Posted on 12/18/2005 6:55:53 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
Driving home one day last December from the courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa., Judge John E. Jones III tuned in to a radio news report about 11 parents in the nearby town of Dover who had filed a lawsuit challenging their school board's decision to include intelligent design in the high school biology curriculum.
"It piqued my curiosity," the judge said. Not only was the suit likely to be the nation's first full hearing on the legal merits of teaching intelligent design, but it also had been filed in the federal court in Pennsylvania where he was serving.
"Any judge will tell you that they welcome the opportunity to have important cases on their dockets," he said in an interview. "That's why they take these jobs."
Judge Jones presided over the six-week trial with discipline, decorum and a quick wit that produced eruptions of laughter....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, but didn't you think that this case will hinge on the Lemon test? If so, it will be interesting to see haow he applies the Lemon test. While Jones cannot completely ignore the Lemon test, it will be interesting to see how he applies it; especially when he asked the parties to take into consideration a recent USSC decision.
I think the judge will rule very narrowly in favor of the defendants, but there won't be any leeway for actually teaching ID in the classroom. I don't see where the plaintiffs had much to gain as a practical matter once the school board modified their 'statement'. on the other hand, the ID folks will consider it quite a psychologial victory if all they win is the ability to make a simple statement that the TOE is controversial and there are other possible explanations for life.
Are we there yet?
Patience, grasshopper ...
A number of the pro-evolutionists on the Dover trial threads agreed that evolution is not a 'fact'; so what is the problem?
Even Miller, the star witness for the prosecution, admitted that evolution is not a 'fact'.
You're distorting.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. We can see and study examples of populations evolving. Environmental pressures shape some traits in a population to become dominant - those that are more suited to that environment. That's the fact.
The Theory of Evolution is not a "fact" because that's not what theories are. But if you intend to imply that the ToE is somehow suspect, shaky or unsupported, you're dead wrong.
Theories have supporting evidence to back them up. That's what theories are.
Youy obviously did not read the trial transcripts.
You are parsing the definition of 'fact' in claiming evolution is a fact.
Connectthedots conveniently ignores the "fact" that the scientifically literate ID supporters accept common descent. Even among FReepers, if you pin them down.
They will disagree with the cause (the theory) of evolution, but accept the fact of common descent.
The article says one of the clerks hinted that the ruling is very long.
Sounds like he's coming up with some kind of split decision.
I'm betting he frames it similarly to a "nativity creche" or a "ten commandments" ruling.
As long as the controversy is packaged with other controversies surrounding it, then it will be OK.
Just a guess, of course.
In my dictionary we call that "trolling".
Its just titillation...no real news here...just titillation.
That or he knows whatever decision he makes will be widely read and critiqued and will be subjected to appellate review, so he must ensure that his legal reasoning is flawless. He doesn't want to be overturned on appeal, and this case is screaming out for certiorari.
I believe the decision has just been entered. My understanding is that it is against the defendants, but I have no details yet.
Connectthedots conveniently ignores the "fact" that the scientifically literate ID supporters accept common descent. Even among FReepers, if you pin them down.
They will disagree with the cause (the theory) of evolution, but accept the fact of common descent.
Care to comment on this, connectthedots? He's right -nobody at the trial questioned whether evolution actually happened.
I doubt it. It makes no sense to conclude: "Golly, ID is great science, but the school board had religious motives ..." and it similarly makes no sense to do the opposite: "ID is horrible science, pure creationism, but the school board's motives were pure ..."
It's not possible to split this one, or so it seems to me. The only question is whether he'll decide on school board motives (the narrowest and weakest way to go) or whether he'll conclude that ID is religion, and therefore ...
But it's silly to make predictions when we're this close to knowing.
The decision in the Dover intelligent design trial was just announced, and we won! We have not had a chance to read the 139 page opinion, but it seems Judge Jones was quite critical of the Dover school board.
More analysis will be available later in the day on Speaking Freely, the ACLU of PA's interactive blog site.
We won!
Judge John E. Jones, III, has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District.
Hmm, where to start?
Maybe with the place where Judge Jones concludes that Dover's "ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause" and that
"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." Or...with his statement that intelligent design is not science "and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Or, perhaps, with the stinging statement that "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."
(my comment) The enjoinder "not to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution" is about as broad as one could wish, and it sure covers the Kansas policy.
Early indications are this is a massive defeat for ID.
And one more personal note;
Too bad.
It'll be back, though. It was a poor presentation of the case, imho, throughout.
The MSM was solidly opposed to openness and ran a stellar disinformation campaign throughout.
Indeed, the decision may be appealed - or a new case may begin. I agree that the press weighed in inappropriately and that the defense was poorly argued, but that may have been the consequence of the facts of the case - that there was an alternative book offered. The Discovery Institute itself has only suggested that the controversy be taught, not alternative theories - that puts it in a different ballpark.
The decision is linked at post 90 and 92.
No one has ever prevented teachers from mentioning the fact that all of science is the current best explanation of evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.