clear mark of an elephant’s toe imprinted on his poor, flat, fuzzy body.

In the Monday New York Times, William Safire discusses the history of the term “intelligent design” and the growing controversy over the theory. Safire concludes with the advice of neuroscientist Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University: If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences. Excellent advice. Now cue up the Darwin-Only tape about how, next thing you know, we’ll have to teach the controversy over the geocentric model of the earth, or give the flat earthers a place at the table. Do the Darwin-Only lobbyists think they’re speaking to anyone but the choir when Read More ›

David Klinghoffer has a breaking story in the National Review about an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The independent federal agency has now released a report about the discrimination that biology journal editor Richard Sternberg faced at the Smithsonian Institution for publishing an article arguing for intelligent design: The Smithsonian Institution is a national treasure of which every American can legitimately feel a sense of personal ownership. Considering this, I’d imagine widespread displeasure as more Americans become aware that senior scientists at the publicly funded Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History have reportedly been creating a “hostile work environment” for one of their colleagues merely because he published a controversial idea in a biology journal. The controversial Read More ›

Eighty years ago Thursday the famous Scopes Monkey Trial ended in Dayton, Tennessee. Time for a quiz:

History tells us that two great lawyers faced off. On the one side was (A) a progressive and a pacifist, an educated man who rejected the idea of a young earth and worried about efforts to peddle racism and eugenics in the South. On the other side was (B) a master orator who defended some flagrantly racist ideas long since discredited by science. Lawyer A sought a full and fair debate over the evidence. Lawyer B used a procedural tactic to shut down the debate so that only his position was heard.

Surely Mr. A would be the darling of any contemporary liberal journalist, right? But Mr. A was William Jennings Bryan, the creationist.