Evolution: An Objective Look

16. Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education, a review

 The URL for my book is http://www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

On November 13, 2007, PBS had a Nova special, “Judgment Day-Intelligent Design on Trial”, about a debate and a court case in Dover, Pennsylvania involving a battle between believers of Intelligent Design and believers in Evolution at a Dover Area High School. The school board was attempting to show that Darwinian evolution was not a lock, and other ideas should be presented to the students; not by teaching ID in the classrooms, but by having a book in the library on the subject. The ID’ers were strongly opposed by evolution believers, who wanted all theories besides evolution to be kept out of school books, and completely out of the discussion in science classes. The amazing thing is what this case, Kitzmiller Vs. The Dover School Board was really about. It was not about bringing  ID into the science classrooms (which I strongly oppose).  It was about science teachers being asked to read a notice that there is a book in the library, “Of Pandas and People”, by Charles B. Thaxton,  that discusses an opposing viewpoint.  The teachers met, and as a group decided to refuse to read the notice. So the principal came around the classes and he read the notice himself, about a one-minute interruption. That’s it.  Ms. Kitzmiller sued to stop the principal from doing just that: reading a notice that there is a book in the library that has a different idea that opposed evolution. I find it amazing that the theory of evolution is so weak and unsure of itself that it needs to prevent students from knowing that there is a book in their library with another idea.  Did Kitzmiller et al actually think that if this book was not identified as being in the library the students would permanently, for the rest of their lives, be blocked from ever hearing about Intelligent Design?  Astounding. What an incredible waste of time and money this case was. If Intelligent Design was force-taught as an entity in science classrooms, I could see a good reason for this court case. If evolution was valid, it would not mind competition at all. It would trump the competition with a huge avalanche of proof and information. But it can’t. And doesn’t. So Ms. Kitzmiller and her lawyers, mostly ACLU members, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars stopping the notification of students that there was a single book in the library on ID. What an incredible waste of time and money.  I wonder if the school board would like to have that money back now for more important matters. Like teaching students math, English, history…

In reality, there is no evidence for Darwin’s ideas, but the evolutionists pretend that anything they find is evidence. Zero fossils over millions of years of any single species show the kind of evolution that could form hearts and eyes, nor the kind of evolution that could change one species into another. No species are currently forming new organs or new anything; supposedly that ended millions of years ago. Evolution scientists try to make you think that a moth that changes color, or a bacteria that become drug-resistant is a good example of current evolution, and the followers swoon. Evolution is the greatest example of group psychology imaginable. Believers in evolution throw logic out the window. The psychology of this fake science is really far more interesting than the theory itself. True objective science is non-existent in the world of evolution believers. Since the source for intelligence in nature cannot be scientifically found, ID should not be taught in science classrooms. It is unlikely that Darwinian evolution will be removed from the classroom. So, to be purely scientific, the evidence that Darwin may not have been correct, and there is plenty of that, should be taught.

Here is a summary of some of the battles in the Dover courtroom:

(1) The Linear Evolution of Man:

A poster showing the steps in human evolution, like the one above, was painted by a student and hung in one of the biology classrooms. The poster was a beautiful work of art, and I’m sure done with great sincerity. The student is obviously a talented artist. It is a shame that the anti-evolutionists did such a dumb thing destroying it. However, that series of evolving man is non-existent in science or the fossil record. The artist copied a drawing that was the complete figment of the imagination of an evolution “scientist”. This unscientific drawing has been, and still is, printed in millions of textbooks and taught as if it is true science. Why don’t we see the same series for elephants and bears? This same series of fossils should certainly exist for them, as well as millions of other species. It doesn’t. Why don’t evolutions believers even question that fact, instead of sweeping it under the rug and playing pretend?

When I studied evolution in college, Neanderthal was considered the species that just preceded humans. Oops, paleontologists found that Neanderthal cohabited earth for 15,000 years with humans. Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, says “no evidence has been found of cultural interaction” and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. So Neanderthal was removed from the evolutionary line to homo sapien. And, professor Mellars gets a gold star for honest science.

