The Dover, Pennsylvania 'intelligent design' case that's been in federal district court, where parents sued the school board for requiring a form of creationism to be taught as science in science classes has finally been decided after a six-week trial that was frequently in the news. After the break, below, is the LA Times article describing who won, and why.
To read the 139 pages in pdf format, go here. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-122005design_lat,0,457971,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Times Staff Writer
11:19 AM PST, December 20, 2005
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that it is unconstitutional to compel teachers there to present "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation to evolution because it amounts to establishing religion in public schools.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III wrote that the Dover, Pa. school board cannot require teachers "to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution" or "refer to a religious, alternative theory known as I.D."
Jones' ruling came in Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, the first legal challenge to teaching intelligent design, which holds that organisms are so complex and highly perfected, a designer must have created them. The designer is not identified in the theory, though some supporters believe it is God.
Kitzmiller, a parent of two Dover high school students, and 10 other individuals challenged a Dover Area School District policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design" in ninth-grade biology. The parents asserted that the district violated the First Amendment provision prohibiting establishment of religion. The case was brought jointly by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The school board asserted that it was merely attempting to present an alternative to Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory of evolution.
But Judge Jones, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that the board was trying to mask religious teaching in the guise of science. He used unusually strong language for a federal judge, going so far as to excoriate some members of the school board for lying.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause," Jones wrote.
"Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiff's scientific experts testified that 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," the judge added.
Evolutionary theory, which gained prominence in the 19th Century, is based on scientific evidence that life on Earth has evolved through a process of natural selection and random mutations, with no supernatural plan or purpose.
The theory has been vigorously opposed for years by creationists who believe that a supreme being created the universe. Some creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical Book of Genesis on how and when life began.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court barred the teaching of creationism in public schools.
"Intelligent design" emerged after that and the parents in Dover asserted that "ID" was, in reality, a thinly veiled version of creationism.
The School Board was represented by the Thomas More Institute, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Christian law firm. The parents, who challenged the school board were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Pepper Hamilton, a large Philadelphia-based law firm.
Anticipating that his decision would be attacked, Judge Jones, in an unusual move, categorically stated that the ruling was not the "product of an activist judge."
"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 judge said.
Moreover, Jones declared: "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial," which lasted six weeks.
"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 touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the policy," Jones wrote.
Judge Jones emphasized that he was not ruling that intelligent design should not be studied. He acknowledged that the theory's proponents "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."
However, he added, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University constitutional law professor, said he thought the ruling "was incredibly thorough and careful" and said it would have a major impact. "It is the first opinion about intelligent design. It thus provides a basis for any future opinion" on the issue.
In addition, Chemerinsky said that the ruling is well-grounded both in Supreme Court precedents and the particular facts of this case. He said Judge Jones "makes it clear that Intelligent Design is simply creationism under another label."
The ruling was hailed immediately by the American Humanist Association, an organization dedicated "to ensuring a voice for those with a positive nontheistic outlook, based on reason and experience, which embraces all of humanity."
Roy Speckhardt, the group's executive director, said, "today marks a resounding victory for science education. Religious concepts like intelligent design and creationism have no place in taxpayer-funded public schools," Speckhardt said.
"The AHA commends" Judge Jones "for upholding church-state separation," added AHA President Mel Lipman. "Evolution is the only scientific, nonreligious explanation for the existence and diversity of living organisms."
In October, 2004, the Dover School Board implemented a policy requiring its ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement about intelligent design before commencing lessons on evolution. The statement asserts that evolution is "not a fact" and refers students to "Of Pandas and People," an intelligent design textbook, for further information.
"Today's decision recognizes...that attempts to impose religious beliefs as an alternative 'science' cannot constitutionally be forced by law upon students and their families," said Ira Glasser, former executive director of the ACLU who is now a board member of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution.
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physics professor and director of the Center for Education and Research at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, called the ruling "sensible" and said he hoped that it would have a broad impact.
Krauss, a scientific adviser to the plaintiffs in the case, said: "It should send a message to school boards across America and to those who attempt to use them as pawns in an ideological public relations initiative that we cannot expect to close" the gap between U.S. students and those from other nations who are "consistently scoring" ahead of American youth on science examinations "if we substitute ideology for sound science in our science classrooms."
The ruling also was hailed by the People For the American Way Foundation which is a strong advocate for separation of church and state.
"Today's ruling is a momentous affirmation of the Constitution's prohibition of government endorsement of religion," said Ralph Neas, the liberal group's president.
