Several law papers were written regarding Judge Jones’s application of relevant caselaw and subsequent effect upon legal precedent. As I am not a lawyer (yet) I am unqualified to offer an educated opinion on these legal papers, but I will include some relevant quotes.
Brenda Lee, Harvard Law Review. Link
“Although the opinion was excellently written and reasoned, its broad conclusions will not have a great impact on the public debate about teaching evolution and thus will fail to fulfill its hope of preventing judicial waste. Given the vast divide in American society over the role of religion in public life, the influence of high profile individuals who favor creationist teaching, and the limited precedential value of a district court’s opinion, lawsuits will continue to serve as the primary check on new and improved methods of including creationism in the classroom. ID is representative of a huge cultural divide in America that a court, despite ambitious goals, cannot mend prophylactically.39 In fact, the opinion’s decisiveness in finding that ID was not science, based on the overwhelming evidence of the Board’s religious motivations, may encourage critics of evolution simply to repackage their next attack to avoid any mention of religion and thereby escape negative Establishment Clause analysis.” (page 4-5)
David K. DeWolf, et al, Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzimiller v. Dover. University of Montana Law Review, volume 68. Link
After several months of testimony, Judge John E. Jones III issued an opinion that appeared to be just what the plaintiffs wanted. The opinion was immediately hailed by opponents of ID as having driven “a stake into the heart of the ID proponents’ crusade to circumvent the Establishment Clause.”4 Initial commentary on the case seemed to assume that Judge Jones had ruled correctly, and that the only question for the courts would be how to identify and stop further evasions of the Establishment Clause.5 But announcements of the demise of ID were greatly exaggerated. As even Judge Jones acknowledged, his opinion has “no precedential value outside the Middle District [of Pennsylvania]”;6 its influence will depend heavily upon its persuasive quality, and close inspection of the opinion reveals many fatal flaws.
In the end, the debate over ID in nature cannot be resolved through either coercion or court decisions. ID arose because of new scientific evidence in cosmology and the life sciences, and this scientific evidence cannot be ruled out of existence by court order.
As biochemist Michael Behe has observed of Judge Jones’s ruling, “[it] does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication.” On the day after the judge’s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wish ful speculations and Just-So stories. ID will survive Kitzmiller not only because the ruling itself is unpersuasive and is owed no deference, but because the scientific evidence pointing to design in nature is just as powerful today as it was before Judge Jones ruled.
Peter Irons, Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and tribulations) of Intelligent Design. University of Montana Law Review, volume 68. Link
There is a certain whistling-past-the-graveyard tone in the title of the article to which this commentary is a response. In predicting that “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” its authors seem to concede that the decision of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in the Kitzmiller case inflicted a serious wound on the intelligent design (ID) movement.2 More to the point, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), with which all three authors (DI authors) are affiliated, has been “scrambling to rebound” from this judicial rebuke to its decade-long and heavily financed efforts to promote ID as a legitimate scientific “alternative” to Darwinian evolution in public school science classes.3 Despite the blithe assurance of the DI authors that ID will survive the Kitzmiller ruling because of the “many fatal flaws” in Judge Jones’s opinion, a more candid assessment of its impact (and the source of this commentary’s title) came from the Discovery Institute’s own president, Bruce Chapman: “Dover is a disaster in a sense, as a public-relations matter. . . . It has given a rhetorical weapon to the Darwinists to say a judge has settled this.”
In the end, I suspect, neither the preceding article nor this commentary on it will sway any minds that are already made up on this issue, on one side or the other. For those readers who remain undecided, if there be any, let me once again urge a careful reading of Judge Jones’s opinion. It is, in my view, a masterful distillation and analysis of thousands of pages of trial testimony, hundreds of exhibits, and dozens of pleadings. We can ask no more of a judge who must deal with such a controversial issue. The Kitzmiller opinion is neither biased nor sloppy, and will easily withstand the assaults the DI authors have launched against it.
David K. DeWolf, et al, Rebuttal to Irons. University of Montana Law Review, volume 68. Link
We wrote a serious critique of the Kitzmiller ruling. Rather than deal with the substance of our arguments, Peter Irons responds primarily with red herrings, personal attacks, and erroneous statements. With merely 1,000 words to rebut, we highlight merely some of the problems.
1. Irons tries to refute intelligent design (ID) by smear and innuendo rather than substantive argument.
2. Irons misrepresents our critique of Judge Jones.
3. Irons misapplies the Lemon test
4. Rewriting the history of DI’s involvement with Dover.
5. Irons defends Judge Jones’s double standard on motives.
6. Irons repeatedly misrepresents and misstates facts.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Conclusion: Where does the argument go now?
The players:
The four continuing players will be the National Center for Science Education, the ACLU, the Thomas Moore Law Center, and the Discovery Institute. The NCSE is dedicated to a robust scientific curriculum in schools, and will still face criticism and attempts to challenge evolution with intelligent design arguments. The ACLU will continue to argue and challenge instances where it believes religion is being introduced into science. The Thomas Moore Law Center will continue to be a foil to the ACLU, and will argue for increased integration of religion and schooling. The Discovery Institute will continue to argue for intelligent design, arguing that their theory is valid science and explains the natural processes for the origin of life in a more substantial way than evolution does. After their stinging rebuke in the case, the Discovery Institute will most likely repackage intelligent design in a way that fits closer to the guidelines of science that were re-affirmed by Kitzmiller.
Subsequent legal examinations of this case will be elaborated on in the next post.
As for the nature of science, this case has reaffirmed the traditional definition of science being constrained to observations of the natural world, and explanations for those observations are guided by natural laws. Supernatural or otherworldly explanations for natural phenomena are not allowed in scientific discourse, which is a black box that certain people would definitely like to see opened. Should the court case have determined that ID is in fact science, it is possible that other, untestable hypothesis would be subsequently allowed as well. Perhaps it is best that the foundation of all modern technology and progress be kept a closed, black box.
The four continuing players will be the National Center for Science Education, the ACLU, the Thomas Moore Law Center, and the Discovery Institute. The NCSE is dedicated to a robust scientific curriculum in schools, and will still face criticism and attempts to challenge evolution with intelligent design arguments. The ACLU will continue to argue and challenge instances where it believes religion is being introduced into science. The Thomas Moore Law Center will continue to be a foil to the ACLU, and will argue for increased integration of religion and schooling. The Discovery Institute will continue to argue for intelligent design, arguing that their theory is valid science and explains the natural processes for the origin of life in a more substantial way than evolution does. After their stinging rebuke in the case, the Discovery Institute will most likely repackage intelligent design in a way that fits closer to the guidelines of science that were re-affirmed by Kitzmiller.
Subsequent legal examinations of this case will be elaborated on in the next post.
As for the nature of science, this case has reaffirmed the traditional definition of science being constrained to observations of the natural world, and explanations for those observations are guided by natural laws. Supernatural or otherworldly explanations for natural phenomena are not allowed in scientific discourse, which is a black box that certain people would definitely like to see opened. Should the court case have determined that ID is in fact science, it is possible that other, untestable hypothesis would be subsequently allowed as well. Perhaps it is best that the foundation of all modern technology and progress be kept a closed, black box.
Analysis: Media Response
In the media response you have a variety of arguments presented. In the case of most media, they represented and took the arguments from the ACLU at face value, in that the introduction of ID was a religious argument that had no place in a public school curriculum. They seemed to accept the black box of scientific inquiry being closed (unlike its status in the court case) and proceeded to argue primarily the benefits and history of ID instead of addressing the arguments of evolution, thus creating another black box.
