Evolution Victory In Dover Trial

[In My Memory]

I've been following this trial from the beginning, and I'm happy to report a victory for science:

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

 

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

 

...The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory that evolution develops through natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

 

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

 

"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," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

 

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

 

Heres the decision in the judges own words:

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.

 

...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.

 

...As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

 

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.

 

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate ordisparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

 

Notice the words in bold, here is what the creationist organization Discovery Institute says about the ruling:

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea

 

Activist judge, eh? Are they talking about the same John E Jones, the conservative Christian district court judge appointed by George W Bush? If there is any better proof that the words "activist judge" are really just codewords for "disagrees with me", I havent seen it

 

But anyway, yay science!

[Kylonicus]

 

That's good.

 

Religion should be taught as religion, and not as science, although they should teach people various religious views, if for no other reason than acquiring some ethics and learning to tolerate other religions, because you know that people are going to have to make those decisions some day, and better that they have been given of a view that's not hateful than one that is.

[ecoli]

Religion should be taught as religion, and not as science, although they should teach people various religious views, if for no other reason than acquiring some ethics and learning to tolerate other religions, because you know that people are going to have to make those decisions some day, and better that they have been given of a view that's not hateful than one that is.

 

aboslutely right... but at any right, ID does not belong in a science classroom because it's quite obviosuly not based off of the scientific method.

[Helix]

I really am happy we ("we" being those who like the scientific method and think that the truth is totally neeto) won. If the ID proponents and the creationists, same people really, were to win it would be a major blow to evolution. To have a favorable court precedent going for them, the IDers would be much more aggressive and would push for even more violation of the Establishment Clause.

[ecoli]

If the ID proponents and the creationists, same people really,

 

not true at all. I support creationist, yet I am adamantally against introducing ID into the [science] classroom.

[Helix]

The people who proposed ID were creationist and the same creationist institutes support ID. But you can be creationist without being ID, I 'pose. And also, they both aren't based on the scientific method, just tenuous logic.

[Sisyphus]

not true at all. I support creationist, yet I am adamantally against introducing ID into the [science'] classroom.

 

What do you consider creationism, then?

[Severian]

I agree with the decision, but not on the method by which is was decided. I don't think a judge should be deciding what should or should not be taught in schools. I don't think a judge is clever/trained enough to be able to distinguish a legitimate scientific theory from a hole in the ground. Lets face it, most judges are as thick as mince, and should leave science well alone.

[john5746]

I agree with the decision, but not on the method by which is was decided. I don't think a judge should be deciding what should or should not be taught in schools. I don't think a judge is clever/trained enough to be able to distinguish a legitimate scientific theory from a hole in the ground. Lets face it, most judges are as thick as mince, and should leave science well alone.

 

This brings up a good point. Who should set the standards for Public Education? We agree that judges, politicians, and average Joe's are not the best to do it. Maybe a panel of experts in a given field provide national guidelines?

 

 

I would argue that the judge is really saying that ID is religion based, not that it is an invalid scientific theory. I would think he would be as qualified as anyone to judge that aspect.

[Severian]

I would argue that the judge is really saying that ID is religion based, not that it is an invalid scientific theory. I would think he would be as qualified as anyone to judge that aspect.

 

That is all very well, but I could imagine an untrained person coming to the same conclusion about string theory.

[silkworm]

All standards should be set by scientists democratically elected from other scientists as publically elected officials obviously do not know what they're doing and are easily lobied.

[Jim]

not true at all. I support creationist, yet I am adamantally against introducing ID into the [science'] classroom.

 

I applaud you Ecoli. I have had various points in my life when I've thought I believed. When I did believe, I still did not want the government teaching children about religion. I can't understand conservatives who think the government mucks up everything it touches but want the goverment teaching children about religion. It's completely inconsistent.

[Jim]

Activist judge' date=' eh? Are they talking about the same John E Jones, the conservative Christian district court judge appointed by George W Bush? If there is any better proof that the words "activist judge" are really just codewords for "disagrees with me", I havent seen it

 

But anyway, yay science! [/quote']

 

Thank you for providing the link to the opinion. This is wonderful news and I enjoyed reading the actual text. (I wouldn't, however, dismiss the whole issue of judicial activism based on this case where an express constitutional provision was in play. )

 

I had to laugh when I read this: "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe

remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID

depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

 

Ergh... now that's a bad day in Court! Your own expert admits that ID's plausibility depends on belief in God.

[budullewraagh]

i still dont understand how evolution can be compared with intelligent design. intelligent design concerns the design of life, right? evolution concerns the change in allele frequency over a period of time. supporters of intelligent design should have placed their case as an alternative to abiogenesis, evolution

[Phi for All]

i still dont understand how evolution can be compared with intelligent design. intelligent design concerns the design of life, right? evolution concerns the change in allele frequency over a period of time. supporters of intelligent design should have placed their case as an alternative to abiogenesis, evolution

Actually, creationism is more the antithesis of abiogenesis, whereas ID uses a designer instead of evolution to explain why organisms are the way they are. Most creationists who argue against science want to drag evolution into the argument along with several other scientific theories (Big Bang, etc), as if they are all one and the same. ID seems to suggest that nothing can happen in accordance with adaptive specialization unless someone? premeditatively designed it that way.

[Pangloss]

On a personal level I was very happy with this decision.

 

In terms of political analysis, I heard an interesting story on NPR last night which basically said that while the decision will not likely be appealed, we may see this fight take on a different tone in the future, with ID supporters distancing themselves further from the religious aspects of their cause. Some analysts believe that had they done that here, the judge's basis for throwing out the case would have been essentially undermined.

 

It's an interesting point. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was exactly the next step that creationists take.