Dover ID case decision is in

[gallo]

It's 139 pages long filed on Dec. 20.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

What a waste of taxpayer money creationists cause. How much money that could have been spent on educating children is now going to have to be paid to lawyers. How many times is creationism going to have to be thrown out of science classes before creationists begin to realize that their religion isn't science and that they have no right to use the government to impose it on others?

[Kite]

It is amazing the lengths these people go to in order to push their religious and political agendas. It is rediculous.

[Pooeypants]

For easier reading, Click here.

Extract;

Pennsylvania science teachers will not be forced to advocate "intelligent design" after a judge ruled that that the theory is really religion in disguise.

Judge John Jones of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design - which bills itself as a scientific theory and states that life shows signs of being the work of an intelligent designer - is in fact reworked creationism.

The decision comes after 11 parents sued the Dover High School Board of Education for requiring that biology students be read a statement that cast doubt on evolution and endorsed intelligent design. Eight of the nine school board members were voted out of office in November, but the case continued in the court.

In his decision, Jones systematically dismantled the arguments of the proponents of intelligent design. Jones said that the history of intelligent design shows that it is essentially creationism with explicit references to God and the Bible removed. As such, it is primarily a religious theory, not a scientific one, and cannot be taught in US public schools, which are prevented from promoting religion.

[gallo]

From the decision:

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.

and:

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.

My emphasis.

The current school board (the IDers who voted this nonsense into the curriculum were voted out) has no intention to appeal the ruling. In some ways that is sad because that limits the enforcement of this decision to that particular judicial district, the Middle District of Pennsylvania. An appeal would make it applicable to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands). And of course, appeal to the Supreme Court would make it applicable to the entire U.S.

[Samildanach]

Strategically, this is where a sensible group of athiests with some cash should pretend to be IDers and force it to the supreme court hire a really crappy lawyer and lose.

[Kite]

Damn, thats a good idea!

[MrOtis]

How do we know this isn't what happened?

ID is going to eventually replace Darwinism as the accepted theory of mankind's origin.

[Jack]

ID is going to eventually replace Darwinism as the accepted theory of mankind's origin.

If you mean evolution, ID has a long way to go to be as accepted in science as a possible explanation for anything. If the ID supporters ever decide to publish their evidence and findings, perhaps we could all judge better. As it is, they've published nothing.
BTW- evolution does not address the matter of mankind's origin.

[Scribbler1]

How do we know this isn't what happened?

ID is going to eventually replace Darwinism as the accepted theory of mankind's origin.

By having people turn away from a flawed theory and instead accepting one with NO scientific merit?

Yeah, you're probably right, unfortunately.

.

[gallo]

ID is going to eventually replace Darwinism as the accepted theory of mankind's origin.

Please define Darwinism and tell us why you think that it is the accepted theory of mankind's origin. By that I mean, please outline in some detail the 5 theories of evolution that comprise Darwinism, each of which can be evaluated, tested, and either accepted or rejected independently of each other. Please explain why these comprise the accepted theory of mankind's origin and modern genetics, biogeography, population genetics, molecular biology, cell biology, embryology, and so on are not part of the accepted theory. Why is Darwinism limited to mankind's origin?

Also, please give a brief statement of the theory of ID. I haven't ever heard one so I would be most grateful. What I saw was a flurry of privately published books about 10 years ago that weren't backed by any research. Essentially, they were nothing more than assertion. Any opposition was met with advise to ignore the man behind the curtain. Please cite the peer reviewed scientific literature about ID.

You do understand that ID must explain everything that Darwinism explained, or that the modern synthesis explained, or that modern evolutionary theory now explains, and ID has to do it better before it can be given a place in biology classrooms. I haven't even seen a beginning by ID to this point, so why don't you get started.

Hopefully this decision will make it an uphill battle for IDCreationism in the future. While this decision lacks legal force outside of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, it can be cited as a precedent. Essentially the decision found that ID is a form of creationism and motivated by religious concerns. Of course, it did not pleas the court when witnesses for the defendant were caught lying. Why do fundamentalist christians feel that it is both necessary and allowed to do so?

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the people of Dover, should sue the people who proposed this idea to pay for the court costs, and all costs that the "taxpayers" had to foot in the case.

[Milton Bradley]

I think the people of Dover, should sue the people who proposed this idea to pay for the court costs, and all costs that the "taxpayers" had to foot in the case.

Better yet, lets remopve the churches tax exempt status, and they can find other things to do with all that disposable income, for exapmle, PAY TAXES like the rest of us.


That would put a dent in the amount of money they have to force their agenda on everybody.