Difference between revisions of "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District"
(merge) |
(→Cdesign Proponentsists: restore information that was lost during the merge) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
==Cdesign Proponentsists== | ==Cdesign Proponentsists== | ||
| − | The term "'''cdesign proponentsists'''" came into vogue | + | The term "'''cdesign proponentsists'''" came into vogue during and after the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial in [[Pennsylvania]] over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science. A crucial piece of the defense (Pro-intelligent design) was a book called [[Of Pandas and People]], a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous drafts of the manuscript were subpoenaed for review by lawyers representing the plaintiffs. It was discovered that drafts written before 1987 used the words "creationist", "creationism", etc, while drafts written since 1987 used the words "intelligent design", "design proponents", etc. The first draft of the manuscript to include this change was written after the Edwards vs. Aguillard case, when the [[Supreme Court]] ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. |
| + | |||
| + | In one instance, the word "creationists" had been incompletely replaced with "design proponents", producing "cdesign proponentsists". The NCSE, representing the plaintiffs, used this to demonstrate that intelligent design was creationism under a new name, and joked that cdesign proponentsists were the "missing link" between the two. <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html Nova transcript, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", PBS.org]</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 21:22, July 30, 2008
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.
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State against the Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District to censor any mention of intelligent design (ID) in public school.
The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on Intelligent Design,[1] and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the ACLU and other plaintiffs' attorneys.[2] The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,[3] 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 court's final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.[4] Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the ACLU and other plaintiffs' attorneys.[5]
The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.[6] 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."[7]
Contents
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.[8]
Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [1]
The Discovery Institute found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the ACLU's proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.[8]
Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. In the conclusion of his ruling, he answered his expected critics by stating, "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."[1][9]
Details of the case
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs were a group of eleven 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 board's 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.[1][10]
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 statement never was read to students by teachers). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.[1][11]
Endorsement and Lemon Tests
Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests 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'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. [1]
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. [1]
Cdesign Proponentsists
The term "cdesign proponentsists" came into vogue during and after the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science. A crucial piece of the defense (Pro-intelligent design) was a book called Of Pandas and People, a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous drafts of the manuscript were subpoenaed for review by lawyers representing the plaintiffs. It was discovered that drafts written before 1987 used the words "creationist", "creationism", etc, while drafts written since 1987 used the words "intelligent design", "design proponents", etc. The first draft of the manuscript to include this change was written after the Edwards vs. Aguillard case, when the Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools was unconstitutional.
In one instance, the word "creationists" had been incompletely replaced with "design proponents", producing "cdesign proponentsists". The NCSE, representing the plaintiffs, used this to demonstrate that intelligent design was creationism under a new name, and joked that cdesign proponentsists were the "missing link" between the two. [12]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Memorandum Opinion 20th December, 2005.
- ↑ http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation
- ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf
- ↑ http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf
- ↑ Montana Law Review Editor's Notes
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour (Discovery Institute).
- ↑ http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp
- ↑ http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm
- ↑ http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139
- ↑ Nova transcript, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", PBS.org
