Dover - The History of ID

The discussion of the history of the intelligent design movement in Judge Jones opinion comes in the section in which the Judge seeks to determine whether the Dover school Board were guilty of endorsing or disapproving a particular religious viewpoint.

Judge Jones seeks to establish the proposition that ID is a religious strategy that evolved from earlier forms of creationism. He concludes:

“the evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.”

(I understand that to mean- ID is nothing but the progeny of creationism.
I understand creationism to mean - the Fundamentalist effort to get God and the bible into state funded science lessons.)

This argument swallows the false idea that ID is nothing but creationism in a new box. It is exactly the same product with a new label.

There are at least 4 problems with this argument.

1. He argues that the strongest evidence supporting this finding is the history and pedigree of the book Pandas and People which is mentioned in the text that teachers were to read to pupils.

In coming to his conclusion Judge Jones places great weight upon the implied intentions of changes of language in the text of “Pandas and People” (the text that was mentioned in the paragraphs to be read to students) to establish the point that ID is a religious matter. Barbara Forest’s analysis and interpretation of the textual changes is swallowed hook line and sinker despite the fact that it conflicts with the explicit testimony of one of the authors Charles Thaxton included as part of his deposition:

“I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.”

Why should Barbara Forest have a better insight into the intentions of the authors than one of the authors themselves? Why does the Judge describes Forest’s book “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” as a “thorough and exhaustive chronicle of the history of ID”? Why should we accept Forest’s description of ID as entirely objective and non-partisan?

2. It fails to recognise the ancient nature of the argument.
These arguments did not spring into Aquinas’s brain from nowhere. There are two more ancient streams of thought one of which is not of Judeo-Christian. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle argued that mind is a prerequisite for life, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus and Anaximander argued the reverse. Cicero argued for design well before the Christain Era.

3. It fails to do just to the nature of the recent revival of the design argument stimulated by the discoveries of nano-technology and information systems in molecular biology. It was the significance of these discoveries that cause chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi to argue in 1967 that “machines are not reducible to physics and chemistry” and that “likewise the mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.”

It was Michael Denton’s book “Evolution - a Theory in Crisis” that caused the radical change in direction for Micahel Behe. Denton’s book has no connection to Christianity or creationism and Denton himself was not a Christian.

Several other leading ID thinkers testify that it is the molecular biology that led them to ID not the bible.

4. It fails to recognise the importance of the design debate in physics and Cosmology going back to Fred Hoyles conviction that the carbon 12 resonance evidence pointed to “some superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as chemistry and biology.”

Dover - Introduction

Judge Jones’ opinion stretches to 139 pages. There are two main sections to his arguments after his legal background and introductory sections.

The first (Section E p14-90) deals with his application of the “Endorsement Test” to the case. The second (Section F p90-132)deals with his application of the Lemon test to the case.

It is the first of these two main sections with which I am concerned. It is in this section that he seeks to present the history of ID and to determine whether it is Science or not.

If the Judge had limited his judgement to section F then I probably would not be very interested in it… but when a Judge is presenting a verdict concerning the history of ID and coming to a final verdict on whether ID is science or not then I cannot help but be interested.

Dover - preliminary thoughts.

1. I think the Dover policy was a clumsy misguided policy.
2. I do not think that ID should be a specified part of a national curriculum in science at present but I am in favour of a teachers freedom to discuss ideas about origins including intelligent design and to state their own views. Schools with a religious ethos may wish to explore the way in which science and religion interact in society with a more detailed look at the history of the conflict regarding evolution and the way in which developments in physics and cosmology and molecular biology have resulted in a revival of the design argument in the minds of some scientists.
3. I think that students need to be taught the theory of evolution and the evidence for it and should also be made aware of the areas in which the evidence is weak and where scientists do not have full and detailed explanations of how certain features arose. When we don’t know we should say we don’t know and not give the impression that evolution has a full and detailed explanation for everything in biology when it does not.

The Kitzmiller vs Dover Decision.

I have decided to look at this decison by means of a review of the Discovery Insitute booklet entitled "Traipsing into Evolution" by DeWolf, West, Luskinand Witt. I had been reluctant to do this without the booklet and I was reluctant to pay the £9.78 necessary to get the booklet. I was hoping that the bulk of the arguments would come out clearly on the web and I could spend my gold on other books. I have finally succumbed to the pressure and purchased the booklet.


There has been a recent brief review of the book at the NRO here. Which resulted in an interesting back and forth between Casy Luskin (here, here and here) and Wesley Elsberry (here)

The criticism in the book is divided into 4 sections:
1. The partisam history of Intelligent Design.
2. The unpersuasive case against the scientific status of ID.
3. The failure to treat religion in a neutral manner
4. The limited value as precedent.

I intend to look at these 4 sections in separate posts. I trust that visitors who remember my promise to look at this decision at some point in the future will be satisfied with this as a fulfillment of my promise.

One sentence that stood out in my reading of the introduction was this...

"... he asserted (that is Judge Jones asserted) that scientists who support ID have published no peer-reviewed articles or research..."

(I wrote in the margin....Did he in fact assert this?)

Science Education

1. Is Science education is not simply a matter for scientists alone? Do the parents of the children have a crucial place in the discussion?
2. Is the world view that is behind the approach to issues of origins a matter of great concern to many parents? Does the approach have huge implications well beyond the confines of the subject? Where there is a world view conflict between teachers and parents is this a recipe for a very uncomfortable parent/school relationship?
3. Is the tendency of strict methodological naturalism to become closely allied to philosophical naturalism and in some cases to become indistinguishable?
4. Do both philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism tend to lead to an overly positive view of the evidence for abiogenesis and macro-evolution?
5. If scientists say that science education should be taught in an atmosphere of philosophical naturalism and parents say that they want science taught in an atmosphere of theism who should win?
6. If the majority of parents want a religious ethos and environment for their children during their formative years does the state have the right to deny them their desire? Is it right for the tax system to be used to provide an education which ends up being hostile to the worldview and ethos that the majority of parents desire? Is this a stable situation in the longterm?