According to “The Blind Watchmaker“ “…….one of the fastest evolutionary changes (is) the swelling of the human skull from Australopithecus-like ancestor, with a brain volume of about 500 cubic centimeters to the modern Homo Sapiens’s average brain volume of about 1,400 ccs.” It’s fast, but really “only .01 cc. per generation”. Did Dawkins consider that maybe Australopithecus didn’t evolve into Homo Sapiens since their cranial sizes were so different? Maybe they were just separate but similar species. Wouldn’t good objective science require the consideration of this possibility? Of course, that almost never happens. Bending of the evidence again here, rather than bending of the theory. No gold star for Dawkins.

Re: Homo Habilis 8/13/07 AP, WASHINGTON — “Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.

But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s journal London. The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said.”

So, what does this do to the evolutionary lineage of homo sapiens? Is it possible that the homo sapien “precursor” fossils aren’t precursors at all, but just separate but similar extinct species? Would real objective science require that that be listed as a possibility? Of course, in every science with the exception evolution. Just a note: This one was the hardest for me to swallow. I was sure that the evolutionary lineage from homo habilis to homo sapiens was correct; that it was absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

By the way, where are Ephantus habilis, E. erectus, and E. sapiens? Where are the linear evolution charts for bears? Rhinos? Isn’t it puzzling that there are no precursors for any modern animals like the so-called human precursors? They would have made extremely large fossils that would be recent, and therefore easy finds. I guess they just haven’t been located yet

(2) Tiktaalik roseae: In 2006 a team of diggers under the support of the Chicago Museum of Natural History led by Neil Shubin, museum curator, found a fossil that is still being celebrated as a great and historic transitional species. Interestingly, Shubin heads the Field Museum where I first started my critical thinking about Darwin. The fossil was presented in the documentary as evidence that fish grew legs and crawled out of the oceans and waterways. This fossil was called a fishapod. It was given the name Tiktaalik roseae. Tiktaalik roseae is the perfect example of hyper-wishful evolution evidence. Above left is a monkfish that is almost a dead ringer for the above right Tiktaalik roseae. Supposedly the “monkfish” fossil proves without a doubt that fish crawled out of the ocean to evolve into amphibians, all dinosaurs, all mammals, all birds… all living animals on Earth. What a massive conclusion from this fossil that isn’t much more than a large dirt clod and very similar to a monkfish. Why wasn’t it simply regarded to be an early monkfish? The mere existence of this fish fossil became evidence that it is the precursor to all land animals. Obviously, there is no possible way to prove this earth-shaking story. 

The next step in advancing evolution’s tale about Tiktaalik is that artists take over and turn the dirt clod fossil into a quadruped that was the granddaddy of all land animals that ever lived on Earth. Notice how, in the painting above, Tiktaalik is drawn with much longer forelegs than the actual fossil’s stubby legs in the fossil, above right, and is in a “wishful thinking” standing position. Also note how the hind end of Tiktaalik is also pictured with two leg-fins, even though no hind end was found in 2006. Of course, this artwork will be placed in textbooks and museums to make Tiktaalik more believable as a historic transitional species. In reality,  only the front half of Tiktaalik was found, so they have absolutely no idea what the hind end looked like, an important fact that was not even mentioned in this documentary; an amazing omission. How do they know it’s configured like a quadruped? Another giant guess that promotes evolution! They found half of a fossil and turned it into one of the “greatest evolutionary finds of all time”. Does that stumpy “fin-leg” on the fossil look like it is on it’s way to being the foreleg of a horse? Is there any possible way that it can be proved this unbelievable morphing happened? Can it be prognosticated what might have happened to this fish in the next 375 million years? It would take an incredible amount of imagination to think so. If you found this fossil, would you immediately think you found the greatest transitional species of all time? Could anyone on Earth actually conclude without a doubt that Tiktaalik evolved into multiple amphibians and multiple four-legged walkers? Ninety-eight percent of all species that have ever existed became extinct. What are the chances Tiktallik became extinct or was just an early monkfish, versus the chances that Tiktaalik evolved into all land animals?  When he returned from the dig, Neil Shubin became a scientific national hero. As a result of the find, he wrote his book Your Inner Fish, which is a hot seller. Of course, he is now the world’s leading expert on the evolution from fish to all land animals.  Shubin was and still is being touted and interviewed on many TV talk shows. This find is a real WOW for evolution. Finally, the missing fossil that evolutionists have been waiting for and predicting has been found. And there it is! Just as predicted, at the 375 MYA level of strata!

