Does Ruling in Dover Case Signal New Anti-Evolution Strategy?

Revised due to further news reports (see comment below). I’m not worried any more. Early version follows:

I’m worried about this from an article in today’s NY Times online:
“Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.”

My concern, as noted in my earlier blog entry, “Beyond Dover: What’s Next for Anti-Evolutionists?, is that the judge’s decision provides a clear road map for the next challenge to what I describe as “the very well supported theory of evolution” in the “Ask Dr. Fred” pages of my web site for young readers.

The strategy: Be better at hiding your religious motives.

I’ll be reading more about the judge’s decision, but this first summary concerns me. Until the courts declare Intelligent Design to be inherently religious no matter what the people who profess it claim, I’ll be deeply worried about the future of science education in the United States.

This is, at best, a temporary victory.

More to come!

2 thoughts on “Does Ruling in Dover Case Signal New Anti-Evolution Strategy?”

  1. Fred, I am only halfway through reading the judge’s comments (139 pages!) but I think you’ll be pleased. Though he has something of a sharp tongue, he is fair and open-minded. But more specifically he states that Dover cannot require “teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution” or “refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID” and makes it clear that you can’t hide behind semantics. If it looks like religion and smells like religion, it’s religion and doesn’t belong in a science classroom. I’m reading right now about the distinction of what is teaching and what isn’t. It’s fascinating.

Comments are closed.