[snarks_when_bored]

Just a quick take...

[Right Wing Professor]

This is about as comprehensive a defeat for ID as one could have wished for. The decision clearly states you can't separate ID from its creationist antecedents; and that material critical of evolution, when entered with the purpose of furthering ID, is in itself impermissible.

This is a 70-zip blowout.

[snarks_when_bored]

Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP Education Writer 11 minutes ago

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

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

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "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."

The board's attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

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

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

Jones said advocates of intelligent design "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors" and that he didn't believe the concept shouldn't be studied and discussed.

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," he wrote.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The controversy also divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. They were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

___

Martha Raffaele covers education for The Associated Press in Harrisburg.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

Emphasis mine. On to Kansas!

[narby]

Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes.

Good.

[thejokker]

radical extremists lose, scientists win...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

A funny blog on Behe is here.

CAUTION: adult language.

[Rockingham]

This ought not to have been unexpected. The faith based challenge to the teaching of evolution has been misconceived. The target ought to be not evolution as properly understood as a scientific doctrine of limited application beyond its purview, but: (1) the outlandish claims often made that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God and the core tenets of Christianity; and (2) the often extreme, de facto culture of philosophical materialism and amorality that is now embedded in the public schools.

Here's the beginning of a solution that the ACLU and the public schools would hate but be hard put to dispute. Require that every public school regularly and expressly warn their students and parents: "Current federal court rulings mean that we cannot teach religion or matters of faith and morals. Students, ask your parents and follow their teachings. Parents, teach your students about faith and morals." Post that in every student and parent handbook, in every textbook, and in every classroom. And, in the biology texts, put in a similar warning that evolution should not be taken as refuting religious faith.

If nothing else, that would shift the terms of debate to a fight that we can win. Hope for victory in the culture wars requires that we pick fights that we can and do win in the short term even as we aim at the larger cultural reformation that goes against current trends. Eventually, we are going to have to seek either to have a voucher system and no publicly owned and run schools so that kids can have religion taught in schools, which current law would allow, or have the Supreme Court revise its precedents to allow nondenominational prayer and release time denominational instruction in the schools.

[DBeers]

The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.

Well judge I agree -this is a false premise; however, the case was brought forward based upon reality and should be judged upon by reality -rejecting the false premise does nothing to allow the true premise to be heard each and every time evolution is taught religiously rather than scientifically.

[shuckmaster]

This is fantastic news! It's great to see a Bush appointed judge make the correct decision to keep whack-o's from forcibly inserting silly superstitions and charlatan hoaxes into science class over the common wisdom of the science teachers. hooray!!!

[mrsmith]

The establishment cheered when Aristotle's theories were protected from "denigration" by the authorities too.

It's bizarre that the 14th Amendment overturned the First Amendment. Now we have federal Inquisitions that decide what can be spoken of in schools.

If God exercised as much power as a federal judge with the 14th Amendment we'd have no free will at all. Being wise He doesn't.

[ml1954]

From http://www.wral.com/education/5586914/detail.html

Said the judge: "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.

[SteveSpeaking]

Well, I wonder how it would have gone if the referendum were rephrased as "Allah may have created the world."?

[HairOfTheDog]

I simply do not understand why both sides of the debate seem to want to rob kids of this very interesting discussion! Look at all the posts these threads always generate, it's an interesting subject! Let teachers lead classroom discussion of these ideas.

This was very easily handled in every high school science class I ever had in public school by my teachers: "Here's the theory of evolution... Some people think natural selection guides these changes, some people think God does... What do you think? Discuss!"

[Clemenza]

A clear violation of the establishment cause has been prevented.

Keep mythology and religion out of the hard sciences. Its bad enough that we have the watermelons on the left pushing "Global Warming."

As for you members of the Boobouisie who think that this was a case of "judicial tyranny," let me just remind you that this judge did you all a favor. The existence of a "creator" just doesn't stand up under the scientific method.

[tallhappy]

The news is ACLU wins.

Really has nothing to do with evolution. creationism, science, religion etc...

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

From the Discovery Institute:

Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education

SEATTLE — "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 design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”

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.

"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."

Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the word.

Link

[Getready]

It should be noted that the judge said that the theory of
evolution was imperfect. Why this imperfect theory has
become the bedrock of all of biological/geological/physical
theory is strange. No?
I was taught the theory of evolution is true. It was when
I saw principles of evolution being used to explain one
phenomena, and then downplayed when another phenomena
couldn't be explained that I saw that there was selective
explanations, and there was no "unifying" or standard
reason.
Big example.
I was told that organism developed meiosis because by the
mixing of their genes they had a better chance of survival.
Yet, the most successful organism (and longest lived) uses
mitosis(i.e. bacteria) generally during reproduction.
What is the driving force that would force a simple(well, not
really simple) reproductive system to become a much more
complex, cumbersome, energy sucking system? It is shown that
meiosis is NOT needed for survival and transmission of
DNA. So in one case, meiosis is needed to ensure survival,
but in the bacterial case, well it's not needed, cause
it survives perfectly well without it. Huh?
What weather system,
toxin, predator, chemical environment, etc.has been known to
permanently alter the reproductive system of any organism
in a way that makes it more complicated macromolecularly and
biochemical in its operation? If nothing can be found,
then what is driving these change? If "randomness" is
invoked, I would say the workings of science is to explain
"randomness" not use it as a crutch.

[Raycpa]

Job 38
The LORD Speaks
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

[Jo Nuvark]

Explaining God, is like having to point out the Sun.
He IS and always will be! A ruling by an arrogant
judge cannot change the fact that God IS! The Great
I AM will not be mocked!

[UWconservative]

Excellent. The judge makes a good point in his opinion:

"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."

ID is by nature untestable, so it can never be taught as science.

Conservatives would do well to distance themselves from this crowd, as they're looking more and more like the tinfoil hat crowd every day.