Today, eleven parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU of Pennsylvania), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and attorneys from Pepper Hamilton LLP filed suit in federal court to overturn the “intelligent design” policy of the Dover Area School Board.
The National Center for Science Education is consulting on the case (for free) on the science and science education aspects of the case.
The case is entitled Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. The filed complaint is available online at the ACLU website. They are also hosting a FAQ on evolution and intelligent design. You can also check out NCSE’s website or many other excellent sites for more information on the issue. On NCSE’s website you can read the history of the controversy in Dover, and the history of and problems with the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People that is at the heart of controversy about teaching ID in Dover public schools.
In related news, the Discovery Institute, which has spent the last decade promoting ID, allegedly building the scientific foundation for ID (remember, the “intelligent design” terminology and arguments were first published in the textbook Of Pandas and People in 1989 – the Discovery Institute and all their “research” came much later), and publishing law review articles saying that ID is great science deserving attention in the public schools (see “Key Law Review Articles About Teaching Darwin, Design and the Origins Controversy”), today issued a press release , “Discovery Calls Dover Evolution Policy Misguided, Calls For its Withdrawal.”
This is particularly interesting, considering that according to the schedule in the Wedge Strategy, we should be well into Phase III by now, which included integrating ID into public school curricula, and defending these actions in court:
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences. [bold added]