Dover Decision on Intelligent Design “Legally Irrelevant for Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution Model Science Curriculum,” Says Legal Scholar

“Unlike the ACLU, we want students to learn more about evolution, not less,” said Dr. John West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Students need to learn Darwinian evolution because it is the dominant theory of biological evolution. But, they also need to learn about some of the scientific evidence that challenges parts of the theory.” Read the rest at Evolution News & Views,

University of Chicago Law Professor Critiques Dover Intelligent Design Opinion

“These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. Does that make any mention of intelligent design unconstitutional? It seems odd to characterize the desire to go as far as the law allows as an unlawful motive. People who try to stay within the law although they would prefer something else are good citizens.”

Statement by Seth L. Cooper Concerning Discovery Institute and the Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Intelligent Design Case

December 21, 2005 The opinion of the federal court judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board mischaracterized my role and actions on behalf of Discovery Institute in matters at issue in the case, making it necessary for me to set the record straight. To be clear, prior to the filing of the lawsuit I never advised the members of the Dover Board in a privileged, attorney-client capacity. Further, I never advised members of the Dover Board to mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design or to adopt the ID policy at issue in the case. Rather, I strongly urged members of the Dover Board to either drop entirely the issue of alternatives to the teaching of evolution, Read More ›

Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts

*Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts*
Relying almost exclusively on the evidence presented by the ACLU’s witnesses, Jones held that ID is not science. He claimed that the witnesses established that ID relies on “supernatural” explanations, that it was untestable, and that it had produced no peer-reviewed literature. Each of these claims was carefully rebutted by the briefs submitted by amici, including the Discovery Institute and a large group of scientists who urged the court not to try to settle the question of the definition of science and the scientific status of intelligent design. Read the rest at Evolution News & Views,

Klinghoffer Responds to Dover Intelligent Design Opinion at NRO

David Klinghoffer begins: “Tuesday’s ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.”