Several pieces analyze the community differences that came about as a result of the trial, including the intersection of faith and science, and how for some people it is a problem and how for others it is not. Faith in itself is a black box, rarely opened because to question it is to possibly discover that what is contained within may or may not be true.
The structure of the ID argument has changed since Kitzmiller, and its proponents have repackaged the argument as a "teach the controversy" movement. By continuing to go further and further downstream from the scientific argument, it is attempting to reach the greatest amount of people and sow doubt about the validity of the upstream arguments.
Many scientific observers noted that evolution's lack of answers in certain areas is not an indicator of the failings of the theory, but only that answers will be discovered as any unresolved questions are normal research problems that occur in any scientific field. The arguments that science isn't perfect, but always striving for perfection, and always amenable to being changed is a mixture of upstream and downstream argument, an effort to illustrate to the masses the tools and nature of science. A common criticism is that evolution is "just a theory," to which it is often observed "so is gravity." This court case may have illustrated to evolution proponents that the need for downstream arguments is paramount for the public to have any understanding of the upstream complications, thus the focus on establishing what science is and isn't.
The documentary Expelled argues through mainly downstream arguments that evolution is flawed and needs answers that are provided through intelligent design. The documentary argues that science is attempting to silence critics of evolution, and is denying them the opportunity to argue their case.
Several pieces analyze the community differences that came about as a result of the trial, including the intersection of faith and science, and how for some people it is a problem and how for others it is not. Faith in itself is a black box, rarely opened because to question it is to possibly discover that what is contained within may or may not be true.
The structure of the ID argument has changed since Kitzmiller, and its proponents have repackaged the argument as a "teach the controversy" movement. By continuing to go further and further downstream from the scientific argument, it is attempting to reach the greatest amount of people and sow doubt about the validity of the upstream arguments.
Many scientific observers noted that evolution's lack of answers in certain areas is not an indicator of the failings of the theory, but only that answers will be discovered as any unresolved questions are normal research problems that occur in any scientific field. The arguments that science isn't perfect, but always striving for perfection, and always amenable to being changed is a mixture of upstream and downstream argument, an effort to illustrate to the masses the tools and nature of science. A common criticism is that evolution is "just a theory," to which it is often observed "so is gravity." This court case may have illustrated to evolution proponents that the need for downstream arguments is paramount for the public to have any understanding of the upstream complications, thus the focus on establishing what science is and isn't.
The documentary Expelled argues through mainly downstream arguments that evolution is flawed and needs answers that are provided through intelligent design. The documentary argues that science is attempting to silence critics of evolution, and is denying them the opportunity to argue their case.
Media: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. A movie by Ben Stein. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
What Is Intelligent Design?
The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.
The Controversy
The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.
Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.
Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.
Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?
At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:
Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:
There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3:
Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.
What Is Intelligent Design?
The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.
The Controversy
The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.
Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.
Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.
Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?
At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:
Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:
There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3:
Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.
Media: NOVA
Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, by NOVA, Public Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
In this program, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. This two-hour special was coproduced with Paul G. Allen's Vulcan Productions, Inc.
In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design—the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply. Later, parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
"There was a blow-up like you couldn't believe," Bill Buckingham, head of the school board's curriculum committee, tells NOVA. Buckingham helped formulate the intelligent-design policy when he noticed that the biology textbook chosen by teachers for classroom use was, in his words, "laced with Darwinism."
NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?" Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature.
During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems—the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million.
"Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," says Paula Apsell, NOVA's Senior Executive Producer. "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools."
For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom.
In this program, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. This two-hour special was coproduced with Paul G. Allen's Vulcan Productions, Inc.
In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design—the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply. Later, parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
"There was a blow-up like you couldn't believe," Bill Buckingham, head of the school board's curriculum committee, tells NOVA. Buckingham helped formulate the intelligent-design policy when he noticed that the biology textbook chosen by teachers for classroom use was, in his words, "laced with Darwinism."
NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?" Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature.
During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems—the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million.
"Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," says Paula Apsell, NOVA's Senior Executive Producer. "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools."
For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom.
Media: Salon.com
The Evolution of Creationism, by Gordy Slack, Salon.com, November 13, 2007. Salon.com
Two years ago, Pennsylvania federal Judge John Jones III handed down a stunning decision that many said would take down the intelligent design movement. But American creationism doesn't die. It just adapts.
Decades earlier, when the courts deemed creation science -- proto intelligent design -- a religious view and not constitutionally teachable as science in public schools, it adapted by cutting God off its letterhead and calling itself "intelligent design." The argument for I.D., and for "scientific creation theory" before it, is that evolution isn't up to the task of accounting for life. Given biology's complexity, and natural selection's inability to explain it, I.D. thinking goes, life must be designed by a, well, designer. I.D.ers skirted any mention of God, hoping to avoid getting snagged on the First Amendment's prohibition against promoting religion by arguing that I.D. was just a young and outlying science.
In the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that if you want to teach intelligent design in science class, first you have to show that it is a distinct species from its earlier, creationist form, not just a modified type. You've got to show us the science part, he said. Besides, Jones declared, your intelligent designer is obviously God.
The six-week trial -- the focus of a Nova documentary, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," airing Nov. 13 -- addressed a host of heady questions. What is science and how does it work? Can evolution account for the diversity of life we see on earth? What is religion? Can science say anything about the existence of a creator and still be science? It also examined the motivations of a local school board that tried to smuggle creationism into its high school biology curriculum. The judge's decision -- that I.D. was not science and that the school board was trying to promote its members' own religious views -- was followed by a short period of shock from the I.D. community.
But like bacteria adapting to antibiotics, creationism has slimmed down once again, this time shedding even a mention of an intelligent designer. A new textbook put out by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that promotes I.D., doesn't even have the words "intelligent design" in its index. Instead of pushing I.D. explicitly, "Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Darwinism," promoted as a high school- or college-level biology text, "teaches the controversy." Teach the controversy is the new mantra of the I.D. movement.
Two years ago, Pennsylvania federal Judge John Jones III handed down a stunning decision that many said would take down the intelligent design movement. But American creationism doesn't die. It just adapts.
Decades earlier, when the courts deemed creation science -- proto intelligent design -- a religious view and not constitutionally teachable as science in public schools, it adapted by cutting God off its letterhead and calling itself "intelligent design." The argument for I.D., and for "scientific creation theory" before it, is that evolution isn't up to the task of accounting for life. Given biology's complexity, and natural selection's inability to explain it, I.D. thinking goes, life must be designed by a, well, designer. I.D.ers skirted any mention of God, hoping to avoid getting snagged on the First Amendment's prohibition against promoting religion by arguing that I.D. was just a young and outlying science.
In the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that if you want to teach intelligent design in science class, first you have to show that it is a distinct species from its earlier, creationist form, not just a modified type. You've got to show us the science part, he said. Besides, Jones declared, your intelligent designer is obviously God.
The six-week trial -- the focus of a Nova documentary, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," airing Nov. 13 -- addressed a host of heady questions. What is science and how does it work? Can evolution account for the diversity of life we see on earth? What is religion? Can science say anything about the existence of a creator and still be science? It also examined the motivations of a local school board that tried to smuggle creationism into its high school biology curriculum. The judge's decision -- that I.D. was not science and that the school board was trying to promote its members' own religious views -- was followed by a short period of shock from the I.D. community.
