Interview Documentation- National History Day 2016

Name: Alexandra Ballentine

Title: Interview, Kenneth Miller
Interviewee: Kenneth Miller
Position: Professor at Brown University (expert witness at Dover trial)
E-mail: kenneth_miller@brown.edu
Type: Telephone
Date: December 20th, 2015
People Present: Kenneth Miller and Alexandra
Summary:
The ID movement has no positive evidence towards the theory itself.
Most of the arguments, especially at Kitzmiller v. Dover, where he was a
witness, were focused on disproving evolution. These arguments take small
holes in evolution and magnify them to appear larger than they really are.
The debate itself and the theories of intelligent design and Darwinism should
not be taught in schools. Teaching two sides of the debate could mislead
students and lead to intentionally distorting scientific facts. Instead, teachers
could use the ID movement as an antecedent or in talking about a popular
social movement.
The ID movement actually served to unify and strengthen some of
Darwinism. The holes that ID advocates pointed out led to scientists reexamining previously accepted conclusions and finding answers to unsolved
questions. The controversy has benefited science because scientists have
been forced to defend their theory. The scientific controversy and evidence
raised against Darwinism during the ID debate is similar to the creationisms
movement. After Edwards v. Aguillard, when the Supreme Court ruled that
creationism was unconstitutional and undeniably religious in nature, ID was
first encountered. The book Of Pandas and People was the first textbook to
use the term intelligent design. The changes from promoting creationism to
promoting ID can be tracked through the different drafts. In many cases, it is
evident that find and replace has been used to change creator phrases to
intelligent designer phrases. Therefore, ID is essentially repackaged and
relabeled creationism.
The Establishment Clause states that the people are given freedom of
speech, press, assembly, and religion. Taking this into the ID and Darwinism
debate, school boards cannot promote religion or prohibit the practice
thereof. Since ID is creationism under a different name, it is illegal to allow it
into schools. However, advocates have made sure that they are as separate
from religion as possible. This is an intentional strategy to conceal that ID
and creationism have the same roots. The true purpose of the ID movement
is to put Jesus in the classroom.
Since the Dover trial, more people have begun to accept that
Darwinism is the correct theory. Before the trial, the average acceptance in
the US was about 50% for and 50% against. After the trial, acceptance
among 18-28 year olds increased to 75%.
Rating: Very useful- able to extend research in new directions and look on
already gathered information with a new perspective.

Interview Documentation- National History Day 2016

Name: Alexandra Ballentine

Title: Interview, Ronald Numbers
Interviewee: Ronald Numbers
Position: Wisconsin University (published a book called The Creationists)
E-mail: rnumbers@wisc.edu
Type: e-mail
Date: January 29th, 2016
People Present: Alexandra
Summary:
ID and creationism are two different movements. There was no specific
time that ID gained more or less support than creationism. The shifting of
support was gradual. Teachers should not include flaws in evolution as part
of the curriculum. Although it is good to understand strengths and
weaknesses in a theory, including flaws in evolution often has an ulterior
motive. Promoting ID is sometimes disguised as criticizing evolution. The
controversy and the debate has no benefit for science because it undermines
and leads people to a theory that is not genuine science.
Rating: Kind of useful- knowledge of another persons opinions.