Evo-ID Smackdown Begins

Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District goes to trial today in Pennsylvania. Most of the major news sources have stories--here is one from MSNBC.com.

Why the court battle?

Continue Reading

It all stems from a science policy that the Dover, PA school district adpoted that required the following statement to be read to students:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

As I understand it, many science teachers refused to read the statement so administrators did it for them.

The NCSE has a website that is tracking the case. It has background information and copies of court documents. The book "Of Pandas and People" was published in the late '80s. The NCSE has many reviews of the book. The Panda's Thumb also has links to various information sources, including previous posts relevant to the case.

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of the book, sought to intervene in the lawsuit. Their request was denied, but what is interesting is some of the information that came out in the process. Althought the FTE claimed not to be a religious organization, tax documents said otherwise. Also, early drafts of the book used forms of the word "creation" where "intelligent design" ultimately appeared. The publisher claimed that "creation" was only used as a placeholder term.