But like bacteria adapting to antibiotics, creationism has slimmed down once again, this time shedding even a mention of an intelligent designer. A new textbook put out by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that promotes I.D., doesn't even have the words "intelligent design" in its index. Instead of pushing I.D. explicitly, "Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Darwinism," promoted as a high school- or college-level biology text, "teaches the controversy." Teach the controversy is the new mantra of the I.D. movement.
Media: Rolling Stone Magazine
Darwinian Warfare: In a Pennsylvania courtroom, America can’t get the monkey off its back. By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, October 20, 2005.
Kitzmiller v. Dover looked like Scopes in reverse. Instead of a single schoolteacher trying to buck the law by teaching evolution in the intractable heart of the Bible Belt, this case involved a single school board trying to buck the law by slipping a teaspoonful of God into a continent-size, thoroughly secularized school system.
Like Scopes, this case began as a minor political disagreement in a small town that self-consciously grew into a national controversy. Making a long story short, Kitzmiller v. Dover boiled down to a few unusually pious individuals on the school board of a little Pennsylvania town unilaterally voting, in October 2004, to insert a four-paragraph statement about "Intelligent Design" into the local high school's curriculum. Immediately a coalition of parents filed a federal lawsuit against the renegade school board.
The basis of the plaintiffs' suit was found in the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the court ruled that the teaching of "scientific creationism" in Louisiana public schools violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. The crux of the plaintiffs' case in Kitzmiller was that "Intelligent Design" -- the theory backed by the school board -- was just creationism in disguise. If it was, then the Dover school officials would be guilty of the same First Amendment offense described in Aguillard.
Again, this was Scopes, but backward. The religious side was at the defendants' table, and this time it was religion and conservatism that would have to struggle to get a public hearing for its newfangled theory.
More important, however, the prognosis this time imagined religion as the legal loser but the practical winner, instead of the other way around.
Kitzmiller v. Dover looked like Scopes in reverse. Instead of a single schoolteacher trying to buck the law by teaching evolution in the intractable heart of the Bible Belt, this case involved a single school board trying to buck the law by slipping a teaspoonful of God into a continent-size, thoroughly secularized school system.
Like Scopes, this case began as a minor political disagreement in a small town that self-consciously grew into a national controversy. Making a long story short, Kitzmiller v. Dover boiled down to a few unusually pious individuals on the school board of a little Pennsylvania town unilaterally voting, in October 2004, to insert a four-paragraph statement about "Intelligent Design" into the local high school's curriculum. Immediately a coalition of parents filed a federal lawsuit against the renegade school board.
The basis of the plaintiffs' suit was found in the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the court ruled that the teaching of "scientific creationism" in Louisiana public schools violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. The crux of the plaintiffs' case in Kitzmiller was that "Intelligent Design" -- the theory backed by the school board -- was just creationism in disguise. If it was, then the Dover school officials would be guilty of the same First Amendment offense described in Aguillard.
Again, this was Scopes, but backward. The religious side was at the defendants' table, and this time it was religion and conservatism that would have to struggle to get a public hearing for its newfangled theory.
More important, however, the prognosis this time imagined religion as the legal loser but the practical winner, instead of the other way around.
Media Reaction: Four Stakes in the Heart of Intelligent Design
“Four Stakes in the Heart of Intelligent Design,” by Charles McGrath, New York Times. December 24, 2008. New York Times Book Review
As recent court cases in Kansas, Georgia and Pennsylvania demonstrate, we are still, more than 80 years after the so-called Scopes monkey trial, suing one another over whether evolution ought to be taught in the schools, and for those who are opposed, it’s not just an idle matter. While still a congressman, Tom DeLay linked the teaching of evolution directly to the school shootings at Columbine.
A good place to start such a class might be Lauri Lebo’s “Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America,” which is a history of the latest such court case, stemming from a lawsuit filed in Dover, Pa., in 2004 by 11 parents seeking to block the local board of education from making intelligent design part of the ninth-grade biology curriculum. Ms. Lebo was the education reporter on the local paper, The York Daily Record, and her account is both well informed and at times deeply (almost embarrassingly) personal: the whole time she was reporting the story, she was struggling with her own beliefs and also locked in argument with her father, who owned a fundamentalist Christian radio station.
The case cleaved the community in much the same way, especially after it turned out that several of the school board members, who were basically clueless about both evolution and intelligent design, had lied when they claimed religious considerations were not behind their wish to introduce intelligent design. The judge, ruling for the plaintiffs, accused the Dover Board of Education of “breathtaking inanity,” which brought down such a hail of denunciation from anti-evolutionists that for a while federal marshals had to guard his house and family. And when the town of Dover, weary of the whole mess, eventually voted out the old school board, the televangelist Pat Robertson delivered his own verdict: if a disaster were by any chance to hit the town, the citizens shouldn’t look to God for help.
The lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover case was Mr. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and the author of “Only a Theory,” and from his book you can easily see why he was so effective. He is clear and incisive and knows how to make things like the bacterial flagellum comprehensible to the layman. The flagellum, a little rotor-like mechanism that propels bacteria in the digestive system, so closely resembles what we would call an engine of human design that proponents of intelligent design have concluded it must be the work of a master designer.
In a few concise chapters Mr. Miller pretty much dismantles all the claims, such as they are, for the intelligent design movement. The flagellum, he says, far from being a custom design, so to speak, made from parts expressly created for that purpose, is, like so much else in nature, a jury-rigged device made from bits cobbled together from the cellular spare-parts bin.
Mr. Miller also adds an impassioned argument for why the rest of us shouldn’t just turn our heads and let a few benighted school systems teach whatever they want. Good students will eventually see the light, one argument goes, and as for the others — well, they probably weren’t going to be biologists anyway. But Mr. Miller believes that our very scientific soul is at stake and that the argument for intelligent design is just the first step in an attempt to redefine science itself and make it consonant not with scientific truth but with whatever you want to believe.
As recent court cases in Kansas, Georgia and Pennsylvania demonstrate, we are still, more than 80 years after the so-called Scopes monkey trial, suing one another over whether evolution ought to be taught in the schools, and for those who are opposed, it’s not just an idle matter. While still a congressman, Tom DeLay linked the teaching of evolution directly to the school shootings at Columbine.
A good place to start such a class might be Lauri Lebo’s “Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America,” which is a history of the latest such court case, stemming from a lawsuit filed in Dover, Pa., in 2004 by 11 parents seeking to block the local board of education from making intelligent design part of the ninth-grade biology curriculum. Ms. Lebo was the education reporter on the local paper, The York Daily Record, and her account is both well informed and at times deeply (almost embarrassingly) personal: the whole time she was reporting the story, she was struggling with her own beliefs and also locked in argument with her father, who owned a fundamentalist Christian radio station.
The case cleaved the community in much the same way, especially after it turned out that several of the school board members, who were basically clueless about both evolution and intelligent design, had lied when they claimed religious considerations were not behind their wish to introduce intelligent design. The judge, ruling for the plaintiffs, accused the Dover Board of Education of “breathtaking inanity,” which brought down such a hail of denunciation from anti-evolutionists that for a while federal marshals had to guard his house and family. And when the town of Dover, weary of the whole mess, eventually voted out the old school board, the televangelist Pat Robertson delivered his own verdict: if a disaster were by any chance to hit the town, the citizens shouldn’t look to God for help.
The lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover case was Mr. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and the author of “Only a Theory,” and from his book you can easily see why he was so effective. He is clear and incisive and knows how to make things like the bacterial flagellum comprehensible to the layman. The flagellum, a little rotor-like mechanism that propels bacteria in the digestive system, so closely resembles what we would call an engine of human design that proponents of intelligent design have concluded it must be the work of a master designer.
In a few concise chapters Mr. Miller pretty much dismantles all the claims, such as they are, for the intelligent design movement. The flagellum, he says, far from being a custom design, so to speak, made from parts expressly created for that purpose, is, like so much else in nature, a jury-rigged device made from bits cobbled together from the cellular spare-parts bin.
Mr. Miller also adds an impassioned argument for why the rest of us shouldn’t just turn our heads and let a few benighted school systems teach whatever they want. Good students will eventually see the light, one argument goes, and as for the others — well, they probably weren’t going to be biologists anyway. But Mr. Miller believes that our very scientific soul is at stake and that the argument for intelligent design is just the first step in an attempt to redefine science itself and make it consonant not with scientific truth but with whatever you want to believe.
Media Reaction: The Devil in Dover
The Devil in Dover, by Lauri Lebo. Summary provided from the book’s website, http://www.laurilebo.com/dp/.
“In December 2004, following the Dover area school board's decision to teach intelligent design in ninth-grade biology classrooms, eleven parents sued, sparking a federal constitutional challenge. Lauri Lebo, a small-town reporter who covered the trial, knows not just the legal case and science, but the people on all sides of the divisive battle.
In "The Devil in Dover", Lebo traces the compelling backstory of this pivotal case described by some as a perfect storm of religious intolerance, First Amendment violations, and an assault on American science education. In a community divided across unexpected lines, the so-called activist judge, a George Bush–appointed Republican, eventually condemned the school board's decision as one of "breathtaking inanity."
Lebo follows the story through its surprising twists, pondering whether this was a national war playing out in a small town or a small-town political battle playing out on the national stage. As a "local girl" with a fundamentalist Christian father, Lebo provides an account that is both fascinating and moving, as she thoughtfully probes one of America's most divisive cultural conflicts—and the responsibility journalists have when covering such a controversial story.”
“In December 2004, following the Dover area school board's decision to teach intelligent design in ninth-grade biology classrooms, eleven parents sued, sparking a federal constitutional challenge. Lauri Lebo, a small-town reporter who covered the trial, knows not just the legal case and science, but the people on all sides of the divisive battle.
In "The Devil in Dover", Lebo traces the compelling backstory of this pivotal case described by some as a perfect storm of religious intolerance, First Amendment violations, and an assault on American science education. In a community divided across unexpected lines, the so-called activist judge, a George Bush–appointed Republican, eventually condemned the school board's decision as one of "breathtaking inanity."
Lebo follows the story through its surprising twists, pondering whether this was a national war playing out in a small town or a small-town political battle playing out on the national stage. As a "local girl" with a fundamentalist Christian father, Lebo provides an account that is both fascinating and moving, as she thoughtfully probes one of America's most divisive cultural conflicts—and the responsibility journalists have when covering such a controversial story.”
Analysis: Reaction to the Results
The court firmly established that ID was a religious doctrine, and thus could not be taught in public schools. This finding was primarily centered upon the history of the ID movement and its previous history regarding creationist science.
The court also firmly established that ID was not, in any way, science, and that the definition of science would need to change to allow the supernatural causation that ID requires.
Of note: "it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."
The court is establishing that a communal acceptance is important for support for a scientific theory, similar to arguments put forth by John Tyndall's Double Boundary Work. The court is also establishing that the nature of peer-reviewed publications is fundamental to the progress of science, and that testing and research is necessary for supporting a scientific theory. Latour would probably argue that our labs, our methods, and our scientific structure should be analyzed and argued, let alone the nature of scientific inquiry, but that may have been beyond the scope of this case.
The ACLU posits that "intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method...is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science." Once again, the definition of what science is and isn't, a thought pattern that can be explored through the application of Latour and his contemporaries. Latour would probably argue that the act of science is a black box unto itself, and that this case may have opened it, and promptly shut it after discovering that all the pieces were, in fact, in order. In this trial, we have gone far, far upstream into the arguments for evolution, in fact, into the arguments for religious theory versus scientific theory, for spiritual explanations versus natural and observable explanations. There is no further upstream we could go in this argument other than questioning our very observations and senses.
The Thomas Moore Law Center seeks to minimize the damage from the ruling, and takes a downstream approach to their response. Arguing that there are flaws in the theory of evolution, and that ID answers those flaws, they minimize the upstream scientific arguments that are not in their favor. Additionally, they argue that the law itself is insufficient and improperly applied, thus seeking to open up another black box.
The court also firmly established that ID was not, in any way, science, and that the definition of science would need to change to allow the supernatural causation that ID requires.
Of note: "it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."
The court is establishing that a communal acceptance is important for support for a scientific theory, similar to arguments put forth by John Tyndall's Double Boundary Work. The court is also establishing that the nature of peer-reviewed publications is fundamental to the progress of science, and that testing and research is necessary for supporting a scientific theory. Latour would probably argue that our labs, our methods, and our scientific structure should be analyzed and argued, let alone the nature of scientific inquiry, but that may have been beyond the scope of this case.
The ACLU posits that "intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method...is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science." Once again, the definition of what science is and isn't, a thought pattern that can be explored through the application of Latour and his contemporaries. Latour would probably argue that the act of science is a black box unto itself, and that this case may have opened it, and promptly shut it after discovering that all the pieces were, in fact, in order. In this trial, we have gone far, far upstream into the arguments for evolution, in fact, into the arguments for religious theory versus scientific theory, for spiritual explanations versus natural and observable explanations. There is no further upstream we could go in this argument other than questioning our very observations and senses.
The Thomas Moore Law Center seeks to minimize the damage from the ruling, and takes a downstream approach to their response. Arguing that there are flaws in the theory of evolution, and that ID answers those flaws, they minimize the upstream scientific arguments that are not in their favor. Additionally, they argue that the law itself is insufficient and improperly applied, thus seeking to open up another black box.
Reaction to the Results: The Thomas Moore Law Center
The Thomas Moore Law Center (Link)
Today the district court judge issued a lengthy opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, holding that the School District violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by reading to students of a ninth-grade biology class a short, one-minute statement that mentions “intelligent design” twice. Pursuant to this statement, the book Of Pandas and People, which addresses intelligent design arguments, was placed in the school district library for students to voluntarily review, along with other books that are critical of intelligent design. This statement was read in a class in which Darwin’s theory of evolution was taught pursuant to the Pennsylvania academic standards and pursuant to its standing in the scientific community. Moreover, the primary and only required text for this class, Biology by Prentice Hall, fully and comprehensively covers the theory of evolution, and it was co-authored by one of the experts who testified for the Plaintiffs. According to the judge’s opinion, this “policy” violates the Establishment Clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “What is clear from this decision is that our present Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as several Supreme Court justices have noted, is in hopeless disarray and in need of substantial revision. In his opinion the judge bemoaned that the school district ‘deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.’ In this respect, he was correct. This case should have never made it into a federal courthouse. The Founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change ‘established religion’ in violation of the Constitution that they drafted.”
