The conclusion of the ruling is stunning in its clarity and pointedness:
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.
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. 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.
Wow. This decision could not be any better for us if we had written it ourselves.
- Log in to post comments
You have no idea how happy I am about this. I was convinced that the judge was going to rule narrowly, but this really couldn't be better for science. By the way, given the judge's direct comments about "lies" from the creationists, does this mean we should expect perjury suits?
The best part about the ruling is that they crucified themselves with their own testimony. The best and brightest of the movement had their day in court and it was their words that swayed the judge to rule against them.
What an amazing early Christmas present!
BTW, did anyone catch the neat error on page 29:
"The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christion apologetics to promote ID"
CSRC is the Creation Science Research Center. Perhaps the court's global search-and-replace algorithm was faulty. ;)
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in ID circles now that the judge has ruled in this case that ID cannot be separated from its religion antecedents. Will they attempt some kind of appeal or a trial on a new case in a more congenial venue? Will they go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a successor to ID?
Sorry, my bad...CSRC is Center for Renewal for Science and Culture.
Too bad...an error like that would have been a great metaphor...
No, correction again! The decision does say CSRC. Ha!
Mark wrote:
Probably both. They will look for another case in another court where the school board hasn't left so many obvious clues as to its intent, and they will move on to the next phase of the PR effort. The next phase will be legislation to encourage "critical thinking" about evolution.
"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."
This is a pretty stunning remark. It does open the door some for other school districts and states to find, as you say, those that will not leave "so many obvious clues as to its intent."
Thanks for all of your efforts Ed and share that with the others. We can all feel a little "blessed" this winter solstice (12-21-05-- 1:45pm EST).
spyder wrote:
Some of the PT crew have taken to declaring it "Kitzmas" (the lead plaintiff was Kitzmiller) and telling each other "Merry Kitzmas". And a Happy Festivus as well!
I haven't read the whole decision, but traversing to the end, it appears that the court awarded the plaintiffs attorneys' fees. (See point 3 at the end) That is fairly amazing.
This sets a powerful precendent for Kansas and elsewhere. The era of ID may be ending. Waiting for Creationism 3.0.
True, but with the testimony of Behe et al in the record, they are going to have to go above and beyond that and explain their statements...it won't be easy and it may prove practically impossible.
Congratulations, Ed. You and your colleagues certainly played the legal game well, in this case. For what it's worth, I've never bought in to the ID "big tent" approach, and I am not a supporter of putting ID into the public school science classroom. A couple of thoughts, though.
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.
The judge has relied on the testimony of the plaintiff's scientific experts with regards to how the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence of a divine creator. No, wait, he said it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. Well then, it must affirm the existence of a creator, right? No, that can't be either. The judge's statement sounds amusingly like the military's tap dancing statements to the press with regards to stealth aircraft testing years ago - "We neither confirm nor deny..."
The myth of neutrality. The government cannot remain religiously neutral in faulting the ID proponents claim, that evolutionary theory is antithetical to religion, by relying on evolutionary theory proponents claims that the theory is not antithetical to religion. If evolutionary theory has something to say about religion, it is not science; if it doesn't have anything to say, indeed, if it is powerless to say anything, about religion, then there can be no rebuttal of substance to the claims it is antithetical to religion.
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. (emphasis added)
Is ID not science because it presents an untestable theory or because it is grounded in religion? Or both? Consider a scenario in which a testable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, is submitted for analysis. Is such a hypothesis, meeting the scientific requirements of testability, invalidated simply because it is grounded in religion? If so, then how is it that religion, deemed an area outside of science, invalidates a scientifically testable theory? If not, then all such arguments from religion are, ultimately, irrelevant to the issue.
Ed wrote, This decision could not be any better for us if we had written it ourselves.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Rusty Lopez
There won't be an appeal. The Dover school board who put in the ID curriculum got voted out by rational people. They won't want to appeal a decision they agree with.
Rusty, the problem with a "testable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion" like you propose is that the god you believe in is omnipotent. This means there's no real scientific way to study anything he does.
