Critical Responses
Traipsing into Evolution is a book-length critique of federal Judge John E. Jones’s decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones’s Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Whether Intelligent Design is Science
A response by CSC Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Behe
Dover in Review
A breakdown of the Dover intelligent design trial, by Dr. John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture
Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover
A law review article by David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin published in Montana Law Review, Vol. 68 (Winter, 2007) critiquing the Kitzmiller ruling.
Important Background Information
- Setting the Record Straight about Discovery Institute’s Role in the Dover School District Case
- Statement by attorney Seth L. Cooper Concerning Discovery Institute and the Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Intelligent Design Case
- A Comparison of Judge Jones Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
- PBS, Darwin & Dover: An Interview with Phillip Johnson
- Top Questions and Answers about Intelligent Design
- Questions and Answers about Discovery Institute
- Text of Dover Intelligent Design Statement
- ACLU Demands and Dover Designs by Joe Manzari and Seth Cooper
- AP Cites Discovery Institute’s Opposition to Dover School Board Policy
- Over 700 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient
- Should we Teach Scientific Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism? Many Authorities say YES!
- Articles Advocating Teaching the Controversy
Discovery Institute News Releases
- Judges Copying of ACLU Highly Frowned Upon by Courts According to Legal Scholars
Discovery Institute, December 13, 2006 - “Masterful” Federal Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU
Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006 - Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education
Discovery Institute, December 20, 2005 - Discovery Institute Tells Dover Judge: Teaching About Intelligent Design is Constitutional
October 17, 2005 - Dover Trial Witness Plays Misleading Word Games In Effort to Redefine Intelligent Design
October 6, 2005 - In Intelligent Design Trial Take Barbara Forrest’s Testimony With A “Shaker-Full” of Salt, Warns Discovery Institute
October 5, 2005 - 85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory
October 4, 2005 - Imposter Design Theory On Trial In Dover Case, Real Intelligent Design Still Not Discussed in Court
September 28, 2005 - In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
September 27, 2005 - Dover Intelligent Design Trial Showcases ACLU’s “Orwellian Efforts” to Stifle Scientific Inquiry”
September 21, 2005 - Discovery Institute’s Position on Dover, PA “Intelligent Design” Case
It’s about Free Speech, Not Church and State, September 15, 2005 - Discovery Calls Dover Evolution Policy Misguided, Calls For its Withdrawal
December 14, 2004 - Pennsylvania School District Considers Supplemental Textbook Supportive of Intelligent Design
Discovery Institute continues to recommend fully teaching Darwinian evolution, including scientific challenges to the theory, October 6, 2004
Amicus Briefs
Brief of Amici Curiae Biologists And Other Scientists In support of Defendants: The Nature of Science is not a Question to be Decided by Courts
October 4, 2005
Brief of Amicus Curiae, The Discovery Institute
Legal brief filed by Discovery Institute about secular purposes for teaching about the scientific theory of intelligent design. [Revised version]
October 31, 2005
Discovery Amicus Brief Appendix A
Documentation showing the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about the identity or nature of the intelligent cause responsible for life. [Revised version]
October 31, 2005
Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Teaching about intelligent design out of Of Pandas and People does not establish religion. See also Appendices A-D
November 4, 2005
Brief of Amici Curiae Discovery Institute and Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Briefs.
December 12, 2005
Testimony
- Testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, expert witness for the defense
Afternoon session, day two, October 18, 2005
Testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, expert witness for the defense Morning session, day two
October 18, 2005
Testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, expert witness for the defense Afternoon session, day one
October 17, 2005
Testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, expert witness for the defense Morning session, day one (beginning of Behe testimony)
October 17, 2005
Dover Expert Witness Report CSC Senior Fellow William Dembski’s expert witness report for the Dover ID case
Dover Expert Witness Rebuttal CSC Senior Fellow William Dembski’s rebuttal of the reports by expert witnesses on the other side of the Dover ID case, specifically, Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, John Haught, Kevin Padian, and Kenneth Miller.
Testimony and cross examination of Dr. Robert Pennock, Plaintiff’s witness
September 28, 2005
Cross examination of Dr. Kenneth Miller, Plaintiff’s witness Day two
September 27, 2005
Cross examination of Dr. Kenneth Miller, Plaintiff’s witness
September 26, 2005
Opening statements from Kitzmiller v. Dover.
September 26, 2005