www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/12/win_in_dover.php
Best Possible Ou tcome in Dover December 20, 2005 Win in Dover! I don't have any details yet, and the decision is not yet available, but I was just informed a moment ago by one of the witnesses at the trial th at he has been told by the ACLU attorneys that the ruling is a win for t he good guys.
The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered tha t its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion t hat life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, US . The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have be en 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 seve ral of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their reli gious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tra cks 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 propone nts argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life for ms. The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amount to a secular repacka ging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taugh t in public schools.
I am still reading but Judge Jones addresses the history of Creati onism, Creation Science, ID. We wont be back in a couple of years for the sudden emergence trial, wi ll we?
at December 20, 2005 11:11 A M OK second and last quote for me, but this ruling can sustain a local quot e mining community for generations! "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."
at December 20, 2005 11: 17 AM There's a minor error on page 8 of the opinion. The opinion refers to the 1987 US Supreme Court case of Edwards v Arkansas. It was Edwards v Aguillard, a case out of Louisiana, not Arkansas. Excerpts: An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About Gaps and Problems in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Crea tionism The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter IDM) and th e development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusi ng students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in a dopting the challenged ID Policy. As a reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social context in which the ID Policy arose, and such context will help to reveal the meaning of Defendants actions. The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter ID), in its current form , came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For th e reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alt ernative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants expert witnesses.
espite Defendants protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility o f the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in t he existence of God. As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Courts decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the p re and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: ( 1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to t he definition of ID; cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately a nd systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and the changes occur red shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religi ous and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious vie w, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. Th ey are: ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by inv oking and permitting supernatural causation; the argument of irreducible complexity, centr al to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that d oomed creation science in the 1980's; and IDs negative attacks on evolution have be en refuted by the scientific community.
at December 20, 2005 11:34 AM Judge Jones's opinion crushes the ID movement. From the conclusion: The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the fa cts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Boards ID Policy v iolates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concl uded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from i ts 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 evoluti onary 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 g ood science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, an d that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every poi nt should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrep resent 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 i ndividuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convict ions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disg uise 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 u nconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. There's no wiggle room here for TMLC and the Discovery Institute. The opi nion goes into great detail about the history, goals, and methods of the ID movement and its proponents. Any appeal of this decision would be ba sed on this factual record, which is devastating to them.
at December 20, 2005 1 1:39 AM Ken- The "wiggle room" for the IDers is that they will now focus solely on get ting the "evidence against evolution" taught, or even a bill like we hav e in Michigan that encourages "critical thinking" about evolution. That' s the next phase of the anti-evolution movement, clearly.
at December 20, 2005 11:43 AM Judge Jones also made a factual finding that Bonsell and Buckingham both lied at their depositions As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that b oth Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions ab out their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which lik ely contributed to Plaintiffs election not to seek a temporary restrai ning order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and del...
|
http://csua.com/feed/