When we study agents and objects scientifically, we do so with the awareness that they are subject to a number of laws and limitations.... essentially, "laws" are nothing more than limitations. The "law" of gravity places limitations on how fast things can go, how heavy they can be - stuff like that. I don't know if you perceive your god as having no limitations at all, or merely being beyond the limitations of such mundane things as gravity, but either way, this lack of limitations makes your god impossible to study scientifically. And it also makes anything your god does impossible to study scientifically.
So, even if there were some such "religiously grounded hypothesis", it wouldn't be grounded in *your* religion. It might do the Neo-Pagans some good and provide a theoretical physics framework for magic spells or something, but your own conception of god shuts him out of the realm of science.
Rusty wrote:
I think this is a false dichotomy. Just because the theory of evolution doesn't deny the existence of God doesn't mean it confirms the existence of God; those aren't the only two alternatives. A silly example proves my point: does playdoh deny the existence of God? Of course not, the one has nothing to do with the other. Does it therefore affirm the existence of God? Again, of course not, and for the same reason.
I don't think so. The argument is not merely that ID is motivated by religion, but that it is an inherently religious idea. It is inherently religious because the causal mechanism it invokes is supernatural. That was established at trial beyond all reasonable doubt, contrary to the frankly absurd arguments by ID advocates that the "designer" could just as well be a natural designer (their own words clearly contradict that many times over). The invocation of a supernatural cause has two principal effects - it makes the hypothesis entirely untestable, and it assigns the hypothesis to the sphere of religion rather than science, largely for the very reason that it renders it untestable. Both can be true at the same time.
Having now read the opinion, it really is the creationists' worst nightmare: a well-reasoned, comprehensive, legally correct ruling based upon a complete, unbiased factual record. TMLC had the chance to put in any evidence it could muster, which turned out to be almost nothing (or worse, outright lies, which clearly pissed the judge off). The judge covered both the endorsement and Lemon tests out of an abundance of caution -- a smart move, because it gives TMLC virtually no room to maneuver.
I've seen some talk about this just being a district court decision having no precedential force. Strictly speaking, that is true. But this decision is so thorough, so painstaking, and so comprehensive, that it will serve as a roadmap for future cases. As a practical matter, to the extent that any future district court chooses to follow it, this decision is a fatal to ID.
So if I'm the plaintiffs and their lawyers, I don't want this case going up on appeal. From what I've seen, the new School Board doesn't want to appeal, either. This raises an interesting question with regard to fees and costs. I've seen reports that the plaintiffs' fees and costs exceed $1 million -- clearly enough to bankrupt the School District or, at the very least, to cause it extreme financial hardship. Some of the language in the opinion -- for example, the repeated references to School Board members lying, and describing the ID policy as inane -- leads me to think that the judge may show no mercy on fees and costs. Indeed, there is language in the opinion that sounds dangerously close to bordering on justification for sanctions. If plaintiffs really try to recover the full fees and costs, the new School Board may have no choice but to pursue an appeal, even though it clearly doesn't want to do that. So as a strategic matter, if I'm representing the plaintiffs, I think I probably collect the nominal damages and call it a day.
Here's an even more interesting scenario, but one I think is extremely unlikely. Plaintiffs enter into a settlement agreement with the School Board wherein plaintiffs agree not to seek fees and costs from the School Board. In exchange, the School Board assigns its malpractice claim against TMLC to plaintiffs and the School Board and its members promise to cooperate with plaintiffs in a malpractice suit against TMLC to recover the fees and costs. Again, this scenario is most unlikely for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that the law disfavors, generally, the assignment of legal claims. And I know nothing of Pennsylvania law on this subject. Proving up a malpractice claim is always difficult and would be even more so here, where there were some bad actors on the School Board who brought all this about. In addition, of course, this tactic would enable TMLC to play the martyr card, gin up the fundraising machine, and engage in endless PR spin.
I'll be keeping an eye on the developments to see how it plays out, but I suspect we've heard the last of the substantive gasps from Dover. On to the next case.
My first reaction on hearing of the decsion was "Thank God!".
Maybe some of the citizens of Dover will sue the former school board members as individuals for misfeasance to recover some of the cost to the taxpayers from their pursuit of their inane policy.
