During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions: Is Judge Jones an activist judge? Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial? Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People? The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.
*Arizona Arizona Republic Columnist Hit the Nail on the Head in His Dover Trial Analysis*
Far from wanting to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ID movement advocates that it be taught. Moreover, it does not support the mandatory teaching of intelligent design as an alternative. Instead, it wants a more circumspect presentation of evolutionary theory as well as acknowledgement of its scientific critiques. Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
Among the many, many errors in Judge John Jones’ Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion is the charge that intelligent design (ID) makes no empirically testable claims (see pp. 66 ff.). Similarly, other ID critics assert that intelligent design makes no testable predictions.1 In fact, intelligent design fulfills both criteria since it makes numerous empirically testable predictions.
When we launched this website almost exactly one year ago, it was because we were tired of the mainstream media ignoring, mischaracterizing and otherwise misreporting the views of scientists and scholars who dissent from Darwinism, as well as those scientists who also advocate for the theory of intelligent design. The mainstream media has noticed. Read more at Evolution, News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
Professor Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe Univerity has followed up his fine analysis of the Selman case with an equally insightful analysis of the Dover decision. According to Knippenberg, Judge Jones’s conclusions about the law depend upon a rather unsophisticated understanding of philosophy and theology. If ever there were need for a case study to demonstrate how the practice of law ought to rest on a foundation of liberal learning, Judge Jones’s opinion here would provide it.