Dover: ID is judged and found wanting

The judgment on Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District was issued this morning by Judge John E. Jones, III, and he has ruled in favor of those opposing ID in schools. Here from the conclusion of his 139 page decision. (Pages 136-138, bolded portions are my emphasis, with a few comments of my own which are un-indented.)

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.

This is one of the saddest and most repulsive aspects of this trial – Christians using deception, a smoke and mirrors game, in order to try to maneuver around the law. I am grateful that the Judge makes special note of this.

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.

Proponents of ID wasted no time in calling Judge Jones an activist judge, vilifying him and his decision.

Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

The people of Utah deserve better as well. Hopefully, Sen. Chris Buttars will rethink his legislation against evolution and drop it.

Also, I would like to comment on a couple of additional things in the above blog article by proponents of ID mentioned above.

Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.

Unfortunately, this will probably be true. So this ruling in the end only makes a good club in which to hit ID folks upside the head with.

"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."

This may also prove to be true, but ultimately will prove detrimental to Christianity, which proponents of ID won’t like. As interest in intelligent design grows, so will the evidence against it – as more and more of that irreducible complexity is reduced to something explainable. The end result unfortunately being ‘evidence’ proving that the Bible is ‘incorrect’.