federal court ruled today that so-called "intelligent design" may not be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science class rooms.

   U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said that a Dover, Pa. school board policy requiring students to hear a statement about ID as part of their biology lessons on evolution was unconstitutional. Jones acknowledged that while advocates of intelligent design had "bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," it was inappropriate to include that content in science classes.

   Jones added: "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."

   The Dover controversy began in October, 2004 when in a 6-3 vote the school board voted the following resolution:

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught."

   The following month, teachers were informed that they would be required to read a statement to students in ninth grade biology classes at Dover High School which declared:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."

   In December, 2004 families filed legal action challenging the constitutionality of the policy. They argued that the ID policy "constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution..."

   In addition to issues of "standing," that is whether the plaintiffs had sufficient cause to bring their legal action, the court examined the issues in the case beginning with the history of Christian fundamentalism and its opposition to evolution. This included a review of the EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS (1968) case where the Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas statute which prohibited teaching evolution. A subsequent case in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court (DANIEL v. WATERS, 1975) found that statutes requiring "equal time" in school classes for religious, non-evolution accounts of human origins was simply "another attempt to establish the Biblical version of the creation of man."

   Judge Jones noted in today's opinion that at this point, "Fundamentalist opponents of evolution responded with a new tactic ... which was ultimately found to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment, namely, to utilize scientific-sounding language to describe religious beliefs, and then to require that schools teach the resulting 'creation science' or 'scientific creationism' as an alternative to evolution."

   Once again, the Supreme Court took up the matter of human origins and the subject content of what was to be taught in public school science classrooms. In 1987, the high court ruled in EDWARDS v. ARKANSAS that requiring public schools to teach "creation science" even alongside standard evolution violated the Establishment Clause and promoted religion.

   Significant in today's ruling were several findings made by Judge Jones. These included:

    ¶       "An objective observer would know that ID and teaching about 'gaps' and 'problems' in evolution theory are Creationist, Religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism."

   Jones noted, "The history of the intelligent design movement ("IDM") and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID policy..."

   He added, "As noted, such opposition grew out of a religious tradition, Christian Fundamentalism that began as part of evangelical Protestantism's response to, among other things, Charles Darwin's exposition of the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of species." In addition, as noted by the Supreme Court, in an "upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor of the twenties," legislatures throughout the country were "pushed by religiously motivated groups to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution."

    ¶       As anti-evolution laws were struck down, mostly by federal courts, "evolution's religious opponents implemented 'balanced treatment' statutes requiring public school teachers who taught evolution to devote equal time to teaching the biblical view of creation..." These statutes, however, "did not pass constitutional muster under the Establishment Clause" which prohibits government from endorsing, promoting or "establishing" religion or a specific religious belief.

    ¶       That was not the end of the matter, and opponents of evolution took up another strategy. Jones noted:

"Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting 'creation science' or 'scientific creationism' as an alternative to evolution."

   Also, "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man."

   Courts subsequent found that these various groups "were fundamentalist religious entities that 'consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry.' " They also promoted a "contrived dualism" that "recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism." Both were mutually exclusive and based on the claim that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution..."

    ¶       Finally, the courts have concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because of its dependence upon "supernatural intervention." Creation science is "merely biblical creationism in a new guise," and its inclusion in the public school science curriculum "has no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment."

    ¶       Judge Jones found that ID failed any credible test as to whether it was scientific. He wrote:

"We find that ID fails on three different levels... They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

   Fortunately, the school board members who voted in the creationism "disclaimer" were replaced a slate of eight enlightened opponents who pledged to remove ID from the public school science curriculum. The lead attorney for the families who challenged the ID Policy, Eric Rothschild, characterized today's decision as "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

   There is also growing momentum across the country against the "ID" strategy of demanding "equal time" in science classes for what many say is simply a religious account or mythos about human origins. A federal appeals court in George heard arguments earlier this month over whether evolution "disclaimer stickers" to be placed in high school biology texts were unconstitutional. Last January a federal judge ordered school officials to remove the stickers which, in language similar to the Dover school statement, claimed that evolution was not a scientific fact.

   Supporters of ID, though, are well organized and funded. In the Dover case, the school district had the support of the Thomas More Law Center, a religious legal advocacy group which is currently defending practices ranging from display of nativity creches on public property to bans on abortion. Among the Board Members of the organization are Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA.); Ret. Rear Admiral Jeremiah A. Denton; former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn; and former presidential candidate and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes. Another ID group is the "Discovery Institute" which includes a number of scientists and holds debates and "briefings" on intelligent design for lawmakers.

   It is doubtful that today's ruling will end efforts to smuggle religious teachings into the public schools. Indeed, the federal court decision may contribute to the debate over so-called "judicial action" and disingenuous claims that federal judges are making law and stifling "the right of the people to acknowledge god." As articulate and sound as Judge Jones' decision is, the culture war dispute over the place of religious faith in modern society -- and its public institutions -- will continue.

[text only]