JUDGEMENT DAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL

NAME:________________________________________

1. What are the fundamental premises of Intelligent Design Theory 2. Kenneth Miller asserts that: It's [Intelligent design] a violation of everything we mean and everything we understand by "science." Who is Kenneth Miller? Whether or not you agree with him, make a case that his statement is correct. Make a case that he is incorrect.

3. What was the first court case involving the teaching of Evolution in the classroom? What was the charge? What was the verdict? What were the consequences?

4. How has the debate about classroom curriculum shifted since the ruling above? What is the Establishment clause?

5. Phillip Johnson asserts that, This whole Darwinian story, it seems to me, has been very much oversold. Everybody is told that it's absolutely certain and certainly true. And because it's called science, it has been proved again and again by absolutely unquestionable procedures. But this is not true. It's an imaginative story that has been spun on the basis of very little evidence. Who is Phillip Johnson? Whether or not you agree with him, can you make a case that his statement is correct? 6. What was the reason for the Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District case? What did the plaintiffs (Kitzmiller et al) have to show to win the case? What fundamental question did both sides ask the judge to rule on?

7. Eugenie Scott asserts that, The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default. But when you ask them, What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it? It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument. What does she mean by a negative argument? Do you agree with her premise? Explain.

8. Who is Michael Behe? What is irreducible complexity? What is Behes example of irreducible complexity? What is the evidence against Behes example? What is the more general argument against irreducible complexity? How does Behe define science?

9. What was the strongest evidence that the Intelligent Design is actually creationism repackaged? 10. In his closing remarks, Patrick Gillen (Attorney for the defense) said:
In sum, your Honor, I respectfully submit that the evidence of record shows that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the primary purpose or primary effect of the reading of a four-paragraph statement on intelligent design, explaining that it's an explanation for the origins of life different from Darwin's theory, letting the students know there are books in the library on this subject, does not, by any reasonable measure, threaten the harm which the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits. But instead, the evidence shows that the defendants' policy has the primary purpose and primary effect of advancing science education by making the students aware of a new scientific theory, one which may well open a fascinating prospect to a new scientific paradigm.

How did the judge respond (i.e. what was the verdict)? If you were the judge, how would you have ruled in this case? Explain your decision.