In case you didn't hear, the judge in the Dover, Pennsylvania "intelligent design" case handed down his ruling today. I read it tonight -- all 139 pages, and I enjoyed every page. I encourage others to read it too.
The judge was very, very thorough. He could have stopped at several points, but instead he went all the way through, applying every available test and every option in each test. He issued his conclusions in clear, concise terms. He stated unequivocally that ID is not science, and that several of the Board members not only lied under oath, but went out of their way to hide (ineptly) their goal of injecting religion into the schools. He specifically and repeatedly pointed out that he was making no claim as to the truth of ID; simply that is was not science and the Board's policy represented a clear violation of the Establishment clause.
His scorn for the Board members is absolutely clear. He points out that several of the Board members who voted in favor of the ID policy did not in fact understand what Intelligent Design is and were unable to explain it in even the simplest terms.
Let me just quote from the end, one of my favorite parts that gives you a strong sense of the judge's thoughts.
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. Not 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 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 unconsitutional 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.
Judge Jones knew that this was a landmark case, and took care to issue a landmark judgment. Since the school board was subsequently voted out of office last month, the Dover school district will probably not appeal.
Bravo, Judge Jones.
8:58:48 PM 
|