Thompson continued, “The district court’s decision today continues along this path of applying a fundamentally flawed jurisprudence. Unfortunately, until the Supreme Court adopts a more coherent and historically sound jurisprudence, school districts like Dover will be at risk of costly lawsuits by the ACLU for adopting such modest curriculum changes such as the one at issue.”
Today the district court judge issued a lengthy opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, holding that the School District violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by reading to students of a ninth-grade biology class a short, one-minute statement that mentions “intelligent design” twice. Pursuant to this statement, the book Of Pandas and People, which addresses intelligent design arguments, was placed in the school district library for students to voluntarily review, along with other books that are critical of intelligent design. This statement was read in a class in which Darwin’s theory of evolution was taught pursuant to the Pennsylvania academic standards and pursuant to its standing in the scientific community. Moreover, the primary and only required text for this class, Biology by Prentice Hall, fully and comprehensively covers the theory of evolution, and it was co-authored by one of the experts who testified for the Plaintiffs. According to the judge’s opinion, this “policy” violates the Establishment Clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “What is clear from this decision is that our present Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as several Supreme Court justices have noted, is in hopeless disarray and in need of substantial revision. In his opinion the judge bemoaned that the school district ‘deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.’ In this respect, he was correct. This case should have never made it into a federal courthouse. The Founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change ‘established religion’ in violation of the Constitution that they drafted.”
Thompson continued, “The district court’s decision today continues along this path of applying a fundamentally flawed jurisprudence. Unfortunately, until the Supreme Court adopts a more coherent and historically sound jurisprudence, school districts like Dover will be at risk of costly lawsuits by the ACLU for adopting such modest curriculum changes such as the one at issue.”
Reaction to the Results: The ACLU
Reaction to the results:
The ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/index.html):
Victory in the Challenge to Intelligent Design
"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.
The lawsuit was brought by the parents who objected to the decision by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania to promote the teaching of intelligent design in their children's public school science classes.
Intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method, is a belief that asserts that a supernatural entity designed some complex organisms. Witnesses have demonstrated that such an assertion is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science.
As a longtime defender of religious liberty, the ACLU is leading the legal challenge against the activists and political lobbyists who are attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education, as if it were science.
The ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/index.html):
Victory in the Challenge to Intelligent Design
"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.
The lawsuit was brought by the parents who objected to the decision by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania to promote the teaching of intelligent design in their children's public school science classes.
Intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method, is a belief that asserts that a supernatural entity designed some complex organisms. Witnesses have demonstrated that such an assertion is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science.
As a longtime defender of religious liberty, the ACLU is leading the legal challenge against the activists and political lobbyists who are attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education, as if it were science.
Results: The Distric Court's Ruling
What did the district court find?
Courtesy of ACLUPA.org (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Dec20opinion.pdf)
“For the reasons that follow, we hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” (page 3)
“Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that
the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms ‘creation science’ and ‘scientific creationism’ have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man.” (page 21)
“The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable” (page 22)
“The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue “advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.”
The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.” (page 23-24)
“Although proponents of the IDM (intelligent design movement) occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses.” (page 26)
“Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper.” (page 30)
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, 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. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.” (page 64)
Courtesy of ACLUPA.org (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Dec20opinion.pdf)
“For the reasons that follow, we hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” (page 3)
“Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that
the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms ‘creation science’ and ‘scientific creationism’ have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man.” (page 21)
“The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable” (page 22)
“The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue “advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.”
The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.” (page 23-24)
“Although proponents of the IDM (intelligent design movement) occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses.” (page 26)
“Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper.” (page 30)
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, 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. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.” (page 64)
Analysis: Defining the Arguments
The pro-evolution side in this case is arguing that evolution is tested, verifiable science, while intelligent design (ID) is not, and fails to meet the verifiable standards set by science. The pro-ID side is arguing that ID is not a religious theory, but is instead a valid, verifiable scientific theory that should be taught in religious classrooms.
Primarily, religious studies are not allowed to be presented in education unless the setting is one of the instruction of religious studies, and in that case, the instruction can not favor one religion over another in order to avoid accusations of favoritism or endorsement.
To the pro-evolution side, criticism of ID is simply arguing that it is untestable, and thus cannot be science, and that its history is intractable from that of creation science and previous efforts to introduce creation science into the classroom. The pro-ID side argues that ID is simply an alternate theory to what they believe are insufficiencies regarding the theory of evolution, and that all religious criticisms are essentially smoke and mirrors by evolutionists.
In presenting the evidence, the ACLU primarily focused on both scientific arguments in favor of evolution, using scientists as expert witnesses, and on the religious nature and history of the intelligent design movement. Their efforts on the scientific front were to support evolution as a well-supported scientific theory, and while not a theory that explains everything, fits the definition of science due to its inherent testability and possibility for failure. In contrast, they aimed to present ID as inherently untestable and infallible, both of which are incompatible with our current definition of what science "is" and "isn't." By addressing the religious angle of ID, the ACLU also sought to firmly establish ID's religious origins as nothing more than rewritten creationism.
In presenting evidence in favor of ID, the Thomas Moore Law Center provided testimony from their own expert scientists, as well as suggestions that their theory was not, in fact, religious in nature and origin. The primary crux of their argument centered on the idea that evolution does not explain everything, and when something is unexplainable, it is most likely the work of an intelligent designer. Their appeal was one of simplicity, arguing in a downstream fashion towards what the simplest and least complex answer to a complex problem might be.
Evolution is far too often analyzed and tested to be considered a black box by the scientific community, but to the ID proponents they argue that it has become a black box due to its being unassailable. In the case, the ACLU argued about the evidence that supports evolution as a theory, defined what a theory is an isn't, and stressed that the single smallest bit of information could completely upend evolutionary theory and prove it to be an invalid hypothesis. They also contended that amongst all scientific theory, evolutionary theory has been subject to more tests and published papers than any scientific theory in the history of modern science. The ID proponents argued that evolution had no answers for some things yet, and their theory filled in these missing gaps, to which the evolution proponents argued that simply being unaware of the mechanisms of action, does not necessarily suggest intelligent influence, but only that we do not know all the answers yet.
Primarily, religious studies are not allowed to be presented in education unless the setting is one of the instruction of religious studies, and in that case, the instruction can not favor one religion over another in order to avoid accusations of favoritism or endorsement.
To the pro-evolution side, criticism of ID is simply arguing that it is untestable, and thus cannot be science, and that its history is intractable from that of creation science and previous efforts to introduce creation science into the classroom. The pro-ID side argues that ID is simply an alternate theory to what they believe are insufficiencies regarding the theory of evolution, and that all religious criticisms are essentially smoke and mirrors by evolutionists.
In presenting the evidence, the ACLU primarily focused on both scientific arguments in favor of evolution, using scientists as expert witnesses, and on the religious nature and history of the intelligent design movement. Their efforts on the scientific front were to support evolution as a well-supported scientific theory, and while not a theory that explains everything, fits the definition of science due to its inherent testability and possibility for failure. In contrast, they aimed to present ID as inherently untestable and infallible, both of which are incompatible with our current definition of what science "is" and "isn't." By addressing the religious angle of ID, the ACLU also sought to firmly establish ID's religious origins as nothing more than rewritten creationism.
In presenting evidence in favor of ID, the Thomas Moore Law Center provided testimony from their own expert scientists, as well as suggestions that their theory was not, in fact, religious in nature and origin. The primary crux of their argument centered on the idea that evolution does not explain everything, and when something is unexplainable, it is most likely the work of an intelligent designer. Their appeal was one of simplicity, arguing in a downstream fashion towards what the simplest and least complex answer to a complex problem might be.
