Fake Evidence: A Look at Evolutionary Evidence for over 90 Years in the Court Cases from Scopes to Kitzmiller

By Ron Milliner

Fake Evidence examines the scientific evidence offered in evolution-creation court cases from the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in 1925 to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. The validity of the different types of evidence is tested against the current ideas in the scientific literature. Much of the evidence offered in the past would not be offered in such a case if held today.

The first chapter of the book looks at court evidence in light of the nature of science. Court cases have been decided based on fingerprints, handwriting samples, DNA, etc. only to be overturned later. Why are evolution cases allowed to stand when the evidence used in the trial is no longer valid?

The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes is the first evolution-creation case. It is discussed in chapter two. Because of its well-known attorneys, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, it attracted national attention. In this trial, a hoax like the Piltdown Man was offered as evidence for the proof of evolution.

Chapter three moves ahead to the 1960s and considers Epperson v. Arkansas that declared laws forbidding the teaching of evolution as unconstitutional. This case is also considered in light of two other court cases decided that decade--Engel v. Vitale that removed state-initiated prayers in the classroom and Abington School District v. Schempp that ruled against a daily Bible reading in school. How were these cases similar?

Since evolution had to be taught, efforts were made to have evolution and creation taught side by side. These efforts brought about two court cases--McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. Aguillard. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education dealt with an Arkansas law and was decided in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and was limited to that region. Edwards v. Aquillard was a similar law passed in Louisiana which was appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The justices declared the teaching of scientific creationism was religious teaching and thus unconstitutional.

The final case that is examined in this work is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania wanted to see its students become aware of intelligent design. A good deal of this case centered on showing that intelligent design is religious teaching so that the judge could rule against it based on the earlier court cases against a religious view being taught in public schools.

Fake Evidence closes with a look at some of the view expressed against religion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the dangers found in those views. The book also contains several appendices, including one on “The Fruits of Evolution.”

• Language: English
• Publisher: Thomas Nelson
• Release date: Sep 10, 2019
• ISBN: 9781400326389

Ron Milliner

Ron Milliner has worked in PK-12 schools and colleges.  As the director of the Kentucky of Academy of Technology Education, he had the opportunity to work with numerous teachers across the state in developing instructional technology lessons.  As a member of the National Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Council for the Social Studies, he has presented at both national and state science conferences.

Book preview

Fake Evidence

Fake Evidence

A Look at Evolutionary Evidence for over 90 Years

in the Court Cases from Scopes to Kitzmiller

Ron Milliner

© 2019 Ron Milliner

Fake Evidence

A Look at Evolutionary Evidence for over 90 Years

in the Court Cases from Scopes to Kitzmiller

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, scanning, or other—except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Published in Nashville, Tennessee, by Elm Hill, an imprint of Thomas Nelson. Elm Hill and Thomas Nelson are registered trademarks of HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc.

Elm Hill titles may be purchased in bulk for educational, business, fund-raising, or sales promotional use. For information, please e-mail [e-mail].

Scripture quotations marked CSB®, are taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are from the New King James Version®. © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019906167

ISBN 978-1-400326365 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-400326389 (eBook)

Information about External Hyperlinks in this ebook

Please note that footnotes in this ebook may contain hyperlinks to external websites as part of bibliographic citations. These hyperlinks have not been activated by the publisher, who cannot verify the accuracy of these links beyond the date of publication.

Contents

Chapter One Courts and the Nature of Science

Chapter Two The Monkey Trial

Chapter Three The Neutral Court Cases

Chapter Four The Balanced Court Cases

Chapter Five The Intelligent Design Case

Chapter Six Dover and Religion

References

Appendix A The Scopes Trial and Inherit the Wind

Appendix B Arkansas Act 590 of 1981

Appendix C Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act

Appendix D The Fruit of Evolution

Works Cited

CHAPTER ONE

Courts and the Nature of Science

Do you remember the 2000 presidential election? Does hanging chads help stimulate the memory? The issue finally was sent to the Supreme Court. On December 12, 2000, Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas decided the Bush v. Gore case that resulted in George W. Bush becoming the forty-third president of the United States. Now imagine those five judges getting together with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Carl Rove and other Republicans every December 12 to celebrate the court’s decision. Do you think such an event would be reported by today’s news media? How much of a stir would be produced? Do you think there would be accusations of bias and prejudice on part of the judges for celebrating their past decision?

