Judge Rules No on Intelligent Design
A federal judge (emphatically) struck down a policy today by the Dover school board to include "intelligent design" in the biology curriculum. The ruling is available here (.pdf), and below are the concluding paragraph of federal judge John E. Jones III's ruling. ("The Board" is the Dover board of education, and are also the Defendants.)
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
|
Dec. 20, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 20, '05
curses! how will we now ensure that Dover children learn of the His Noodly Holyness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Dec 20, '05
I'm disappointed. Neither creation nor evolution are provable - but God taking Adam's rib to make Eve does suggest cloning. Evolution very closely mimics creation. It is hardly a unique idea. I think schools should teach all things of merit. It's no different to censor teaching evolution than it is now to censor teaching creation.
Dec 20, '05
Public schools cannot and should not "teach everything of merit" as presumably adjudged by whatever special interest groups have leverage with the schools administration. In order to equip citizens with the knowledge and discipline to be productive and participating members of our democracy, they need to have a firm grounding in factual knowledge and an appreciation of the difference between that and the dogma of religious zealots, or the philosophical musings of storytellers (or bloggers), or the twisted truth of propagandists.
Dec 20, '05
Candy,
This is about science and its meaning. Evolution is science. Creationism and intelligent design are not. They would be fit for a religion or philosophy class, but not a science class.
Dec 20, '05
Does every form have a function? Has every function been selected by evolution?
I'd be a little careful defending the popular version of evolution as "science". Of course, evolution, even in its popular form, is far more robust than Dr. Paley's elegant theory.
I tend to think that we shouldn't be scared of ideas of any kind, and we should always be ready to admit that vestiges of our science are influenced by our culture. You know, the contemporary versions of "the world is flat theory", things we can't see yet.
I wonder if we could sidestep some of this debate by allowing for classes on culture, comparative religion, and ethics in our public schools. The values of the true Christian right, exploited as they are, do have much to recommend them. We shouldn't allow assholes like Karl Rove to say that we're a bunch of immoral heathens.
That said, if anyone draws a line and tries to force the teachings of Jesus or the Bible as The One and Only Truth, then they gotta hit the showers.
Dec 20, '05
Marco has missed the point of the case. Evolution is a well-tested scientific theory, not unassailable dogma. It has to answer to contradicting facts, and only is applied to questions of physical relationships between different kinds of life. It is not a "secular world view that flattens the distinction between humans and other life." as insecure reactionaries called it. The difference of human life from others transcends science itself.
The intent of the Intelligent Creationists is dishonest and underhanded. They are attempting to install religious dogma as science to be taught impressionable students. They are hereby sent to the showers.
Karl Rove has NO credibility on morality with anyone I respect enough to worry about their opinion.
12:13 a.m.
Dec 21, '05
First:
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard, that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and cannot be taught in public schools along with the scientific theory of evolution.
Second:
It's not so much the mentioning of creationism as a theory that is an issue here-- it's the way it was done.
When I took biology in 9th grade, our teacher mentioned each of the most popular theories as to how we got here. Each of them basically got a few sentences. Creationism was one of them. We then went into our studies on evolution.
That was it. No discussion on creationism. None of this stuff about how evolution is a theory and full of holes and therefore intelligent design must be the answer.
Those of us who fought to keep church and state separate (we were part of the Santa Fe ISD v Doe, a Supreme Court case in 2000) had no problem with that mention. It was listed as one of the most popular theories and that was it.
The school in Pennsylvania was basically trying to teach creationism/intelligent design, which the courts have ruled as unconstitutional. It doesn't belong in a biology class.
Dec 21, '05
Ed,
I don't disagree with anything you say. So, why the need to refute me?
I'm just trying to encourage deeper breaths, and a relaxed engagement. We're better and stronger when we're calm and confident.
I share your view on Karl Rove, too, but who won Ohio, and who is dominating in the high growth south? The future of the electoral college, demographically speaking, isn't pretty based on current trends.
Yes, they're lying to get their wins, and we're making it easy for them by sputtering instead of engaging people on their terms.
Dec 21, '05
Apologies to Marco if I came across as denigrating your opinion, but I am tempermentally unsuited to be relaxed and calm when facing the creeping advance of totalitarianism. I did aver that you had missed the point, not advanced any wrong-headed ideas.