Evolution is far too often analyzed and tested to be considered a black box by the scientific community, but to the ID proponents they argue that it has become a black box due to its being unassailable. In the case, the ACLU argued about the evidence that supports evolution as a theory, defined what a theory is an isn't, and stressed that the single smallest bit of information could completely upend evolutionary theory and prove it to be an invalid hypothesis. They also contended that amongst all scientific theory, evolutionary theory has been subject to more tests and published papers than any scientific theory in the history of modern science. The ID proponents argued that evolution had no answers for some things yet, and their theory filled in these missing gaps, to which the evolution proponents argued that simply being unaware of the mechanisms of action, does not necessarily suggest intelligent influence, but only that we do not know all the answers yet.
Controversy: Defining the Arguments
What is Intelligent Design (counter argument):
Courtesy of the ACLU: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/doverfaq.pdf
What is the concept of “intelligent design?”
Intelligent design purports to be a scientific hypothesis that “life owes its origins to a master intellect” – an intelligent, supernatural designer. In reality, it is an inherently religious argument made in opposition to the scientific theory of evolution. It is a variant of so-called “creation science,” which maintains that species originated through abrupt appearance in complex form. Like creation science, the concept of intelligent design was advanced to provide support for the religious view known as creationism, that man and other species were specially created by God and did not evolve from lower life forms.
Is intelligent design a credible scientific theory?
No. There has been no original research published in scientific journals providing evidence for intelligent design, nor does intelligent design provide testable explanations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences have both described intelligent design as scientifically unwarranted.
Courtesy of the ACLU: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/doverfaq.pdf
What is the concept of “intelligent design?”
Intelligent design purports to be a scientific hypothesis that “life owes its origins to a master intellect” – an intelligent, supernatural designer. In reality, it is an inherently religious argument made in opposition to the scientific theory of evolution. It is a variant of so-called “creation science,” which maintains that species originated through abrupt appearance in complex form. Like creation science, the concept of intelligent design was advanced to provide support for the religious view known as creationism, that man and other species were specially created by God and did not evolve from lower life forms.
Is intelligent design a credible scientific theory?
No. There has been no original research published in scientific journals providing evidence for intelligent design, nor does intelligent design provide testable explanations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences have both described intelligent design as scientifically unwarranted.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Controversy: Defining the Arguments
What is Intelligent Design? (Pro Argument):
Courtesy of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php)
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Courtesy of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php)
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Controversy: Legal History of Arguments
Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism:
Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education: (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism)
1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
9. In January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks. The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record. On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.
10. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind". In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)
Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education: (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism)
1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
9. In January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks. The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record. On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.
10. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind". In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)
Controversy: Defining the Arguments
What is the legal reasoning behind the teaching of evolution in schools?
Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education: (http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/cans-cants-teaching-evolution)
Legal decisions concerning creationism and evolution rely upon the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In part, it states, "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion, or inhibiting the free exercise thereof." The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses taken together require that public institutions be religiously-neutral: schools can neither promote nor inhibit religious expression. So it is perfectly legal for a teacher to teach about religion, although it has to be in a nondevotional context. One can describe a religion, or religious views, but it is not constitutional to say, "Buddha was right!" Similarly, one can discuss controversies involving religion, but it would not be proper to take sides (such as "the Pilgrims were right to burn witches because witches are evil.") Let's look at what a teacher can't do.
A state/district/school CAN'T ban the teaching of evolution.
The 1968 Supreme Court decision, Epperson v Arkansas, struck down antievolution laws such as that under which John T. Scopes was tried in 1925 in Tennessee. Noting that antievolution laws were passed because they offended certain religious views, the court wrote
…the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma … the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.
Some antievolutionists claim that evolution is a religion, and that its teaching is therefore unconstitutional. Alas for this view, the courts have been quite clear that evolution is science, and therefore to teach it does not violate the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v Capistrano, 1994):
The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.
A state/district/school CAN'T require equal time for creationism or creation science. Creation "science" is the view that a literal interpretation of Genesis special creation of all things at one time, about 10,000 years ago can scientifically be supported. Rejected by both scientists and teachers, creation science also has been rejected by the courts. In the 1982 District Court McLean v Arkansas case, the judge wrote that creation scientists:
… cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
Creation science should not be taught, because our students deserve better than to be taught bad science. But bad science is not unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court in 1987 (Epperson v Arkansas) struck down laws that would require "equal time" for evolution and creation science by noting that even if the word "science" was used, creation science really was religion in disguise, and therefore it is illegal to teach it.
An act impermissibly endorses religion when it advances the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history of the Arkansas Creationism Act demonstrates that the term "creation science" as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious belief.
… Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education: (http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/cans-cants-teaching-evolution)
Legal decisions concerning creationism and evolution rely upon the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In part, it states, "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion, or inhibiting the free exercise thereof." The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses taken together require that public institutions be religiously-neutral: schools can neither promote nor inhibit religious expression. So it is perfectly legal for a teacher to teach about religion, although it has to be in a nondevotional context. One can describe a religion, or religious views, but it is not constitutional to say, "Buddha was right!" Similarly, one can discuss controversies involving religion, but it would not be proper to take sides (such as "the Pilgrims were right to burn witches because witches are evil.") Let's look at what a teacher can't do.
A state/district/school CAN'T ban the teaching of evolution.
The 1968 Supreme Court decision, Epperson v Arkansas, struck down antievolution laws such as that under which John T. Scopes was tried in 1925 in Tennessee. Noting that antievolution laws were passed because they offended certain religious views, the court wrote
…the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma … the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.
Some antievolutionists claim that evolution is a religion, and that its teaching is therefore unconstitutional. Alas for this view, the courts have been quite clear that evolution is science, and therefore to teach it does not violate the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v Capistrano, 1994):
The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.
A state/district/school CAN'T require equal time for creationism or creation science. Creation "science" is the view that a literal interpretation of Genesis special creation of all things at one time, about 10,000 years ago can scientifically be supported. Rejected by both scientists and teachers, creation science also has been rejected by the courts. In the 1982 District Court McLean v Arkansas case, the judge wrote that creation scientists:
… cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
Creation science should not be taught, because our students deserve better than to be taught bad science. But bad science is not unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court in 1987 (Epperson v Arkansas) struck down laws that would require "equal time" for evolution and creation science by noting that even if the word "science" was used, creation science really was religion in disguise, and therefore it is illegal to teach it.
An act impermissibly endorses religion when it advances the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history of the Arkansas Creationism Act demonstrates that the term "creation science" as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious belief.
… Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Controversy: Defining the Arguments
What is evolution and creationism: The National Center for Science Education Speaks:
Courtesy of http://ncseweb.org/evolution:
What is Evolution?
In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields.
The National Center for Science Education is the only national organization devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. This mission is vital because of evolution's central importance to the conceptual foundations of the modern biomedical, life, and earth sciences.
Why teach Evolution?
Evolution is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of all biological disciplines. Therefore, students will not be fully educated unless they learn about evolution. Evolution is included in national science standards and most state science standards.
Courtesy of http://ncseweb.org/evolution:
What is Evolution?
In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields.
The National Center for Science Education is the only national organization devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. This mission is vital because of evolution's central importance to the conceptual foundations of the modern biomedical, life, and earth sciences.
