Dover a half decade later: And what difference did it really make?

A friend offers observations about the Dover (Kitzmiller) decision (2006 or something). I didn't cover it, because everyone else did, and I was writing a book, under contract, about something else, basically. Just as well. Everyone else who cared seemed to be on the scene already, and I was otherwise occupied.

Essentially, modern American culture is biased toward atheism, and nothing suits atheism better than Darwinism, its creation story. That Darwin himself thought so can be determined from his own writings, so one does get tired of the various bible school profs, museum curators, and textbook writers who pretend otherwise.

If you believe it, fine. If you don't, why suck up to it?

I exempt the sweet museum docent who merely landed a summer job and does not know what is at stake. Unfortunately, she might find out later, if her boyfriend dumps here when she is pregnant, and the boyfriend has no idea that he is even doing anything wrong when he just suggests that she has an abortion, still less that there is any reason why he (not the girl, especially if she refuses) should be banished from polite society.*

*Darwinism? Yes, of course. That guy is saving his selfish genes for a more worthwhile and advantageous woman.
Or maybe there is no selfish gene, just people misbehaving, who do not wish to accept responsibility for their activities?

Don't believe me? Watch the film, A Place in the Sun, where a clergyman patiently explains to a guy why he really is guilty of murder, and you will see the difference between Judaeo-Christian culture and what happened later.

But, back to the main point, what really surprised me was how little public effect followed from Dover, in the long run. The usual professional tax burdens raged and thumped, of course, and their clever public opinion managers have recruited identified Christians who say that evidence for design in the universe is the reason that the last nail has not been driven into the coffin of design in the universe.

But few people who did not believe the Darwin nonsense before do so now. And courts cannot enforce against what most people must really know.

See, that's the big thing. Anyone can get a prof or reverend somewhere to rant against the idea that the universe shows evidence of design. It is much more useful than getting an atheist soap boxer to do the same thing. Darwin lobby honch, Eugenie Scott, said that herself here (one of many references).

Don't trust the court system you pay taxes for to decide against the continuing Darwin imposture; they have every reason to decide for it - not because it is true but because the idea that there is no design, no responsibility, and no free will makes your local tax burdens' lives a lot easier. They can force you to support them while they do nothing of consequence.

And they may even be doing something that harms you. What if they are persecuting a local white coat who is actually developing useful treatments, but he refuses to affirm Darwinism as true? So they run him out of town. The question hangs: Do you want help or do you want the Darwinist's ideology?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: