Changes

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref>  http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref></center>{{QuoteBox|<small>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.</small>}}</div>

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref>  http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref></center>{{QuoteBox|<small>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.</small>}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of [[intelligent design]] (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution.

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].  The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who 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 placed in effect.  The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.  <ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref> <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

   

'''Plaintiffs''' were a group of parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school boards revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004.  They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP.  Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.  <ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref>

<ref> http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm </ref>

'''Defendants''' were the Dover Area School Board who 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 placed in effect.  The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis. <ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf  </ref>  <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

The court completely censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]], and approved an award of $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf  </ref>

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> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf  </ref>  

 

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 also concluded,  "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> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf  </ref>  

== Criticism==

== Criticism==