Darwinism Doubters are not asking for the moon

Albert Alschuler, a law professor emeritus at Northwestern University Law School, wrote of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case,

The court offers convincing evidence that some members the Dover school board would have been delighted to promote their old time religion in the classroom. These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. Does that make any mention of intelligent design unconstitutional? It seems odd to characterize the desire to go far as the law allows as an unlawful motive. People who try to stay within the law although they would prefer something else are good citizens. The Dover opinion appears to say that the forbidden preference taints whatever the board may do, and if the public can discern the board’s improper desire, any action it takes also has an unconstitutional effect. If board members would like to teach Genesis as the literal truth, the board may not direct teachers even to mention the anamolies in the theory of natural selection that the court itself recognizes. The court seems to declare, "Because we find that you would like something you can't have, we hold that you can't have anything."

Well said. And Jones shafted those who doubt Darwinism because of nonreligious reasons as well as those who doubt Darwinism because of religious reasons.

While only Darwinism is actually taught in public-school science classes, the courts have refused to begrudge a single crumb to those who question Darwinism. The courts have rejected evolution disclaimer statements in the Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish cases (though the Selman ruling looks like it may be reversed).

Also, attorney Larry Sisson wrote a good analysis of evolution-disclaimer cases.