politburo diktat 2.0

Judge Rules Against ‘Intelligent Design’

“Intelligent design” cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial. The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

This agnostic says “Thank God!”

Judge Jones’ decision is a sledgehammer blow to the IDiots’ strategy of trying to pass off Creationism as science in the public schools. I read all 139 pages of Jones’ ruling; he methodically, logically, specifically, and overwhelmingly destroys the idea of teaching ID in the schools. He refutes every single argument that has been advanced by the IDiots, including the specific, sweeping statement: “ID is not science.” He obliterates “irreducible complexity.”

As I read this ruling, it is an absolute, total vindication of every argument made by the forces of science against ID. Some feared a ‘narrow’ ruling in this case, i.e. a ruling that did not judge ID’s religiosity, but rather narrowly on the religiosity of the Dover board. Those fears were misplaced. Judge Jones (a Bush appointee!), in fearless disregard for Pat Robertson’s wrath, discredits ID, the ID movement, irreducible complexity, and the movement’s tactics (which he calls “at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard”).

Judge Jones’ Conclusion:

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.

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 …

Jones’ ruling is stronger and more sweeping than most of us had expected. Another excerpt:

Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.

This is awesome. Friggin’ hilarious. This ruling should provide a strong precedent for any challenge to Kansas’ so-called standards.

Here is the full text of the judge’s statement or here on my server (pdf files).

Bloggers’ reactions:

Steve Verdon at OTB: “Just not the kind of Waterloo Intelligent Design (ID) Proponent William Dembski was hoping for. It appears that the judge in the Dover case has ruled rather broadly and this bodes ill for ID in general. This in turn, in my view, bodes ill for creationists of all stripes. The problem for creationists in general is that ID represents one of the last stages of evolution of creationist “theory” before it goes extinct. ID is creationism with all the references to God removed and tarted up in sophisticated language of mathematics and biology to make it look more like science than any previous incarnation of creationism.” Steve has the best commentary on the decision. The rest of us are largely whooping and hollering.

PZ Myers: “It’s a solid and scathing judgment that declares teaching Intelligent Design in the schools is unconstitutional. The decision by Judge Jones is available—it’s joyful reading for us on the side of science.” (Pharyngula has been intermittently responsive today, presumably getting a lot of hits because if this story.)

Orac: “That’s gotta sting.”

John Cole: “Maybe they should have designed their inane crusade more intelligently.”

Ed Brayton is all over it: Congratulations to the people who made it happen, and Best Possible Outcome in Dover.