Such a celebration has not occurred in the Bush v. Gore case, but it has in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. The federal judge, attorneys and prominent witnesses for Kitzmiller have gotten together on the anniversary of the court case to celebrate the judge’s decision against the Dover Area School District and their effort to introduce the subject of intelligent design to the students in their school district. Has this celebration been publicized by the press? Has anyone brought up the legal ethics of such action? Not that I have seen. Ken Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case, spoke proudly of this event to a group of us attending the 2010 National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) conference in Nashville.

There is a Code of Conduct for United States Judges. That document states a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualifications, or violate the limitations set forth below (Committee on Codes of Conduct, 2009). Judge Jones spoke at the conference of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) in Memphis after handing down his decision and received an exalted welcome. One of the things he said in his presentation was, This was a case that involved folks who really wore their religion on their sleeve. And I think, to my mind, that fired me up even more (Jones, 2008). Does that sound like the judge may have been a little biased against those who make religion an important part of their lives? The Code of Conduct says, The duty to be respected includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias (Committee on Codes of Conduct, 2009). Massimo Pigliucci, a professor at the City University of New York, has written a chapter entitled Science in the Courtroom in the book Nonsense on Stilts. In speaking of those who accept intelligent design, he exclaims, What is really astounding is that these buffoons actually have gotten as far as having their day in court (Pigliucci, 2010). Is it possible that prejudice gets into our legal system?

Another thing Judge Jones affirmed in his speech was, Courts, our system of justice, can’t operate when people don’t tell the truth (Jones, 2008). When it comes to evolution, can science present a truthful case in the courtroom, or do we get fake evidence like CNN produces fake news (as the president would say)? Physics professor Joseph Bellina has stated, As it happens, all experiments are built on some existing theory, so the process is somewhat circular. It is not an independent study as you might hope … no truth, just the best story we can tell right now … (Bellina, 2011). If the nature of science is such that it cannot present truth, then what is its role in the courtroom?

National Science Standards

There was a big push during the Obama presidency to establish national curriculum standards instead of allowing each state to decide what would be taught in its classrooms. The Common Core standards, which deal with English (or language arts) and math, proved to be very successful during those years. Dana Goldstein, writing on the American Prospect website, noted, A year ago, the idea of setting national education standards was a lot like the idea of legalizing marijuana: Despite all common sense, it just wasn’t going to happen … The thinking was that states’ rights types would never agree to let the feds mandate what kids should learn about sexual health or evolution (Goldstein, 2009). But the president’s administration had stimulus money. So U.S. News & World Report informed us, One of the most talked-about education reform initiatives currently making waves through schools nationwide and in Washington is national standards … Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been using the promise of $350 million in stimulus aid to urge states to abandon the current hodgepodge of individual standards (Miners, 2009). Kentucky was the first state to jump on board, doing so even before the Common Core standards were written. Many other states followed.

The national science standards are called the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Their implementation has not been as successful as the Common Core standards were. Yet, advocates of the teaching of evolution saw this move as a great opportunity to make sure evolution was taught in every public school across the country. This matter was discussed on the NSTA listserv. Complaining about each state having its own curriculum standards, one teacher said, This is what happens when education is considered and implemented at the state/local level versus at the national level. We end up having a GA [Georgia] Common Core where a lot of the stuff will be read through the Southern Baptist eye … (Name Withheld, 2012). Another teacher saw the national standards as the solution to help students accept evolution. She aspired to the time when national standards and many states adopting the Common Core will solve that issue (Name Withheld, 2012).

In preparation for the national science standards, the National Academies Press published A Framework for K-12 Science Education. This publication related some of the feedback that was received as the NGSS were being developed. One of the items it reported was, Many of those who provided comments thought that the ‘nature of science’ needed to be made an explicit topic or idea. They noted that it would not emerge simply through engaging with practices (Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, 2012). Knowing about the nature of science (NOS) is greatly needed and especially is that true when it comes to the consideration of evidence in a courtroom.

The Nature of Science

What do some scientists have to say about the nature of science? Dr. Steven Goldman of Lehigh University, who has interests in philosophy and the history of science, has said, We recognize that scientific theories always have a conjectural character. They are contingent upon the assumption that you make. The assumptions themselves cannot be certain … scientific truth is not absolute (Goldman, 2006). Dr. Lawrence Principe, who has a PhD in Organic Chemistry as well as the History of Science, told his students, Science as we know it incorporates a substantial number of faith statements simply in order to operate (Principe, 2006). Dr. Richard Lewontin, who taught at Harvard from 1973 to 2003, wrote, As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them … (Lewontin, 1997). Paleontologist Anthony Martin of Emory University observed that, in science, we always acknowledge the possibility of being wrong … (Martin, 2010). Maybe an article in The American Biology Teacher put