Judicial Bias in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Case

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

In late 2005, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was held in a US federal court. Many lies were told from the get-go, including that it violates the establishment of religion clause of the US Constitution. But Dover asking students to realize that Darwinism is not proven and to check out other points of view is not establishing any religion. Secularists keep using that trick and getting away with it with schools, local governments, and others to keep them quaking in their boots.

It may seem puzzling that this court case from several years ago is being discussed up here. One reason is that anti-creationists bring it up when discussing creationism (and especially the Intelligent Design movement). Another is that, as hinted above, it has repercussions and set a precedent for activists who want to protect evolution from scrutiny.

Anti-creationists and anti-Intelligent Design folks repeat several things that are clearly false as if they had been proven. Wrong-o! Some of the arguments can be dressed up in a different suit of clothes and used against creationism.

Secularists seem to think that letting people have evidence against evolution and in favor of creation is bad, and that evolutionism must be protected at all costs.

The ID people at the Discovery Institute responded to the ruling in great detail. It was interesting that there were similarities between the Dover case and The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (the "Scopes Monkey Trial"), but I did not find it mentioned. The Scopes trial essentially put God and creationism on trial, and the Dover trial put the entire Intelligent Design movement on trial. Both cases exceeded their boundaries by a long shot.

There are several things that are not only interesting, but also downright wrong about the Dover trial. The ID people did not like the way the Dover Area School District was doing things. In fact, they are on record as saying that they oppose mandating the teaching of both evolution and ID, or worse yet, ID alone. Creationists don't want creation science forced, either. In both cases, imagine the dreadful teaching  that would be given by resentful evolutionists.

Many falsehood are being told about the Dover case, including how Judge Jones was brilliant and saw through Intelligent Design. Actually, he told lies. That's right, I said it! Jones was given plenty of material about what ID people believe, but ignored it and clearly sided with the plaintiffs. Although he denies it, he was an activist judge. Interesting that he is considered smart because he ruled in favor of secularists, but when courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, those people are idiots. To borrow from Chris Plante, if anti-creationists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

Regular readers know that I am convinced the ID movement has serious limitations. Yes, many of them do good work showing how particles-to-plaintiff evolution fails on many levels. Remember that biblical creationists frequently use intelligent design arguments, and have been doing so before there was a formal movement under that moniker. Also, I draw from ID presentations and feature them here, but I leave a great deal of it alone.

ID people go to great lengths to distance themselves from creationism. That's fine, be who you are. It's a "big tent" that includes agnostics, various religious views, some Christians, and so on. Something that struck me in the articles below is an emphasis on an old Earth viewpoint. Indeed, they have articles about who to thank for the Big Bang, and that it is scientifically sound despite recent findings. Seriously?

Biblical creationists freely admit that our goal is to uphold the authority of the Bible and ultimately present the gospel message. Also, evolution is a stumbling block to people to come to saving faith in Jesus. Hell is real. We have a strong motive for opposing evolution and presenting evidence for the Genesis Flood and recent creation. For the Intelligent Design community: So what? I can see few reasons from you to care about whether or not people believe in evolution.

The authors of the articles linked below put a great deal of work into their own history and into other things, but they should have dug deeper into what biblical creation science actually believes and teaches. There were a few remarks that did not seem entirely accurate to me.

The material presented here is for people who want to do some serious digging into the Discovery Institute's responses to the Dover ruling. They point out several serious problems in the process that are worth learning, at least to have a passing knowledge. Some are on the long side, but a few are rather short. Readers can save this post as a reference for when atheists and other anti-creationists smugly parrot things about the case that are demonstrably false.

1. Ten Myths About Dover: #1, "Judge Jones Addressed the Actual Theory of ID, Not a Straw Man"
2. ... "Judge Jones Is a Brilliant, Neutral Legal Scholar Who Figured Out ID"
3. ...  "Intelligent Design Has No Peer-Reviewed Research or Publications"
4. ... "The Dover Ruling Refuted Intelligent Design"
5. ... “Discovery Institute Supported Dover School Board Policy”
6. ... “Judge Jones, No Activist, Stayed Strictly Within His Authority”
7. ... "The Dover Case Showed ID Is ‘Religious’ and a Form of ‘Creationism’"
8. ... “Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology”
9. ... “The ID Movement Had Its Day in Court”
10. ... “The Intelligent Design Movement Died After the Dover Decision”