Why teach Evolution?
Evolution is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of all biological disciplines. Therefore, students will not be fully educated unless they learn about evolution. Evolution is included in national science standards and most state science standards.
Analysis: The Players
We have stated the major players in this conflict. To be honest, there are several more players, such as the other plaintiffs involved, the various members of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board who had their own reasons for introducing intelligent design into the classroom, and the various and well-credentialed experts for both the plaintiffs and the defendants, but for the sake of brevity, I must exclude them from this project. If one is interested, there are a large variety of books and other media regarding the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that does a far better job illustrating the varying academic and emotional investments of the involved characters than this project could manage. (My personal favorite of which is The Devil in Dover by the mentioned Lauri Lebo.)
The central figures in the debate are the two sides, the plaintiffs (the titular Kitzmiller and the other concerned parents) and the defendants (the Dover school district). Supporting the plaintiffs is practically the entire field of established, academic science, augmented and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, who sees the court case as an encroachment of religious instruction into public education. Supporting the defendants are the Discovery Institute, whose sole purpose is to introduce the "controversy" surrounding evolutionary theory in the form of intelligent design instruction, and the Thomas Moore Law Center who's stated mission is to be the "Sword and Shield" for people of faith, which by their own admission on their website, is what they believe to be the conservative and religious counterpoint to the ACLU.
This case will be judged by Judge John E. Jones III, a federal judge, appointed by the first President Bush, a Republican, and an avid churchgoer. Initially believed by both the Discovery Institute and the Thomas Moore Law Center as a sympathetic trump card in their legal hand due to his religious and conservative credentials, Judge Jones would provide a surprising conclusion to the case by providing a judgment that would find rather decisively for the plaintiffs. Surrounding the case is a media firestorm, eager to view what is widely considered as the second coming of the Scopes Monkey Trial, in which evolution is again argued before the court. Lauri Lebo is the local reporter covering the case, and her examinations of both the evidence and of the cultural situation surrounding the case provide an analysis that is outside that of the legal and scientific arguments. She represents the uninformed, yet open minded individual to whom the scientific arguments are meant to convince of evolution's strength or weakness.
The central figures in the debate are the two sides, the plaintiffs (the titular Kitzmiller and the other concerned parents) and the defendants (the Dover school district). Supporting the plaintiffs is practically the entire field of established, academic science, augmented and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, who sees the court case as an encroachment of religious instruction into public education. Supporting the defendants are the Discovery Institute, whose sole purpose is to introduce the "controversy" surrounding evolutionary theory in the form of intelligent design instruction, and the Thomas Moore Law Center who's stated mission is to be the "Sword and Shield" for people of faith, which by their own admission on their website, is what they believe to be the conservative and religious counterpoint to the ACLU.
This case will be judged by Judge John E. Jones III, a federal judge, appointed by the first President Bush, a Republican, and an avid churchgoer. Initially believed by both the Discovery Institute and the Thomas Moore Law Center as a sympathetic trump card in their legal hand due to his religious and conservative credentials, Judge Jones would provide a surprising conclusion to the case by providing a judgment that would find rather decisively for the plaintiffs. Surrounding the case is a media firestorm, eager to view what is widely considered as the second coming of the Scopes Monkey Trial, in which evolution is again argued before the court. Lauri Lebo is the local reporter covering the case, and her examinations of both the evidence and of the cultural situation surrounding the case provide an analysis that is outside that of the legal and scientific arguments. She represents the uninformed, yet open minded individual to whom the scientific arguments are meant to convince of evolution's strength or weakness.
Controversy: The Players:
Tammy Kitzmiller:
The named Kitzmiller in Kitzmiller v. Dover, she is one of eleven parents who filed suit against the Dover Area School District challenging the constitutional validity to the introduction of the following statement into the science curriculum:
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."
The named Kitzmiller in Kitzmiller v. Dover, she is one of eleven parents who filed suit against the Dover Area School District challenging the constitutional validity to the introduction of the following statement into the science curriculum:
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."
Controversy: The Players:
Lauri Lebo:
The principal local reporter covering Kitzmiller v. Dover for the York Daily Record. She later wrote a book about the experience and the impact upon the community titled The Devil in Dover.
From Lebo’s blog: (http://americanfalloutreviews.blogspot.com/)
Lauri Lebo spent many years as a newspaper reporter adhering to the rule of journalistic objectivity and, therefore, holding no opinions on anything. A year ago, she left newspaper reporting to complete her first book, The Devil in Dover, which will be released in May. Published by The New Press, it is an account of Kitzmiller v. Dover, the landmark First Amendment battle over intelligent design. Now that she has opinions, Lebo spends a lot of time mulling over the sorry state of country music and seeking out small rays of hope. She also remains firmly convinced that if Johnny Cash were here today, he'd straighten up the mess we're in.
The principal local reporter covering Kitzmiller v. Dover for the York Daily Record. She later wrote a book about the experience and the impact upon the community titled The Devil in Dover.
From Lebo’s blog: (http://americanfalloutreviews.blogspot.com/)
Lauri Lebo spent many years as a newspaper reporter adhering to the rule of journalistic objectivity and, therefore, holding no opinions on anything. A year ago, she left newspaper reporting to complete her first book, The Devil in Dover, which will be released in May. Published by The New Press, it is an account of Kitzmiller v. Dover, the landmark First Amendment battle over intelligent design. Now that she has opinions, Lebo spends a lot of time mulling over the sorry state of country music and seeking out small rays of hope. She also remains firmly convinced that if Johnny Cash were here today, he'd straighten up the mess we're in.
Controversy: The Players:
The Discovery Institute: Website
The primary group advocating for intelligent design curriculum to be introduced into science classes, they provided material support for the Dover, Pennsylvania school board in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, as well as being the primary force behind the school board’s initial decision to challenge evolution.
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.
Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.
The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.
The primary group advocating for intelligent design curriculum to be introduced into science classes, they provided material support for the Dover, Pennsylvania school board in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, as well as being the primary force behind the school board’s initial decision to challenge evolution.
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.
Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.
The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.
Controversy: The Players:
Thomas Moore Law Center: Website
The Thomas Moore Law Center provided legal representation for the Dover, Pennsylvania school board in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
From the website: The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square. We achieve this goal principally through litigation, seeking out significant cases, consistent with our mission, where our expertise can be of service to others. We also defend and promote faith and family through media and educational efforts. Above all, the lawyers of the Thomas More Center seek to meet the highest moral and ethical standards of our Christian faith and our legal profession.
Our ministry was inspired by the recognition that the issues of the cultural war being waged across America, issues such as abortion, pornography, school prayer, and the removal of the Ten Commandments from municipal and school buildings, are not being decided by elected legislatures, but by the courts.
These court decisions, largely insulated from the democratic process, have been inordinately influenced by legal advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which seek to systematically subvert the religious and moral foundations of our nation.
The Thomas Moore Law Center provided legal representation for the Dover, Pennsylvania school board in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
From the website: The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square. We achieve this goal principally through litigation, seeking out significant cases, consistent with our mission, where our expertise can be of service to others. We also defend and promote faith and family through media and educational efforts. Above all, the lawyers of the Thomas More Center seek to meet the highest moral and ethical standards of our Christian faith and our legal profession.