Shubin and the group of diggers certainly should be complimented for finding a new species and going to that frozen area of Northern Canada to do the digging. But that’s it. I just re-watched the Dover Nova section on this subject. Shubin had the “fin-leg” bones painted on a chart, showing how each bone corresponds with human arms and tetrapod foreleg bones. Shubin went over it so quickly without clearly showing the fin-leg, as if he didn’t want the bones to be carefully scrutinized. I froze that scene. Those bones don’t at all correspond to human arms or tetrapod legs. You would have to be on drugs to think they do.

Tiktaalik has eight tiny digit bones (Fig. 9-8) in its “forelegs” that are supposed to correspond to tetrapod/human digits. All tetrapods five digits or less. Did Tiktaalik evolve eight digit bones then dis-evolve the excess three digits?
The back half of the Tiktaalik fossil is missing, so they have no idea if it has two, three or zero “fin-limbs” in its hind area. Pictured below is a mudskipper. These are amphibious fish with two fin-forelegs and no hind fin-legs at all. We don’t know if Tiktaalik looked like this. No one has any idea what Tiktaalik’s back half looked like, so it is astounding that evolution scientists could immediately celebrate it as much as they have as a huge quadruped transitional find! 
Tiktaalik’s ribs are fish-like, good for swimmers, and not linked in the middle by a sternum, which would mean it couldn’t support itself on its fin-legs. No quadrupeds have ribs like Tiktaalik. Considering the ribs, and anatomy of the forelegs, the missing rear legs, the fact that Tiktaalik couldn’t support itself on land. (this is according to evo-scientists also), how scientific is it to credit Tiktaalik with being the common ancestor to most if not all land animals? 

Fig. 9-6 is a photo from the first page of Shubin’s website. (https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html). It has all of the details of the dig. Notice that over eleven Tiktaalik fossils were found. You can be sure that this photo is by far the best sample. So, out of ten fossils, none apparently have a hind end; which is pretty astounding. Maybe this was an area of Canada where hind ends just didn’t fossilize. (tic) Notice how the hind end of the fossil isn’t included in the Web photo, just as the hind end isn’t included on the cover of his book.

The fossil body of Tiktaalik shows no clear skeletal bones. It looks more like a dirt clod than a fossil, whilst the pelvis bone (A) is clearly a single very smooth bone. Why would the front half of Tiktaalik fossilize in one manner, and the hind end in an entirely different manner? Does this make sense? There is only one possible explanation. It is so obvious; I won’t even say what it is. If any of Shubin’s eleven Tiktaalik fossils had a hind end, he wouldn’t spend so much effort hiding the fact that there was no hind end on any of them. The first page of his website was put together before the pelvis bone was located. I think he forgot to unhide the hind end of his fossil.

Why did Shubin cut off the end of the photo? Why not put the entire picture on his lead page? The other very obvious problem for Shubin is the fact that the bone fragment doesn’t fit the front half of the fossil whatsoever. Fig. 9-7 is a drawing from a paper written by Shubin showing the position of the pelvis. Notice how it isn’t connected to the skeleton at all. There is a large gap between the two. So how can Shubin credit the pelvis bone as being part of the Tiktaalik fossil? Further, there are no known animals that have a fish fin for a front leg, and a ball and socket joint attaching the hind leg. It’s pretty obvious the pelvis and ball and socket joint don’t belong to Tiktaalik.

(3) In his testimony, Michael Behe brought up the fact that the “irreducible complexity” of a plethora of animal organs makes evolution not possible. His example was the rotating flagellum of bacteria. This was truly a fascinating part of the program. A small super miniature motor made up of forty protein molecules rotates a corkscrew-shaped flagellum, allowing the bacteria to travel. The “motor” looks much like a turbine motor of today. To think that this “motor” appeared before there was such a thing as a turbine motor anywhere on the planet earth is simply mind-boggling. Dr. Behe’s testimony was countered by Dr. David DeRosier from Brandeis University who showed a bacterial injector with a needle mechanism. By removing thirty proteins from the motor-flagellum system, the motor system looks quite similar to the injector. The difference is that the “needle” is, of course, hollow, and straight. Dr. DeRosier felt that the needle mechanism is simpler but similar to the motor flagellum, and therefore a step in the evolution of the motor system, proving that irreducible complexity is wrong. In the reenactment, Dr. Behe simply slumped, as if his irreducible complexity idea had collapsed. I can’t believe that in the actual trial Dr. Behe collapsed the way the Nova re-enactment showed. What the evolutionists proved was that Dr. Behe is absolutely correct. Dr. Behe should have said, “OK, if the injector is a step in the evolution toward the motor, please show me any possible steps in that evolution, and how the addition of each additional protein benefits the individual. Also, how about showing me any possible steps in the evolution from nothing to the injector.” Adding one missing protein, or two, or three to the injector would make the injector no closer to a being motor. They would be useless additions until all of the missing proteins are added. Once the proteins were added, the needle would have to evolve into a corkscrew and close the opening that made it a needle. There are absolutely no possible intermediate steps from injector to motor. Further, removing any single part from the injector would render it completely useless. Remove the needle and what would you have? Nothing; a mini-tumor. Early on, when the needle was short, if it did evolve, it would again be useless, as it would be unable to penetrate the outer cell wall of a species that it is attacking. It would be useless until it could; a useless miniature tumor. If the base mechanism was missing, of course, the “needle” would be unsupported and worthless. If Dr. Behe thought one more level, he could have clobbered the evolutionists.

The elephant in the china shop here is the bacteria itself which is nearly irreducibly complex. Bacteria have comparatively few parts, and therefore can’t survive with any missing. The ribosomes make proteins, the nucleoid carries DNA, the cytoplasm, flagellum, and cell wall and membrane are the main parts. Of course with the cell wall missing, the bacteria is non-existent. Without the nucleoid, it couldn’t exist and reproduce. Without the cytoplasm, it would be mush. One wonders what steps there were in bacterial evolution. I would love to hear a plausible explanation. Cell wall first, then nucleoid? Ribosomes first?

Dr. Behe used a mousetrap as an example of IC. Removing any one part would render it useless as a mousetrap. This makes complete common sense. However, a pro-evolutionist professor Ken Miller (video above) removed the “trigger”, and smugly wore it in the courtroom as a tie holder supposedly showing IC to be wrong. Again, wishful “evidence” by the evolutionists. For that matter, you could remove all the metal parts and use the wood base as a bookmark, or kindling for a fire. The “tie holder” example is an example of nothing and does not at all disprove IC. Think about an eye without a retina, or optic nerve. Would that make a good tie holder or a good anything? Dr. Behe’s thinking on irreducible complexity is almost right on the mark, and not disproved at all by the ridiculous negative evidence provided by the evolutionists.

In reality, a far better term for irreducible complexity would be essential irreducible complexity. One problem with IC is that it works backward. That is, it takes a complete and functioning organ and, by removing any part, supposedly the organ would be rendered useless. When an organ evolves, it goes from nothing to a functioning organ. The parts are gradually evolving and being added to the organ or organ system from nothing, rather than the organ parts being reduced from a fully functioning organ. Also, organs can function with parts missing. Eyes could still provide vision without the iris, just not very well in bright light. A liver can function without a large portion of its cells missing. IC should look at evolving organs from nothing to a semi or full functioning organ, rather than taking parts away from a fully functioning organ.

With essential irreducible complexity, an organ would be simplified down to its bare “essentials”. That is, the non-essential parts would be discounted, so that the parts left would be the ones that the organ or organ system could not possibly function without. In the case of the vision system, the retina, optic nerve, thalamus, visual cortex, and visual code together would be essentially irreducibly complex. There would be absolutely no vision if any one of these parts was removed or not functionally evolved. Translated, that means evolution in microsteps could not possibly put together a vision system. The evolving system would be useless until all of the above parts were present and evolved enough to provide some function. There would be no “advantage” to the individual during the process from nothing to partial function.