He emphasized that the ruling "does not prohibit public school students from learning about intelligent design or other religious theories in appropriate social studies courses, such as a course in world religions."
Federal Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'
By Henry WeinsteinTimes Staff Writer
11:19 AM PST, December 20, 2005
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that it is unconstitutional to compel teachers there to present "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation to evolution because it amounts to establishing religion in public schools.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III wrote that the Dover, Pa. school board cannot require teachers "to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution" or "refer to a religious, alternative theory known as I.D."
Jones' ruling came in Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, the first legal challenge to teaching intelligent design, which holds that organisms are so complex and highly perfected, a designer must have created them. The designer is not identified in the theory, though some supporters believe it is God.
Kitzmiller, a parent of two Dover high school students, and 10 other individuals challenged a Dover Area School District policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design" in ninth-grade biology. The parents asserted that the district violated the First Amendment provision prohibiting establishment of religion. The case was brought jointly by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The school board asserted that it was merely attempting to present an alternative to Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory of evolution.
But Judge Jones, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that the board was trying to mask religious teaching in the guise of science. He used unusually strong language for a federal judge, going so far as to excoriate some members of the school board for lying.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause," Jones wrote.
"Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiff's scientific experts testified that 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," the judge added.
Evolutionary theory, which gained prominence in the 19th Century, is based on scientific evidence that life on Earth has evolved through a process of natural selection and random mutations, with no supernatural plan or purpose.
The theory has been vigorously opposed for years by creationists who believe that a supreme being created the universe. Some creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical Book of Genesis on how and when life began.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court barred the teaching of creationism in public schools.
"Intelligent design" emerged after that and the parents in Dover asserted that "ID" was, in reality, a thinly veiled version of creationism.
The School Board was represented by the Thomas More Institute, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Christian law firm. The parents, who challenged the school board were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Pepper Hamilton, a large Philadelphia-based law firm.
Anticipating that his decision would be attacked, Judge Jones, in an unusual move, categorically stated that the ruling was not the "product of an activist judge."
"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 judge said.
Moreover, Jones declared: "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial," which lasted six weeks.
"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 touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the policy," Jones wrote.
Judge Jones emphasized that he was not ruling that intelligent design should not be studied. He acknowledged that the theory's proponents "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."
However, he added, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University constitutional law professor, said he thought the ruling "was incredibly thorough and careful" and said it would have a major impact. "It is the first opinion about intelligent design. It thus provides a basis for any future opinion" on the issue.
In addition, Chemerinsky said that the ruling is well-grounded both in Supreme Court precedents and the particular facts of this case. He said Judge Jones "makes it clear that Intelligent Design is simply creationism under another label."
The ruling was hailed immediately by the American Humanist Association, an organization dedicated "to ensuring a voice for those with a positive nontheistic outlook, based on reason and experience, which embraces all of humanity."
Roy Speckhardt, the group's executive director, said, "today marks a resounding victory for science education. Religious concepts like intelligent design and creationism have no place in taxpayer-funded public schools," Speckhardt said.
"The AHA commends" Judge Jones "for upholding church-state separation," added AHA President Mel Lipman. "Evolution is the only scientific, nonreligious explanation for the existence and diversity of living organisms."
In October, 2004, the Dover School Board implemented a policy requiring its ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement about intelligent design before commencing lessons on evolution. The statement asserts that evolution is "not a fact" and refers students to "Of Pandas and People," an intelligent design textbook, for further information.
"Today's decision recognizes...that attempts to impose religious beliefs as an alternative 'science' cannot constitutionally be forced by law upon students and their families," said Ira Glasser, former executive director of the ACLU who is now a board member of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution.
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physics professor and director of the Center for Education and Research at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, called the ruling "sensible" and said he hoped that it would have a broad impact.
Krauss, a scientific adviser to the plaintiffs in the case, said: "It should send a message to school boards across America and to those who attempt to use them as pawns in an ideological public relations initiative that we cannot expect to close" the gap between U.S. students and those from other nations who are "consistently scoring" ahead of American youth on science examinations "if we substitute ideology for sound science in our science classrooms."
The ruling also was hailed by the People For the American Way Foundation which is a strong advocate for separation of church and state.
"Today's ruling is a momentous affirmation of the Constitution's prohibition of government endorsement of religion," said Ralph Neas, the liberal group's president.
He emphasized that the ruling "does not prohibit public school students from learning about intelligent design or other religious theories in appropriate social studies courses, such as a course in world religions."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times |
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help
partners:
