Dover Penn ID trial

[Freethinker]

It's local. It can't be cited as precedent elsewhere unless it is from a higher court in local cases. It is also unlikely to be appealed...

I presume that only the original defendant can appeal. Any procedural method to have this affirmed by a higher court without the cooperation of the now-rational Dover school board?

 

[CFLarsen]

I must visit their site more often.

This is the kind of entertainment that simply cannot be purchased.

 

[delphi_ote]

Is 'cannot be mentioned' or 'will not be forced', i.e. is it completely banned from discussion or can it be 'mentioned' voluntarily?

At issue was the schoolboard's policy, not a specific teacher's actions. This ruling states clearly that ID is not allowed to be a part of the science curriculum.

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

If an individual teacher takes it upon his or her self to bring ID into the classroom, they'll be going against school policy and teaching something controversial well outside the science curriculum. I don't think that would bode well for their career.

 

[Nucular]

... a victory for all thinking folk. Are we witnessing a slow passage from out of the dark ages into some kind of dimly lit foyer?

Not with an irritating post like this one.

 

[canadarocks]

First opinion from the Discovery Institute

There is a reply on the Discovery Institute web-page now. I love this stuff!

 

[Spidey13]

From the Philadelphia Inquirer.

the judge, a Republican appointed to the bench by President Bush

I was not aware of this. This just makes it so much sweeter.

 

[Diamond]

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
Kansas Board of Education Chairman Steve Abrams, who supported that state's new standards, said the circumstances in Kansas and Pennsylvania are much different, given that the Dover board mandated intelligent design in its curriculum.
"We're not doing that," he said. "It's about teaching good critical thinking skills."

 

[Kell]

This just makes it so much sweeter.

It does, doesn't it?

Santa Says:


:

 

[Nucular]

the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

This stuff is great. Can we get it put on the front cover of every ID book now?

 

[Dan Beaird]

Would it be possible to have the new school board to appeal the decision up to the federal level for the sole purpose of having the results affirmed?

The decision was everything I hoped it would be and much more than I expected. I never imagined we would get a judge to make the specific ruling that ID is not science. This is going to make all those arguments with creationists so much easier...

 

[Diamond]

Page 130-132 of the judgment:

Defendants Presented No Convincing Evidence that
They were Motived by Any Valid Secular Purpose

Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board
member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular
purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.

We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are
“normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.” Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).

Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District’s science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants’ asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance
themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely
secondary to a religious objective. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2735; accord, e.g., Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (“it is . . . the duty of the courts to ‘distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one.’” (citation omitted)); Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (“While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.”). Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount
to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Wowza! The judge basically called the school board a bunch of liars and perjurers. That'll look good on the 'ol resume.

Am I the only one who wants this verdict to be appealed? After all, the order applies only to Dover, Pennsylvania and not to the rest of the State still less to the rest of the US.

 

[drkitten]

Am I the only one who wants this verdict to be appealed? After all, the order applies only to Dover, Pennsylvania and not to the rest of the State still less to the rest of the US.

Well, every dollar spent on appeals is one more dollar taken out of the mouths -- or classrooms -- of the Dover students.

The Dover students have already been messed up enough, simply by having this whole controversy erupt in their laps.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Wowza! The judge basically called the school board a bunch of liars and perjurers. That'll look good on the 'ol resume.

Especially since most of the ones responsible for the inanity are now out of office.

 

[Diamond]

more ouch

Is it me, or is it rare to see a judge rip defending arguments like this:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Perhaps we should make a collection of a barrel of Preparation H to be sent to the defendants.

Yes, I'm evil.

 

[tsg]

Okay, so in the midst of the elation that the answer was right comes the absolute despair that the question was even asked.

 

[Melendwyr]

Am I the only one who wants this verdict to be appealed? After all, the order applies only to Dover, Pennsylvania and not to the rest of the State still less to the rest of the US.

Although it's not legally binding anywhere else, I expect that any school district in Pennsylvania that wanted to institute ID is now backing away very slowly.

 

[Melendwyr]

Okay, so in the midst of the elation that the answer was right comes the absolute despair that the question was even asked.

We should never be upset that people are asking questions. We should be concerned that some people decided on the answers before they asked.

 

[Phrost]

Just chiming in with my huzzahs.

 

[KingMerv00]

Although it's not legally binding anywhere else, I expect that any school district in Pennsylvania that wanted to institute ID is now backing away very slowly.

True, the verdict isn't legally binding but it IS persuasive authority. Better than nothing.

 

[Ipecac]

From the Discovery Institute News:

"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”

“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."

In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.

"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”

"Activist judge". Ha! Judge Jones sure predicted that right.

What a bunch of bad-sport maroons.