{"id":43521,"date":"2026-01-07T13:37:38","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T21:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/idthefuture.com\/?p=43521"},"modified":"2026-01-07T13:37:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T21:37:46","slug":"2158","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/idthefuture.com\/2158\/","title":{"rendered":"20 Years After Dover: Steve Fuller on Science, Censorship, and the “Church of Darwin”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In this ID The Future<\/strong>, host Casey Luskin concludes a two-part conversation with University of Warwick professor and author Steve Fuller reflecting on the 20th anniversary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, a case that examined the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. Fuller discusses his experience serving as an expert witness for the defense. He defends his support of a policy that merely informed students of alternative theories to Darwinian evolution. He characterizes the Dover school board’s actions\u2014notifying students that alternative views like intelligent design (ID) existed and were available in the library\u2014as “pedagogically defensible” and “minimal”. He argues that high school is the ideal time to encourage an open mind toward science, as university education often pushes students toward a narrow “orthodoxy” to prepare them for research or exams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conversation then delves into Fuller\u2019s deeper critiques of the institutional censorship he argues exists within modern science, where ID concepts are effectively barred from professional journals. He challenges the judge\u2019s ruling in the Dover case, describing it as a cut and paste of the plaintiffs’ playbook that failed to acknowledge the rich history of ID within the scientific revolution. Fuller discusses this rich tradition of intelligent design in philosophy, science, and theology in Part 1<\/a> of this interview. Fuller explains that ID is not inherently anti-science but rather anti-establishment, acting as a challenge to what he calls the “established church of Darwin.” Looking forward, he suggests that the current cultural and legal climate might help to shift the dial toward a more pluralistic approach to science education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is Part 2 of a two-part interview. Listen to<\/a> or watch<\/a> Part 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dig Deeper<\/h2>\n\n\n\n