You are here
The trial in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- the first legal challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools -- was one of the five biggest stories in Bioscience for 2005, in the view of The Scientist (December 5, 2005). NCSE's Eugenie C.
In a provocatively titled column in the December 4, 2005, issue of The New York Times, Laurie Goodstein considers whether "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker." Although "intelligent design" might seem to be making headway in the headlines, she writes, "intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for." The scientific productivity of the "intelligent design" movement is meager, she notes, and "[o]n college campuses, the moveme
Writing on the space.com website (December 1, 2005), Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute debunks a common claim of the "intelligent design" movement: that "intelligent design" uses the same methodology, and thus is as scientifically credible, as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
Writing in the December 2005 issue of Virtual Mentor, the on-line ethics journal of the American Medical Association, Paul Costello reviews the ongoing controversy over creationism in the public schools, commenting, "I'm afraid we live in loopy times.
As a lawsuit against the University of California system wends its way through the legal system -- with a hearing on a motion to dismiss the complaint to be heard in federal court in Los Angeles on December 12, 2005 -- the media is taking notice of it again. The suit charges the University of California system with violating the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college.