After the Dover Intelligent Design Trial: Law, Politics, and Education

Saturday, February 13, 2016: 1:30 PM-4:30 PM
Marshall Ballroom West (Marriott Wardman Park)
In 2005, a federal district court in Pennsylvania heard arguments from scientists, philosophers, theologians, historians, and educators on why “intelligent design” (ID) should not be taught in public school science classes. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District marked the first time ID was challenged in court. The decision by Judge John E. Jones, III was widely hailed by scientists and the press as a devastating critique of both the content and philosophy of ID, which was exposed in the trial as a disguised form of creationism. Attacks on the teaching of evolution continue, but this extraordinary decision vastly narrowed the opportunities for those opposed to teaching evolution to compromise science education. Ten years later, there is a new generation of scientists, journalists, teachers, and policymakers who are unfamiliar with this case, and the details have slipped from public memory. It is timely to review Kitzmiller, including hearing from the judge who made the decision, to raise the issue with a new generation of critical stakeholders of why ID is not science, and why it and similar movements violate the integrity of science education. A lively discussion is expected.
Ida Chow, Society for Developmental Biology
Jay B. Labov, National Academy of Sciences and Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education
Richard Katskee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Why It Mattered in Court That Intelligent Design Isn’t Science
Judge John Jones III, Middle District of Pennsylvania
The Decision
Jennifer Miller, Dover Area High School
What Kitzmiller v. Dover Means to Teachers
Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education
Fallout from Dover: Effect on Science Standards Adoption and Academic Freedom Laws
See more of: Education
See more of: Symposia