(4) The evo-illusionists in the trial brought up the fact that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23. This would seem to make the evolutionary connection between humans and apes not possible. Then scientists found that two of the human chromosomes were joined like conjoined twins, making the true human total more similar to that of the apes. Evolutionauts were ecstatic as if this was just one more piece of evidence that humans evolved from early apes. 

But there’s a chink in the armor. Antelopes have 23 paired chromosomes just like humans. Deer mice and beavers have 24 paired chromosomes just like apes. From this, can we deduce that humans really evolved from antelopes since they have the same number of chromosomes as humans? Did apes and deer mice and beavers all come from the same precursor? 

(5) The pro-evolution side presented a spelling error in an early manuscript of the anti-evolution textbook “Of Pandas and Man” to show that intelligent design is really creationism in disguise. This “evidence of a conspiracy” is beyond absurd. The misspelled “cdesign proponentsists” in the manuscript came from the writer attempting to substitute “intelligence proponents” for the word “creationists”. There are many people that are not religious but believe that nature has some kind of intelligence that is beyond anything we can comprehend at this time. This kind of thinking started way before the Bible was a book, and can be traced back to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Albert Einstein was a believer in an intelligent universe. Believing in an “intelligent universe” has nothing to do with Biblical creationism, Adam and Eve, and a 6,000-year-old earth. Because both ID’ers and Biblical Creationists think that Darwinian evolution is nothing more than fake science, pro-evolutionists try, disingenuously, to lump both together in an attempt to make both look foolish. In doing so, they make themselves look childish. And because one creationist writer substituted intelligence for creationism does not at all mean that the two different viewpoints are connected, or that there is a conspiracy to disguise ID as Creationism. They are both allied against evolution, but they are not one and the same. And those that think they are need to take that Logic 1 class mentioned above.

(6) Vertical lines were displayed in a segment showing how ID’ers feel the biological timeline for the existence of different species should look. Species appeared, then most went extinct. They were shown as straight lines in time, with different species starting at different times, instead of the tree with connected branches as visualized by Darwin. As each line was shown, a little “bing” sound and lighted cross were added to the beginning of the line. Of course, this makes the ID timeline look silly and unscientific. In reality, that is exactly how the appearance and extinction of species looks. All species appeared, with no precursor fossils yet found that show gradual evolution into that species.

Just a few examples:

“The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” (“The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins) (47% of phyla appeared in the Cambrian, and suddenly.)

“Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere.” (National Geographic Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?” Dec. 06)

National Geographic 11/06: “And yet, as he (Darwin) wrote to a friend in 1879, flowers were for him an “abominable mystery”. Darwin was referring to the sudden, unheralded emergence of flowers in the fossil record. Making the mystery all the more abominable was the exquisite complexity of flowers.”

“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)

The first two examples of transitional species cited in the court by evolutionists were the linear evolution of man and Tiktaalik, both described above.

The third transitional “tree branch” species was Archaeopteryx, which was listed as a link between dinosaurs and birds, with no precursors or “post-cursors” showing it evolving to birds. Archaeopteryx also had “evolved” a maxilla, mandible, temporomandibular joint, and a rather vicious set of teeth, which all had to “dis-evolve”, then the toothless/jaw-less bird had to evolve beaks. You would think that some very interesting fossil birds with some sort of beak/tooth system would be dug up, but of course, none have been. So why has archaeopteryx been assigned a branch of this tree? Didn’t Nova read National Geographic? (“Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere.”) Wouldn’t objective science at least wait for some A to B fossils before this branch was firmly established? Nope. This is evolution, so that kind of science is not necessary.

Another try for transitional species is called the archaeoraptor. It had the tail of a dinosaur and the forelimbs of a bird. The problem is that it was faked. A Chinese paleontologist proved that someone had glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird. Fakes are coming out of the fossil beds all the time because fossil dealers know that there is big money in it, and paleontologists can tremendously expand their resumes with finds. Imagine the pressure they have after hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on useless digs. They must show results or lose their grants.