ImagoArt - your argument is absurd.
"If it says nothing about religion, it must be antiethical to religion"?
Does this also mean that the Theory of Gravity is antiethical to the internet, since it doesn't talk about it?
Is ID not science because it presents an untestable theory or because it is grounded in religion? Or both?
Both.
Shortly stated, ID is not science because ID proponents have not presented any theory, untestable or otherwise. One fact that should be obvious is that it is impossible to test a theory that doesn't exist. And, as Kennith Miller has shown, more than a few of their proposals against evolution have been shown to be false.
If the ID proponents propose a theory and come up with evidence in support of that theory, it might be time to sit up and listen to them. To date--200 years after theologian Paley first proposed ID--they have not.
Dan at December 20, 2005 05:43 PM
According to reports, the school board is not going to appeal. But your issue of the school board assigning a possible malpractice claim against TMLC is an interesting one. I doubt that it would go anywhere from a financial standpoint (but I don't know enough about the facts leading up to the lawsuit), but it might frighten them a bit. And, if TMLC and its lawyers have any substantial assets, attachments on those assets might cause them problems.
From a political standpoint, it is probable that the plaintiffs would not want to recover costs and attorneys' fees against the school district. Considering the fact that Dover is probably a small district, that might very well cause financial hardship. On the other hand, a "joint and severable" claim against the school district and the TMLC might scare the bejeezus out of the school district. And other school districts that might consider taking advice from and linking up with TMLC.
Today's York Daily Record editorial calls for a perjury invesitigation.
Expect to see the Discovery Institute offering a whole lot of seminars entitled "Sticking to the Script."
Jillian & Ed,
Thanks for your charitable responses.
An omnipotent being, by definition, is capable of acting within our realm through both supernatural and natural means. The possible existence of supernatural activity by this being, however, does not eliminate our potential analysis of his natural activity. For example, let's say that the Biblical text indicates that God specially created Adam and Eve approximately 10,000 - 50,000 years ago, and that they were created to be distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. Such distinctiveness would be manifest in various forms, such as spiritual activity, culture, art expression, etc. Is it not possible to test various aspects of such claims, regardless of whether or not they are grounded in religion?
I think the issue shouldn't be whether or not a testable theory is grounded in religion (mine or someone else's), but whether or not the theory is testable. The basis for the theory should be irrelevant because its scientific viability should rest on its scientific testability.
I disagree with your playdoh analogy, Ed. Playdoh, in and of itself, has no explanatory power. The judge essentially listened to arguments from two opposing sides and agreed with one while disagreeing with the other. The problem with stating that evolutionary theory does not conflict with, nor deny, the existence of a creator, is that such a conclusion runs counter, not only to some of those opposed to evolutionary theory, but to some of those in favor of it as well. I've read various theistic evolutionists who marvel at the wonders God did, they believe, through evolution. Yet, if evolutionary theory is entirely neutral, with regards to religion, then on what basis do the theistic evolutionists ground their beliefs? Is it because of the notion that "belief in the abstract" is somehow separate from "knowledge of the concrete"? Are they walking a fine line between asserting that their religious beliefs are compatible with evolutionary theory vs. asserting that their religious beliefs are bolstered by evolutionary theory?
Michael,
I didn't state, "If it says nothing about religion, it must be antiethical to religion."
What I stated was, "If evolutionary theory has something to say about religion, it is not science; if it doesn't have anything to say, indeed, if it is powerless to say anything, about religion, then there can be no rebuttal of substance to the claims it is antithetical to religion."
Raj,
Then my questions remain, "Consider a scenario in which a testable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, is submitted for analysis. Is such a hypothesis, meeting the scientific requirements of testability, invalidated simply because it is grounded in religion? If so, then how is it that religion, deemed an area outside of science, invalidates a scientifically testable theory?" (emphasis added)
Rusty Lopez
From page 78 of the judgement comes this gem ---
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe
was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an
evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight
peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook
chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted
that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good
enough." (23:19 (Behe))."
Such a wealth of of peer-reviewed evidence is not enough for Michael Behe yet he publishes a couple of books and that should suffice to sway us proles?