Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision is a legal critique of of the factual and legal flaws in Judge John E. Jones III's Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board (2005), a controversial district court decision about the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Jointly authored by David K. DeWolf , John G. West, Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt.
A native of the great Pacific Northwest, I'm currently a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, which is perhaps best known for its work supporting the theory of intelligent design as an alternative to neo-Darwinism, although it has programs in many other areas as well. My special interests include the impact of modern science on politics and social policy, the role of faith in public life, and the writings of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. My current research examines how neo-Darwinism and scientific materialism shaped American public policy and culture from the end of the nineteenth century to the present. For 12 years I was a political science professor at Seattle Pacific University, where I also chaired the Department of Political Science and Geography for several years. I earned my Ph.D in Government from Claremont Graduate University and my B.A. in Communications (Editorial Journalism) from the University of Washington. I've authored or edited several books, and contributed essays to a number of others. Over the past few years I've had the opportunity to interact with the national newsmedia on the evolution issue quite a lot, and you can often find my observations on the quality of media coverage on the 'Evolution News and Views' blog, www.evolutionnews.org.
I'm a bit of a contrarian by nature, and I also like siding with the powerless and the underdog. When the establishment insists 'Go this way,' I am likely to ask 'Why?' When I get pushed, I tend to push back. That's one reason I was attracted to the nascent intelligent design movement in the mid 1990s. I was intrigued by the fact that a growing number of recent PhDs in the sciences were questioning neo-Darwinism based on science, not faith, and were facing harsh recriminations as a result. I thought then--and still believe now--that people should have the freedom to raise uncomfortable questions and champion unpopular truths.
My heroes from the past are people like Jeremiah Evarts, who stood up for the rights of the Cherokee in nineteenth century America (I tell his story in chapter 4 of my book The Politics of Revelation and Reason); Frederick Douglass and Harriett Beecher Stowe, who helped persuade Americans about the injustice of slavery; and C.S. Lewis, who was one of the few equal-opportunity critics of both communism and fascism in the early 1930s (my thoughts about Lewis can be found in The C. S. Lewis Readers' Encyclopedia, which I co-edited). One of my favorite quotes on the importance of speaking out comes from Martin Luther King, Jr.: 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.'
Although I'm generally 'conserative,' I'm a strong believer in civil liberties, and I'm skeptical of some of the tactics adopted in the name of fighting crime and terrorism. I am also an enthusiastic believer in religious liberty and free speech. I think the best way for people to spread their ideas is through unhampered discussion, not government coercion.
