Sent to you via Google Reader

Of Darwin Dover And (un)intelligent design

February 2009

Feature

Of Darwin, Dover And (Un)Intelligent Design

Scholar Says The Future Of Science –; And Church-State Separation –; Are At Stake In The Creationism/Evolution Conflict

Kenneth R. Miller was one of the leading witnesses in a lawsuit challenging "intelligent design" creationism in Dover, Pa., public schools. In a sweeping defeat for the Religious Right, a federal district court ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005 that teaching religion in science classes violates the Constitution. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, has now written Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (Viking/Penguin Group, 2008). The book looks at the ongoing drive to teach religious concepts in public school science classes and why that crusade must not succeed. Church & State recently asked him some questions.

Q. You were an expert witness in the lawsuit against "intelligent design" creationism in Dover, Pa., public schools. What did you think of the trial and its outcome?

A. Naturally, like everyone on the plaintiffs' side of the Kitzmiller case, I was delighted with the outcome –; and that wasn't just because of the judge's decision. I was especially impressed with the businesslike way in which the trial moved along. Both sides played by the rules and did their best to keep matters focused on the issues at hand. And the judge, John E. Jones III, did an extraordinary job of moving things along fairly and openly. At the end, I think that both sides had to admit that they had been given every opportunity to make their cases. The experience impressed me with the fairness and openness of the federal judicial procedure and renewed my confidence in our court system.

Q. What surprised you most about the trial?

A. Two things. First, the willingness of certain members of the school board to come into court and tell obvious lies. That might seem a little harsh, but that's exactly how the judge put it too, even to the point of lecturing a witness in open court about contradictions in his testimony. The second surprising thing was the public collapse of intelligent design (ID) during the defense phase of the trial. While many scientists, myself included, have written about the scientific flaws of ID, it was genuinely shocking to see them exposed so clearly under cross-examination. By the end of the defense phase of the trial, any contention that ID formed a coherent scientific theory had vanished. At that point, it was clear to everyone in the courtroom that the verdict would favor the plaintiffs.

Q. There was a lot of press attention focused on the trial. What was the public reaction to your ...

Ginny

I can has iPhone?