Changes

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and completely excluded ("stricken in its entirety") an [[amicus brief]] submitted by the [[Discovery Institute]] which included information from Drs. [[Stephen Meyer]] and [[William Dembski]].  The judge ruled that the amicus brief be struck since it would allow Dembski and Meyer, who had previously planned to testify but had decided to withdraw, to testify as expert witnesses without being subject to cross-examination by the plaintiffs. The amicus curiae of the scientists was allowed to remain on the court record.<ref>http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/OrderstrikeDIamicusbriefs.pdf</ref>  The court's final order was based on a stipulation about attorneys' fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and completely excluded ("stricken in its entirety") an [[amicus brief]] submitted by the [[Discovery Institute]] which included information from Drs. [[Stephen Meyer]] and [[William Dembski]].  The judge ruled that the amicus brief be struck since it would allow Dembski and Meyer, who had previously planned to testify but had decided to withdraw, to testify as expert witnesses without being subject to cross-examination by the plaintiffs. The amicus curiae of the scientists was allowed to remain on the court record.<ref>http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/OrderstrikeDIamicusbriefs.pdf</ref>  The court's final order was based on a stipulation about attorneys' fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently vacated on appeal (although the school board involved withdrew their policy and paid an out of court settlement to avoid a retrial.)<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."<ref> http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently vacated on appeal (although the school board involved withdrew their policy and paid an out of court settlement to avoid a retrial.)<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."<ref>http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm</ref>

== Criticism==

== Criticism==

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>  

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>  

=== Defendants ===

=== Defendants ===

The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors.  The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the teachers refused to read the statement to students,<ref>Even though teachers agreed to include as a reference a book containing positive references to intelligent design, later they refused to read the statement due to their own disagreements with it. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9620585/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/teacher-refuses-intelligent-design-statement/]</ref> and it was read by Superintendent Richard Nilsen and Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa)<ref>Direct Examination of Assistant Superintendent Baksa by Patrick T. Gillen, Esq. 11/2/05 [http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1102_day19_pm.pdf]</ref>. The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors.  The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the teachers refused to read the statement to students,<ref>Even though teachers agreed to include as a reference a book containing positive references to intelligent design, later they refused to read the statement due to their own disagreements with it. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9620585/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/teacher-refuses-intelligent-design-statement/]</ref> and it was read by Superintendent Richard Nilsen and Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa).<ref>Direct Examination of Assistant Superintendent Baksa by Patrick T. Gillen, Esq. 11/2/05 [http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1102_day19_pm.pdf]</ref> The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools.<ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The court summarized in stating, "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."  Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."  The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The court summarized in stating, "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."  Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."  The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.<ref name="Memo" />

== Evolutionists Kenneth Miller's testimony ==

== Evolutionists Kenneth Miller's testimony ==