Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision (Paperback)

by David K. Dewolf (Author), John G. West (Author), Casey Luskin (Author), Jonathan Witt (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
A clear solution to the debate over biological origins has evaded scientists and philosophers for millennia.  Since the ancient Greeks, thousands of pages of debate from scholars on all sides have yielded two types of answers: those which invoke only material causes and those which explore the possibility that intelligence had a direct role in shaping life. Yet in 2005, one United States federal judge sought to settle this longstanding question of science and philosophy once and for all.

Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision is 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 (discovery dot org) 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.

Despite Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. Mark Twain once famously refuted his own obituary by proclaiming that, '‘the report of my death was an exaggeration." Traipsing Into Evolution rebuts similar reports about the "death of intelligent design" from media pundits and the Darwinist establishment in the wake of Kitzmiller v. Dover.  The book also includes a lengthy response to the ruling from Dr. Michael Behe, the lead expert witness for the defense at the trial, entitled "Whether ID is Science: Michael Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller v. Dover."

About the Author
David DeWolf is Professor of Law at Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, Washington.

John West is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle and Chair of the Dept. of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.

Casey Luskin is attorney with a law degree from the University of San Diego.

Jonathan Witt is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and covered the Dover trial for EvolutionNews dot org.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 124 pages
• Publisher: Discovery Institute (March 7, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0963865498
• ISBN-13: 978-0963865496
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.8 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #921,938 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 50 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Read the trial transcript and the opinon instead, March 28, 2006

By	Timothy E. Johns "voracious reader" (Upstate NY) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I bought this book to see what the ID proponents had to say that they didn't say in court. I found little. And most of what I did find was more succinctly addressed by luskins's and behe's previous critiques of the decision which you can find on the internet for free. It is a quick read though.
Judge Jones' decision is a few pages longer than this book but if you want the truth about this case I encourage you to read the decsision and the transcripts of the testimony which you can find on the internet at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Avoid the testimony of the school board members if you are a christian (pro ID or not) because a couple of the professedly christian board members got caught lying on the stand and I know that was upsetting to me. Don't miss the expert testimony though. Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest, Michael Behe and Steven Fuller. HIgh points (IMO) are Dr Forrest's testimony about the writing of "Of Pandas and People" the textbook in question at the trial, and Dr Behe's admission that the rule changes necessary to make ID science would also allow astrology.

The view of the decision that you get here is not as complete or truthful as the the picture you can get by going to the source documents and making up your own mind. For instance, reading this book will convince you that Judge Jones went beyond his authority to make a needless determination that ID is not science. But a reading of the trial transcripts will show you that the one of the major arguments made by the ID forces was that ID should be taught because it is science. While a narrower opinion could have been written (with the same result that ID can't be taught in Dover but based only on the defendants' intent to teach a particular brand of religion in the public schools in violation of the establishment clause), the judge was well within his right to rule on the merits of all the defense's claims.

I can only recommend this book if you are extremely interested in this debate and wish to keep up with the latest of the ID proponents' strategies.

10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars ID: Found Guilty by Reason of Inanity, April 15, 2006

By	Tim Beazley (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews

"Traipsing" is basically just a cut-and-paste job from articles available for free on websites like the Discovery Institute's own site. Why pay for trash like this, when you can get it for free? "Traipsing" criticizes Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller case, but the book`s many blunders simply confirm Jones' ruling that requiring ID to be taught in science classes constituted "breathtaking inanity."

I highlight six major blunders. There were many, many more.

1. REDUNDANCY. The authors blast Jones for ruling against ID on two grounds, when one would have been sufficient. That complaint is simply naïve. When a trial judge has several ways to justify his decision, it is entirely routine to list several. That way, if the case is appealed, the judge's decision can still stand, even if the appellate court rejects a particular justification. This practice is so routine, it's amazing that the authors, two of whom claim to be attorneys, could be unaware of it; especially since the judge in an earlier creationism case, McLean v. Arkansas, followed exactly the same procedure. McLean, BTW, was cited favorably in a Supreme Court decision, so apparently the Supremes don't share the authors' concern about redundancy either.)

2. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS/FALSE DICHOTOMY. The design inference usually follows a negative argument, like this: "There is no known natural cause for X, therefore X is attributable to design." Negative arguments like that are said to be based on a dichotomy. Judge Jones ruled that ID's dichotomy argument was an illogical "false dichotomy." Michael Behe tries to rebut Jones in Appendix A.

Behe starts by describing a valid dichotomy, strictly limited to only two types of causes, intelligent and natural. Behe's theoretical dichotomy seems to pass muster; the problem is, the negative arguments that ID actually uses (including many of Behe's own arguments) are nothing at all like Behe's theoretical description. The no-known-natural-cause argument clearly implies the existence of a third type of cause, i.e., unknown natural causes, which violates the two-causes limitation of a valid dichotomy. So Behe's own arguments demonstrate why Jones was right: ID's negative arguments employ a false dichotomy with more than two types of causes.

3. BIG BANG/RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS. Behe spent hours in court, whining that it is unfair to ban teaching ID just because it has religious implications, since the Big Bang theory is routinely taught even though it has religious implications. But courts have never held that teaching genuine scientific theories with secondary religious implications is unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is teaching primarily religious theories with no meaningful scientific implications. Behe thought ID was in the former category, not the latter. He was wrong. Big Bang theory is a genuine scientific theory, with many positive, empirically-testable predictions confirmed by subsequent observations. ID, however, makes no -- repeat, no -- such predictions, making confirmation impossible. There is more to Big Bang theory than its alleged religious implications, while ID contains nothing but religious implications. Equivalent theories should be treated equivalently, but ID is no more equivalent to Big Bang theory than Mohammed Atta was equivalent to an airline pilot.

4. TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. The book claims that ID does make positive, empirically testable predictions, but that's a naked assertion, an empty bluff. Behe spent three whole days on the witness stand without describing even one such prediction. Steve Fuller, ditto. Scott Minnich claimed that ID predicts the existence of complex, functioning biosystems. Some functioning biosystems are indeed complex, thus, according to Minnich, empirical evidence confirms ID's prediction. That's just dumb. First, ID does not predict the existence of any particular sort of system at all. Intelligent designers may produce simple systems, complex systems, functioning systems, non-functioning systems, biosystems, non-biological systems, or they may produce nothing at all; so claiming that ID specifically predicts the existence of complex, functioning biosystems is simply false. As an allegedly scientific alternative to evolution, ID should provide meaningful, positive, testable explanations for the origin of living things; but it does nothing of the sort. Minnich's "discovery" that some biosystems are complex is essentially irrelevant to that issue, and the book's other examples were just as irrelevant.

5. DEFINITION OF SCIENCE. The authors argue that Judge Jones should not have made any ruling at all about whether ID is genuine science, because philosophers of science do not unanimously agree how to define science. I guess courts shouldn't rule on medical malpractice cases either (doctors aren't unanimous), insanity defenses (psychologists aren't unanimous), antitrust cases (economists aren`t unanimous), child custody cases (parents aren't unanimous), etc. DeWolf must think judges should resolve only those controversies where there is no controversy, which is just dumb.

6. IS ID RELIGION? The authors howl in outrage that ID is not necessarily religious, and point out that some ID writings do not explicitly mention God. Well, yeah, but a lot of other ID writings do! Furthermore, courts have never held that merely avoiding the G-word guarantees constitutional immunity. The creationist legislation in McLean and Edwards didn't use the G-word either, and the creationists lost both of those cases. Judge Jones was simply following those precedents. That's what good judges do. (Again, it's mystifying that the authors, two of whom claim to be attorneys, appear to be completely unaware of major precedents in this area.)

ID claims to promote critical thinking, but judging from this book, ID promotes critical thinking about as well as Hustler magazine promotes sexual restraint. There are glaring errors on virtually every page. That's not critical thinking; that's breathtaking inanity, just like Judge Jones said.

16 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Hogwash, November 11, 2007

By	Jeffrey Varszegi (Methuen, MA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

As someone else has written, this is a waste of money no matter how you believe, as all of this slanted tripe is available for free.