Halleluah! Merry Christmas! Thank you for the precedent

[silkworm]

A federal judge said on Tuesday the teaching of intelligent design by Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

 

Judge John Jones' date=' in a 139-page ruling, said, "The defendant's ID (intelligent design) policy violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

 

Jones banned the school district from any future implementation of the policy in Dover schools.

 

The district was sued by a group of 11 parents who claimed the intelligent design policy was unconstitutional and unscientific and had no place in science classrooms.[/quote']

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-20T171314Z_01_EIC059334_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-EVOLUTION.xml

 

Another Aritcle (AP):http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

[Dak]

Its a pity that it had to come down to the first amendment, rather than the simple fact that ID is just not scientificaly valid, but huzzah! all the same.

[cosine]

Hooray! Can a federal judges ruling like this be disobeyed by anyone? (As long as its not overturned by the supreme court?)

[ecoli]

Hooray! Can a federal judges ruling like this be disobeyed by anyone? (As long as its not overturned by the supreme court?)

 

I think it depends upon the specifics of the report.

[silkworm]

It can, but this opinion will be a heavy influence on future cases, and I heard somewhere that the Supreme Court will probably avoid these cases, so this is a very good thing. There will no doubt be appeals, but I'm not concerned.

 

Rejoice!

[bascule]

Its a pity that it had to come down to the first amendment, rather than the simple fact that ID is just not scientificaly valid, but huzzah! all the same.

 

Well, you can't really build a civil rights case around the definition of science like you can the Establishment Clause.

 

Cue the slew of IDiots to argue about the interpretation of the Establishment Clause

[silkworm]

Quotes from the U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision: http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2005/12/20/ap2405012.html

 

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

 

"After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

 

"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."

[silkworm]

Here's the link to the BBC story for those interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm

[starbug1]

in the Pennsylvania town of Dover...

 

How many instances does this take place in international schools? Is it commonplace or well-concealed? What are the laws in other countries?

[silkworm]

Good question starbug1, I have no idea. I figure this movement is no problem at all in the increasingly secular western Europe, which sounds like heaven to me about now.

 

There's more ugliness to come, but I think it will be brief.

 

Intelligent design proponents gained support in Dover and across the country with the rallying cry to "teach the controversy" over evolution and open students' minds to competing theories. The National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., has tracked efforts in at least two dozen states to introduce challenges to evolution in the curriculum. Some efforts hew more closely to the approach in Kansas, where the State Board of Education changed its standards to teach about flaws in evolutionary theory.

 

In South Carolina, State Senator Mike Fair has introduced a bill to encourage teaching criticism of evolution. Mr. Fair is also on a state education committee that is evaluating biology standards. He said although he had not read the Pennsylvania ruling, it offended him because it impugned board members' motives because they were Christians.

 

The Dover school district is now liable for the legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs - which plaintiffs lawyers say could exceed $1 million. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as wells as lawyers with Pepper Hamilton, a private firm.

 

Eric J. Rothschild, a Pepper Hamilton lawyer, said in a news conference after the ruling that holding the Dover board to a financial penalty would convey to other school districts that "board members can't act like they did with impunity." But Mr. Rothschild said the fees were still being totaled, and he left open the possibility that the lawyers might go after individual board members who voted for the intelligent design policy to pay the legal costs.

 

In Muscatine, the superintendent, Tom Williams, said he expected that the possibility of a legal battle would deter his board from adopting intelligent design.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/science/sciencespecial2/22evolution.html?ex=1292907600&en=fe8e7e36ec0997c8&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

[silkworm]

Political distancing, YAY!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics/23santorum.html?ex=1292994000&en=1fcf2e4a5ed8dcf6&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

 

Senator Rick Santorum said Wednesday that he would withdraw his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which had defended the Dover Area School District's policy mandating the teaching of intelligent design in science classes dealing with evolution.

 

Mr. Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, earlier praised the district for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution." ...

 

...Mr. Santorum told The Philadelphia Inquirer that he was troubled by testimony indicating that religion had motivated some board members to adopt the policy.