The fourth example of the “tree branch” was a land-living tetrapod that evolved into a whale. I’m sorry, but this is so ridiculous, that it is difficult to spend any time discussing it. Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, then spit back out healthy and happy on the beach? THAT is more believable than a tetrapod going back into the water and evolving into a whale. “OK, son, now stick your head in the water and try to hold your breath! And, when you have kids, have them try the same thing until they can go longer!” I first read that a cow-like animal was the whale precursor, but my site has an article about a raccoon-like animal that did the trick: https://evillusion.wordpress.com/how-the-raccoon-became-a-whale/ The reasoning here is (an earlier Nova) that whale fins somewhat correspond the tetrapod legs or appendages. And, of course, as always, there is no fossil evidence for this miraculous morph. When I do a “mind experiment” on most evolution evidence claims, I just get really stuck. It’s hard to believe that these scientists can throw out the stuff they do with a straight face.

(7) Another huge challenge to the “tree” is the fact that there is no known evolutionary force that can increase the information in the genome. How does it happen that the number of chromosomes increases and a new and additional genetic code appears? It’s one thing to say genes mutate to form new and different body parts, although that is completely unlikely. But adding additional genes, and the genetic code is another. Dawkins got stumped with this question. https://evillusion.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins-stumped/ Maybe it has since been answered, but I haven’t seen one.

(8) A section of this Nova was used to show the “evolutionary” relationships of butterflies with differing wing patterns. Cartoon butterflies fluttered so scientifically next to each other in typical evolutionary-evidence fashion. This is all fine and dandy, and seemingly very scientific, except there is a giant but very quiet bull in the china shop here. The immense problem for evolution is just how did evolution create the life sequence that butterflies go through? Wouldn’t this be of far more important than showing how the wing patterns genetically form? Of course, this was not considered. It’s kind of like worrying about a firecracker when an atomic bomb is about to go off.

Butterflies are termed as holometabolous insects and go through complete metamorphosis. These are the steps in that metamorphosis:

• Egg

• Larva, known as a caterpillar

• Pupa (chrysalis)

• Adult butterfly (imago)

^{It is inconceivable to even imagine how mutations and natural selection could form an egg which would lead to a caterpillar which would then knit a pupa which would then morph into a butterfly. With evolution, since every advancement is done in micro-steps, each species had to have a “first”. There had to be a first butterfly egg and first caterpillar. There had to be a first caterpillar that decided to make a pupa. Was the first pupal evolutionary step a one-thousandth of a pupa, which, of course, would make it useless? Then, over a million or so years, the caterpillar super-grandchild would make a complete pupa, then… Of course, there had to be the first pupa that then transformed its innards into a butterfly. Evolution is not a possible scenario for the appearance of the butterfly, no matter what pattern the wings had.}

(9) Possibly the most ridiculous part of this Nova was the last, where scenes were shown of vaccines, and other medical procedures which the announcer credited to the study of Darwinian evolution. Nova was actually inferring that discontinuing the study of evolution could damage or terminate the many “modern miracle” medical advances that were brought about by Charles Darwin’s theory. This is nothing more than fear mongering at its worst. In reality, zero advances in anything have been brought about by this flawed theory. The study of the origin of species is really for a relatively few interested persons, (like me) and nothing else. Actually, very few people even think about it at all after finishing their school studies. The subject is not as all out important as evolutionists and creationists would have you think.

So here is a lawsuit that was brought because teachers were requested to simply let students know that there is a book in the library that has a different idea than evolution. The teachers were not required to say anything positive or negative about ID, but simply let the kids know about a book.  The teachers refuse to read the letter, so the principal went to class and read a notice that only took a few seconds. That brought an incredibly expensive lawsuit that took money from a cash-strapped school system and placed it in the courts and lawyers’ pockets. The winner here was the thought police. The loser was freedom of thought. And the overall issue had nothing to do with ID vs. Evolution. It had to do with freedom.