Well maybe there is some hope for us yet. As much as I hate to admit it, I was actually worried this ruling might go the other way.
Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
You can say all you want about evolution being a theory and not a fact, and I’d agree with you. Evolution IS just a theory; however, it is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is not. ID is a hypothesis at best. To become a scientific theory you need evidence to support your hypothesis, and ID offers no evidence at all to support it.
For something to become a scientific theory, it must be falsible. It must also be testable. You can falsify evolution. If we were to find a fossil of a homo sapiens that dates back to the dinosaurs, that would offer pretty compelling proof evolution is false. Likewise evolution is testable and allows for prediction. Over time, new species should evolve. Granted this may not happen over a single lifetime, but over several human generations we should be able to see evolution occur. Compare this to ID ‘theory’. How would one falsify ID? What test or prediction does it offer? The answer of course, is none.
ID is a philosophy. It is not science. Period. Huzzah for the judge, and this ruling.
I’m not against teaching ID as philosophy, or as religious subtext. Nor would I be opposed to it being taught as science IF any evidence is ever found to support it (i.e. ancient texts with DNA designs in them, little green men leaving blue prints on life in a crashed spaceship, etc). But until a single shred of evidence can be found to support it, it simply is not science and has no business being taught as such.
UPDATE: I finally was able to get a copy of the actual ruling. Wow. This is a huge blow to the ID camp.
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, 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. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge