Kitzmiller v. Dover

On this episode of IDTF Casey Luskin interviews legal analyst Seth Cooper about his article “A Textbook Case of Judicial Activism: How A Pro-ID Publisher Was Denied It’s Day In Court”, about the Dover intelligent design trial and the legal assault on the Foundation for Thought Ethics publisher of the pro-ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, the book central to the lawsuit.

It is common that critics of intelligent design misrepresent the nature of intelligent design in order to make it sound unscientific, unconstitutional, and unpalatable to scientists and the public. In the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case last year, Judge Jones even adopted the critics’ false version of intelligent design rather than letting the proponents of ID stake out their own theory, and speak for themselves. This podcast looks at two recent misrepresentations in the media made by ID-critics involved on the legal side of this debate.

This week, Jason Anderson interviews Joe Manzari of the American Enterprise Institute, about his article on whether or not Dover school board members handed over to the ACLU a taxpayer funded gift.

The taxpayers in Dover Pennsylvania may have been fleeced by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) for a shocking $1 million dollar bill.

This week Discovery President Bruce Chapman interviews Gonzaga law school professor, and Discovery senior fellow, David DeWolf about last year’s federal intelligent design trial, Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District. DeWolf is the co-author of the new book “Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision” a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones’s decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the first trial to attempt to address the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. 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.