[I.D. is necessarily a religious belief because a supernatural agent is its central tenet, and therefore it should not be given weight as a scientific theory and should not be taught in science class in a public school.]
But I'm all for teaching it in a political science classroom or in a social studies classroom or in a journalism class.
That would at least be useful and perhaps even intellectually honest.
First, the statute [or state action] must have a secular legislative purpose;With that legal background, you can see what all the testimony was about, and how the defense is seeking to show that Lemon doesn't apply to what the school board did.second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
The third paragraph of the closing argument gets right to it:
I am confident that upon a full deliberation and reflection on the evidence of record, not rhetoric, that, as I said at the beginning of these proceedings, you will find that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the predominant purpose or primary effect of the curriculum change which was approved by the Dover Area School District on October 18, 2004, is to advance religion.This is specifically addressed at the first prong of the Lemon test. If the plaintiffs proved this point, they win.
Next paragraph:
Quite the contrary, the evidence of record demonstrates that the curriculum change at issue here had, as its primary purpose and has as its primary effect, science education. It is true that it attracts attention to a new and fledgeling science movement. But look at Steve Fuller. See it through his eyes. See it through the eyes of history and watch how he can see what may be the next great paradigm shift in science ...That's the school board's argument in order to avoid flunking the Lemon test.
Moving down a dozen or more paragraphs (and I'm inserting some stuff in brackets, to clarify what I think the attorney is getting at):
More importantly, neither Bonsell nor the board can be penalized for [having an] interest [in religion] because the law prescribes improper purpose, not interest. Bonsell had an interest in creationism, but the evidence shows he never took any action to require the teaching of creationism in Dover.Again, they're arguing that the actions of the school board slip through the Lemon test. My last excerpt from the argument is a few dozen paragraphs further on, and it's aimed at the next prong of the Lemon test:Quite the contrary, the net result of the curriculum policy challenged in this litigation has been to absolutely prohibit the teaching of creationism. Indeed, the record shows that interest and action are two very different things, and it's an important distinction, Your Honor.
The real purpose at issue here is the purpose that underlies the four-paragraph statement that mentions intelligent design twice, that does not even describe the hypothesis advanced by intelligent design theorists, but simply informs students that it's an explanation for the origins of life different from evolutionary theory and tells students that there are books on the subject in the library.And so it goes. It's all about Lemon.This modest result, so far removed from what various board members contemplated at different times, shows that the plaintiffs have failed to prove, as they must prove to prevail, that the actual primary purpose of the actual policy at issue here is a religious purpose.
The evidence has also demonstrated that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the primary effect of the curriculum change is to advance religion. As an initial matter, the primary effect of a curriculum policy is the effect it has on instruction in the class.