Making Sense of the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The Thomas More Law Center walked into the courtroom in PA without any desire to answer the questions posed by the actions of the Defendants (the Dover School Board). They had one admittedly overused evidence for intelligent design - the bacteria flagella - which could be refuted, though not with complete certainty; but it was enough to show that one piece of shaky evidence did not a theory make. The Plantiffs did not put any effort into showing any of the evidence for evolving life could be questioned. They seemed not to know of them, or if they did, they simply rejected the evidence out of hand without a word. So much was their denial in every pertinent area of the case. They did this until not only did they sink into becoming a characature of self-involved disenginuous religiously-motivated ideologues. They did this up to the point when their Plantiffs, perhaps convinced of the righteousness and godliness of their viewpoint, both were shown to be commiting perjury; in fact, they nearly were brought up on charges. Denial reigned for them, for they assumed a judge appointed by a conservative Republican presiden who voiced support for their theory, would absolutely lead to a favorable decision in their favor (they bet a single malt liqour on that result). They said it was not creationism they were proposing - and technically, it was not - but their own words fed back to them showed their intent was religious, completely. Whatever the truth, the constitution does not support pushing a subjective non-scientific religious view which is not, or perhaps cannot, be objectively proven. The Plantiffs did not care to even admit that they spoke of creationism, and used a book that was edited purposefully from one that endoresed creationsim to one that endorsed Intelligent Design. The judge could not help but be amazed at the "inanity" of the Plantiffs. How could he begin to take them seriously?
It continues in the media and conferences. Proponents of ID speak openly of their theistic desires in one venue, then insist that they have no desires in the public or scientific venue. The examples are so extreme that one ID proponent's quote put against another of the same person's quotes, cannot put expose them as beyond credibility, and even charlatans playing at both believer and unbeliever.
It continues in the idea that evolving life has not proof at all. I could quote perhaps hundreds of pieces of factual evidence, but the idea that all scientists that believe and work in their jobs (such as paleontologists - obviously) using the Theory of Evolution are purposefully or accidentally without any merit in doing so, is at the heart of the conspiracy crank visage that has taken over any anti-evolutionist reasoning. An anti=Christian conspiracy? A willful denial of God, or of the bible, even by those who do believe in God and the bible? Keep it up. Dover will happen again.

Rick of OK 5:03PM August 13, 2009

QAnKOn my best site http://horror.com

matiu of VA 7:30AM May 30, 2009

The outcome of the Dover ID court case was the CORRECT one. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. PERIOD. Perhaps a High School elective class should be offered: "A Concise Review of World Religeons." This would illustrate the rediculousness of believing in religeon (HELL, they can't ALL be right, now, c'mon already...IT'S 2009!*#?@!*), and it may save many from being trapped within the clutches of overbearing religeous fanatics!

Guytano Parks of OH 11:10PM February 10, 2009

Intelligent design is self evident and consequently there must be some intelligent being who directs things that have mo intelligence.. This being all men call God.
Hence ID is not a theory but a demonstrated truth.
The proof of the existence of God is a scientific demonstration and does lead men to inquire about this being
It is not possible to prove creationism from ID but the issue would soon be raised in discussion.
Proving that God exists does not violate the first or any amendment. Since it is truth the courts,if they supress it, then they act unconstitutionally against the sovereignty of the states.
There is not one shred of evidence to support Darwinism and consequently a falsehood is being taught in the educational system. This is unconstitutional because falsity harms the common good and welfare.
The Supreme Court decision of 1987 can be summarily dismissed by the states. It is within their right and power to do so.
Before Newton and Galileo there was never any separation between science and supernatural causation
This is a judge who does not understand the nature of a proof, what a theory is, has no notion of Darwinisnm, and no idea of ID which is a reasoned fact and demonstrates its position through causes.
One more point on Darwinism. Never has it been observed that one thing can change spontaneously into something totally different or something else. And for those who hold that evolution is gradual and something can become another thing fail to understand that these processes are incomplete and imperfect.
Because his decision is so poor and unconstitutional he has failed to uphold the constitution and should either be removed,impeached, or tried for perjury having broken his oath of office

Bruce Barron of NC 8:46PM December 28, 2008

As a 37 year veteran of teaching AP biology to "good" students who like to debate, I have been at war for a number of those years. Two years ago, a very good student ventured up to my desk one day and said something like "I know we will be studying evolution next, there is really no evidence for it, so why are we even going to discuss it?" Whenever a student takes steps to announce that there is no evidence for evolution, I rip out my large stack of Scientific American, Science, and others like Discover and National Geography--sometimes going back to the 70's, and ask the student to pick just one, read it, and get back to the class with their research for a discussion. The latest Scientific American journal has devoted the entire publication to the evidence of evolution--pick up a copy, read it, and share your comments. From my experience, science and religion are different ways of assessing whether you are having a good day or a bad day--so is music, art, literature, and many other disciplines we learn. Why are we so hung up on one being more right than the other? When in an environment that dictates science, think in that realm--like when I tried to figure out how to put trailer lights on my 20 years old trailer and attach it to my car. When in a religious environment, think in that realm---like during a funeral or in a house of worship. If you are looking for solutions to personal problems, read a novel that is related. In other words, fit the "tool" to the problem and find a solution that is relevant. Would you look to science to find a solution to divorce prospects? Would you look to religion to find a solution to procuring money from the stock market? Think about it---we can live in this world in harmony by using various tools at our disposal during appropriate times. The problems arise when people confuse the use of religious tenets in inappropriate environments---like in biology classrooms. I have scars to prove it-particularly here in Kansas!

Al Frisby of KS 12:54PM December 25, 2008

The theories given by intelligent design scientists are not accepted by the "scientific consensus" as real science (scientific method- testing and observing) not so much for lack of evidence, but rather for personal beliefs. They don't have any more evidence than ID scientists. Both sides have the present world we live in to "observe" and "test". The difference is that ID scientists have reached a different conclusion based on the same observaions. If two men find a painting , one could conclude upon observing the painting that it had a painter and the other could look at the same painting and conclude that the masterpiece came together perfectly somehow without a painter. The theory of evolution has still not been proven "scientifically" and there is still no credible evidence of any species evolving into another, yet it continues to be taught in our schools and talked about as if it were a fact all over the media,in textbooks, and everywhere else in society today. The "scientific consensus" needs to let go of a faulty theory that has not been proven for hundreds of years and rethink their ideas. ID scientists, keep it up for the sake of real science

Ricardo L. of IL 8:08PM September 16, 2008