"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." – Winston Churchill

"I think whether it's our case (Dover) or some other case, Darwin's going down the tube. ... No question about it." - Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Centre – May 2005.

“ID is dead. Dead, dead, dead. All that remains for them is to wash up the stinking rotting corpse, spray lots of perfume on it, and rename it something else.” Lenny Flank - Feb 2006.

2006 - The recent dispute in Dover, Pennsylvania has created a great deal of interest. Under the pretext of teaching intelligent design (ID), members of the Dover district school board attempted to inject creationist tenets into the school science curriculum, resulting in protests from parents & staff. This & the ensuing court case have produced a flood of articles & press reports; links to several of the better ones are shown below.

Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District - A report by Burt Humburg & Ed Brayton

A summary of the judge’s decision by Jason Rosenhouse

Judge Jones discusses the Dover court case

An interesting analysis of the background to the court action by American anti-creationist, Lenny Flank

In addition, a random selection of Dover related articles can also be found on the BSgroup FURL

And last but not least, anyone wanting to view the local newspaper reports of this issue as it unfolded would be recommended to visit the excellent archive of the York Daily Record, where they are collected together at the York Daily Record

The outcome of the court case is nothing less than a humiliating defeat for the American ID movement. The court not only ruled against the teaching of ID, (which will have implications for similar cases elsewhere) but has also gone much further by attacking its scientific validity, describing it as, “a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory”.

To further compound matters the court also noted that some board members had given misleading evidence & lied under oath. Although the whole ID movement cannot be held collectively responsible for the actions of one or two members acting on their own initiative, this is nevertheless hardly surprising, as gross distortion of facts & blatant dishonesty seem to be one of the movement’s hallmarks.

It was blindingly obvious that if this case ever went to court that the outcome was going to go against them. In fact, even the organisation behind the ID movement, the Discovery Institute, distanced itself from the school board. They knew they could not win in court & would have preferred instead to continue their attacks on evolution by concentrating on the, “teach the controversy” (TTC) strategy (developed by the Discovery Institute), which on first inspection, avoids any obvious association with creationism.

In general terms, TTC can be described as any attempt to denigrate evolution by describing it as, controversial, only a theory, requiring critically thinking about or similar unwarranted or ill informed criticisms. It does not refer to any other beliefs & is what is left of creationism when these are removed. As hostility to evolution is central to creationism, this still represents a significant threat.

However, ID has left a clear trail of well-documented associations with earlier creationist beliefs. Previous court rulings & the latest at Dover have established a clear link between ID & a history of denigrating & misrepresenting evolution. For example, at Dover the Court found that:

“An objective observer would know that ID and teaching about “gaps” and “problems” in evolutionary theory are creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism (p. 18).”

It is therefore difficult to see any future attempts to, “teach the controversy” in America surviving a court challenge. Already the effects are being felt with attempts to introduce ID into public schools in other states (For example, Ohio & Indiana) being dropped. To date, the other high profile case in Kansas has yet to be challenged in court but if it was, then based on the similarities between the two cases; it seems inevitable that ID would once again be defeated.

None of this will change anything outside of the public arena in America or elsewhere for that matter. One of the defining features of ID & creationism is the ability of their supporters to have their arguments shredded one day, only to repeat them the next as if nothing had happened. What’s worse they never seem to have any trouble finding people or organisations (especially the press) willing to help them.

In addition, the situation in American public schools has little bearing on the situation in its private schools that can teach creationism unhindered by scientific arguments or laws prohibiting the promotion of religion. Many religious organisations are also sympathetic too ID & as they are more prevalent than in the UK, this is another significant factor in its spread.

Another important factor is the favourable coverage the ID movement receives from the press, which pays far too much attention to the incessant & predictable propaganda emanating from the Discovery Institute. If the press gave less coverage to them & more to established scientific accounts, then perhaps it would not be quite so easy for a small group with a bit of cash & a few flash offices to have such a subversive influence on the educational system of a country as large as America.

Secondly, although some reporting is definitely biased towards ID, the other problem perversely appears to be the result of attempts to report the issues impartially, with equal linage given to the opposing viewpoints.

This may seem fair but remember the theory of evolution has proved itself over a 150-year period, withstanding all challenges & accumulated ever more supporting evidence & depth. ID on the other hand, may be a slick piece of marketing but has very little to offer from a scientific perspective. Anyone doubting this only has to look at its record on producing peer-reviewed articles, which gives a good indication of ID’s record in this area. It is therefore wrong to give the impression that these issues are of equal merit when they’re obviously not.

Finally, it will not change anything here in the UK where regrettably there is no official separation between Church & State. As a result, organisations such as The Vardy Foundation have been given control of state schools, allowing them to indoctrinate other people’s children with their extremist religious views.

These views cannot be too overtly creationistic because they would attract adverse attention, which is where ID comes in useful. Because although it was developed as a means of sneaking a sanitised version of creationism into American schools where there are laws restricting the teaching of religion, it is nevertheless useful in the UK, even though there are no such laws. For example, its adherents can hide their true antagonism to evolution behind the facade of, “presenting both sides of the argument”, when any knowledgeable observer will know that there is only one, evolution & that the only purpose of such statements is to undermine its reputation to impressionable schoolchildren.