Home » Courts, Intelligent Design » Casey Luskin Reviews the Kitzmiller Decision

Casey Luskin Reviews the Kitzmiller Decision

Go here to read the full article.

Not-So-Quick But Nonetheless Dirty Review of the Kitzmiller Decision
By Casey Luskin

Introduction:
This is a response to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board (hereafter “Kitzmiller) decision (see http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf to download the full opinion). This response is adapted from an e-mail I sent out to a bunch of friends in late December, 2005, just a few days after the Kitzmiller ruling was released. I’ve been asked by some friends who received the e-mail to post it on the internet in presentable fashion, and so I’m finally getting around to it in February, 2006.

The Kitzmiller ruling declared intelligent design is religion, not science, and unconstitutional to teach in public schools. This response here is by no means an exhaustive response to the problems with the Judge’s ruling. In fact, a more extensive discussion of many of these issues may be found in the Response to the ACLU ID FAQ which I wrote in February, 2005, about 7 months before the trial started. In some cases I simply provide links to other places which provide more complete discussions and refutations to the assertions made in the Kitzmiller decision. However, I hope this will help the reader see 4 things clearly:

Summary:
(a) The fact that some Dover Area School Board members had religious motivations and may have even lied on the witness stand is a sad thing, but it is irrelevant to the important question of whether intelligent design is a scientific theory which is constitutional for teaching in public schools;
(b) The Kitzmiller decision was predicated upon a false definition of intelligent design that is not endorsed by design theorists;
(c) The Kitzmiller decision delved into numerous scientific controversies which were not only unnecessary to address in order to resolve this case, but should not have been touched by a court or a judge who is not an expert in scientific disputes. Most poignantly, Jones inappropriately ruled that religious people who view evolution as antithetical to the existence of God are wrong;
(d) The Kitzmiller decision stated many inaccurate conclusions surrounding the scientific issues at stake in this debate.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to Casey Luskin Reviews the Kitzmiller Decision

  1. This isn’t related to this topic but I didn’t know where else to post a random comment. I ran across a 7 minute clip of Richard Dawkins’ “documentary” The Root of All Evil. In the clip (linked below) Dawkins visits a church in Colorado Springs and confronts the pastor of the church. Dawkins tells him that his service reminded him of a Nuremburg rally. At one point, Dawkins gets so angry, I thought he was going to lose it. Dawkins finally gets thrown off the lot. Very telling (and entertaining).

    http://www.philosophynews.com/.....rt_of_evil

    The pastor asking Dawkins to not be intellectually arrogant is like asking a fish not to stink. :lol: -ds

  2. The Kitzmiller ruling declared intelligent design is religion, not science, and unconstitutional to teach in public schools.

    Take the ID challenge!

    Thanks to a very good “Dr.” I just had a revelation-

    Intelligent Design is today’s “Green Eggs and Ham”.

    People don’t like it because they won’t even try it.

    Here is the ID three-hour challenge:

    Watch two videos- “The Privileged Planet” and “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.

    I bet if the plaintiffs had watched those two videos there wouldn’t have been a trial. And I also say that if Darwin had been privy to this data he never would have written his book.

  3. The two DVD mentioned above are online (requires broadband) here:

    http://www.theapologiaproject......ibrary.htm

  4. From the article:
    Casey highlighted this statement in bold print:
    “Judge Jones’ ruling is “unconstitutional”: it establishes state theistic evolutionism as the only appropriate mode of theistic religion.”

    This was in reference to the portion of Judge Jones’s ruling that declared as “utterly false” the belief “…evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. (pg. 136)”

    In other words, the judge WAS DICTATING FROM THE BENCH WHAT *IS* OR *IS NOT* ACCEPTABLE RELIGIOUS FAITH!

    From its humble beginnings as a simple faith in a process that created “man from monkey”, Darwinism has evolved into a state-mandated religious belief.

    The judge goes on to disclaim that he is an activist judge.

    Orwell, where are you? “2005″ should have been the title of your book: doublespeak thrives.

  5. Yea, that’s touchy ground. Should all of society accept the premises that some religions have about non-religious subjects? For instance, to me germ theory isn’t a religious issue, but to a Jehovah’s Witness, it’s certainly a religious issue. Should a judge ever state that Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong in stating that germ theory is antithetical to religion in general? (notice “religion in general” doesn’t mean “their specific religion”.

    I think Judge Jones was correct by saying that it’s not antithetical to religion in general. Because it’s not. It is antithetical to some specific religions with specific ideas of God, but Judge Jones used general terms like “Supreme Being” and “religion in general”.

    I don’t see how this was interpreted as him telling some forms of Christianity that they shouldn’t feel evolution is antithetical to their beliefs. If he truly said that, he’d be wrong.

    Comments? Should I start ducking? ;)

  6. BTW, Thanks for the link to those two videos. I’m going to watch them starting….right…..now.

Leave a Reply