Our country has come to the point where our fearless leader can claim with a staight face that Constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure are null and void if he can scare us with some boogeyman.
This is not a climate in which we can afford to be solicitous of those advancing the cause of demagoguery, which is the danger posed by the Intelligent Design proponents.
That's just my take. Yours is honest also, I'm sure.
Dec 21, '05
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate your perspective, as well.
I believe that we should aggressively fight propaganda in all of its forms, as well as the curtailing of liberty in the service of partisan politics, or in the service of the vanity of power.
I think our values, as a group, are more genuinely Christian than those who advocate torture, ignore the plight of the poor, and celebrate power gotten through an emphasis on selfishness.
Christianity itself may lose many adherents to a culture of nationalism and religious war, but unfortunately we can't reach those people and still remain true to ourselves. We can, however, reach the vast majority of people who have good hearts, who want the same things we want--a happy familiy, good friends, strong community, a meaningful life, and the freedom to make their own choices.
I believe very strongly that the advance of medical science, and all the other forms of scientific inquiry, will continue to ease pain, inspire wonder, and give hard-working people a path toward a good career. We should speed up our work in those areas, not slow down or turn back.
But in the process of doing so, let's remember that science, like religion or economics or law, is supposed to be put into the service of a better life for all of us. If we do that, I think we'll find it easier to communicate with people everywhere about the basic values of family, friends, and freedom that dominate most peoples' concerns.
Dec 21, '05
Best part about this story is that the Judge that threw out Intelligent Design was a Bush appointee.
Oops George, you should really vet these guys a little better.
1:37 p.m.
Dec 21, '05
It's apparent to me that most of the people commenting here have not read the opinion.
I highly recommend it. It is very well written and not hard to read. It contains humor, lies and intrigue as well as information and cogent reasoning. Key issues around the establishment clause are there along with a very good dicsussion of what constitutes science and what doesn't. There's also a nice look at local school board politics. Be sure and read at least to the part about space aliens and time-travelling cell biologists.
On the subject of what we should be teaching in our schools, I wish every high school kid in the US could take a seminar-style class on this ruling.
Dec 21, '05
It sounds like a threat. CAREFUL around WHOM? Mr.Science going to rap my knuckles if I speak science and science's assertion.
Science is not a DEFENSE. It's just the facts, ma'am. Sorry YOUR religious myth is not in it. GLAD spirituality and myth and wonder and love are built in the human condition, hard-wired in our cells to love each other, designed from the finest and most magnificent silliness of deoxyribonucleic acid evolved through fits and starts and survival successes and monkeyshines, and. makes. us. what. we. are. No more. No less. You ain't more valid than me. I ain't more valid than you. Human nature is justified.
I'd be a little careful continuing to believe the myth that rightwing fascist nazies are some majority mob 'got your back' and wading into Americans expecting supremacist bigotry -- whether from illiteracy, religious fervor, or bad diet -- can set upon minorities, women, atheists and remiss-theists, or any other target-victim group the fascist nazies decide to finger. Because that mob ain't 'got your back' and never did, it ain't the majority, and the threats and the bullying social bad manners ... I'd be a little careful offending decent people with ...
10:56 p.m.
Dec 21, '05
If you can make it all the way through that opinion, don't sleep on the legal history of creationism Judge Jones puts in about page 6 or so. Chapter and verse, this guy lays it out. Fascinating reading.
Dover Area is the new Scopes Monkey Trial, with roles reversed, less blatantly religious packaging of the Sunday School dogma, and the law (finally) on the side of science to begin with.
ID belongs in Comparative Religions studies, along with the theory of human origin from Vishnu's belly button, Quetzalcoatl, and the native Australian concept of dreamtime.
Good to see it work that way in middle PA.
Dec 23, '05
Religious right's red herring WHY-Jehovah's Witnesses don't do Christmas
I was born Jehovah's Witness 1957 3rd generation.Yup,we didn't celebrate Christmas and were miserable the rest of the year too.
The reason JW's don't do Christmas is because their Watchtower leaders say so,the holiday has pagan aspects to it and by rejecting it the Watchtower appears "pure".
This "demand for purity" is one of the 8 marks of a cult.NOW the Watchtower can use this purity diversion to distract from their own immoral practices.-Danny Haszard Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Rockland Massachusetts
Dec 26, '05