Something about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Decision didn't sit right with me. Okay, a few things: the huffy tone, the clumsy history and connections between the 1920s creationists and present-day intelligent design crowd.
But U of Chicago law prof Al Alschuler nails it:
If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century, however -- accepting the Bible as literal truth -- the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court's response -- "well, that's what they say, but we know what they mean" -- is uncivil, an illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We've heard it all already.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.