Our ministry was inspired by the recognition that the issues of the cultural war being waged across America, issues such as abortion, pornography, school prayer, and the removal of the Ten Commandments from municipal and school buildings, are not being decided by elected legislatures, but by the courts.
These court decisions, largely insulated from the democratic process, have been inordinately influenced by legal advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which seek to systematically subvert the religious and moral foundations of our nation.
Controversy: The Players:
Judge John E. Jones III: Time Magazine Article
The presiding judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
From Time Magazine, Sunday, April 30, 2006:
Judge John Jones must have seemed like the answer to creationists' prayers: a Bush-appointed Republican federal judge, and a Lutheran to boot, chosen by lot to decide whether school-board guidance on the teaching of intelligent design to public schools in Dover, Pa., breached the First Amendment separation of church and state. When Jones delivered his judgment in December, however, he proved to be the answer to Darwinians' prayers instead.
In a rebuke to the proponents of intelligent design, Jones called the phrase "a mere relabeling of creationism," intended to get around the 1987 judicial ban on teaching creationism as science in public schools, and a "breathtaking inanity" that fails the test as science. He castigated its proponents and said Dover's students, parents and teachers "deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom."
Intelligent design was indeed a euphemism specially intended to get around judges. But it didn't get past Jones, 50, the grandson of a golf-course developer of Welsh ancestry, whose previous claims to fame were a failed attempt to privatize Pennsylvania's state liquor stores as chairman of the Liquor Control Board—and banning Bad Frog Beer on the grounds that its label was obscene. He now finds himself an unlikely hero for scientists, many of whom credit his decision with taking some steam out of the intelligent-design movement.
Had Jones been a Democrat or an atheist, his judgment might have had less impact. He displayed not only a quick wit in the courtroom but also an easy grasp of complex arguments about such things as the molecular motor that drives the bacterial flagellum—which the creationists believe has "irreducible complexity" and therefore could not have been designed except by a designer. Perhaps now, after Jones, people will accept that if they want to teach children about God, they should do so in church, not in science classes.
The presiding judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
From Time Magazine, Sunday, April 30, 2006:
Judge John Jones must have seemed like the answer to creationists' prayers: a Bush-appointed Republican federal judge, and a Lutheran to boot, chosen by lot to decide whether school-board guidance on the teaching of intelligent design to public schools in Dover, Pa., breached the First Amendment separation of church and state. When Jones delivered his judgment in December, however, he proved to be the answer to Darwinians' prayers instead.
In a rebuke to the proponents of intelligent design, Jones called the phrase "a mere relabeling of creationism," intended to get around the 1987 judicial ban on teaching creationism as science in public schools, and a "breathtaking inanity" that fails the test as science. He castigated its proponents and said Dover's students, parents and teachers "deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom."
Intelligent design was indeed a euphemism specially intended to get around judges. But it didn't get past Jones, 50, the grandson of a golf-course developer of Welsh ancestry, whose previous claims to fame were a failed attempt to privatize Pennsylvania's state liquor stores as chairman of the Liquor Control Board—and banning Bad Frog Beer on the grounds that its label was obscene. He now finds himself an unlikely hero for scientists, many of whom credit his decision with taking some steam out of the intelligent-design movement.
Had Jones been a Democrat or an atheist, his judgment might have had less impact. He displayed not only a quick wit in the courtroom but also an easy grasp of complex arguments about such things as the molecular motor that drives the bacterial flagellum—which the creationists believe has "irreducible complexity" and therefore could not have been designed except by a designer. Perhaps now, after Jones, people will accept that if they want to teach children about God, they should do so in church, not in science classes.
Controversy: The Players:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania: http://www.aclupa.org/
The primary group offering support to the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.
The lawsuit was brought by the parents who objected to the decision by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania to promote the teaching of intelligent design in their children's public school science classes.
Intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method, is a belief that asserts that a supernatural entity designed some complex organisms. Witnesses have demonstrated that such an assertion is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science.
As a longtime defender of religious liberty, the ACLU is leading the legal challenge against the activists and political lobbyists who are attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education, as if it were science
The primary group offering support to the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.
The lawsuit was brought by the parents who objected to the decision by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania to promote the teaching of intelligent design in their children's public school science classes.
Intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method, is a belief that asserts that a supernatural entity designed some complex organisms. Witnesses have demonstrated that such an assertion is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science.
As a longtime defender of religious liberty, the ACLU is leading the legal challenge against the activists and political lobbyists who are attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education, as if it were science
Controversy: The Players:
The National Center for Science Education: http://ncseweb.org/
A major backer for science education.
The National Center for Science Education, founded in 1981, engages in a number of activities advancing two primary goals: improving and supporting education in evolution and the nature of science, and increasing public understanding of these subjects. This work is supported primarily by membership contributions, with some additional assistance from grants.
NCSE provides information and guidance to citizens faced with local creationist challenges:
• Expert testimony for school board hearings
• Advice on how to organize, including referrals to others who have faced similar problems
• Information (including article reprints) on evolution, "creation science", and the evolution/creation controversy
A major backer for science education.
The National Center for Science Education, founded in 1981, engages in a number of activities advancing two primary goals: improving and supporting education in evolution and the nature of science, and increasing public understanding of these subjects. This work is supported primarily by membership contributions, with some additional assistance from grants.
NCSE provides information and guidance to citizens faced with local creationist challenges:
• Expert testimony for school board hearings
• Advice on how to organize, including referrals to others who have faced similar problems
• Information (including article reprints) on evolution, "creation science", and the evolution/creation controversy
Tracking the Controversy: Kitzmiller v. Dover
A summary of the court case from the ACLU of Pennsylvania:
“In December 2004, the ACLU-PA sued the Dover Area School District on behalf of eleven parents who objected to the recent policy that required the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative to evolution. We allege that intelligent design is stealth creationism and, therefore, teaching a religious doctrine in science class violates the Establishment Clause.
The six-week trial concluded on November 4, 2005. On December 20, 2006, Judge John E. Jones II issued a blistering 139-page opinion in which he found intelligent design to be a religious view and not a scientific theory.” (ACLU Link)
This is a large and complex court case regarding several players, both for and against Intelligent Design, for and against the traditional definition of what science “is” and “isn’t,” and the relevant media types (journalists, bloggers, commentators, etc.) who offered up their own interpretation of events. The goal of this project is to track this controversy and attempt to answer several questions as laid out in the controversy project goal (listed on SCI 361U course website), including what are the central concerns of the dispute, what is black-boxed, where is this dispute taking place, what is its history, what part involves the experts, and what part involves the public?
“In December 2004, the ACLU-PA sued the Dover Area School District on behalf of eleven parents who objected to the recent policy that required the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative to evolution. We allege that intelligent design is stealth creationism and, therefore, teaching a religious doctrine in science class violates the Establishment Clause.
The six-week trial concluded on November 4, 2005. On December 20, 2006, Judge John E. Jones II issued a blistering 139-page opinion in which he found intelligent design to be a religious view and not a scientific theory.” (ACLU Link)
This is a large and complex court case regarding several players, both for and against Intelligent Design, for and against the traditional definition of what science “is” and “isn’t,” and the relevant media types (journalists, bloggers, commentators, etc.) who offered up their own interpretation of events. The goal of this project is to track this controversy and attempt to answer several questions as laid out in the controversy project goal (listed on SCI 361U course website), including what are the central concerns of the dispute, what is black-boxed, where is this dispute taking place, what is its history, what part involves the experts, and what part involves the public?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)