Florida Citizens for Science

 

Well, the big news of the day is that intelligent design has been given the boot out of Pennsylvania public school science classes.

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ in science class

District Judge John Jones’ 139-page opinion can be found in several places for viewing and download, starting with a link from the above CNN story. With great pleasure, I read through the whole document and I feel tremendously enlightened. The judge went to great lengths to not leave any loose strings or ugly gaps. In plain language he discredits the defendants, the school board members who pushed for ID in the classroom and ID itself. A reader would have to be incredibly dense not to see how conniving the school board was and how scientifically hollow ID is. I recommend that everyone take some time out of your busy schedules to read this opinion. Don’t let the document’s size put you off, as it is double-spaced in fairly large type and is written in a lively and engaging manner. There are only a handful of pages that the reader might want to skip over as they lay some legal foundations. The bulk, though, is very educational, complete and concise.

For those who can’t find the time to dive in, then please allow me to take you on a highlight tour.

Pages 1 through 9 introduce the case basics, the plaintiffs and the defendants. What attracted my interest was some of the footnotes, which illustrate the legal games the defendants tried playing in dismissing the plaintiffs and segments of their case. First of all, whereas I know that such maneuvering is standard stuff, it’s still worth noting that rather than express confidence in the strength of their case, the defendants resorted to finding any excuse possible to dodge the case altogether. Secondly, I have to admit that it’s fun to read how every such motion was squashed.

Pages 9 through 14 then explain how the case was evaluated: Endorsement and Lemon tests (I believe these two tests were established during previous U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning church-state separation). Previous case law is examined and it’s clearly determined that both tests could and would be applied to the present case. Once again, the defendants’ attempts to short fuse the case were pummeled. They tried their hardest to demonstrate that the tests didn’t apply to the case, but the judge’s clear reasoning made their arguments appear more like whining than actual legal justifications. The judge continues to establish the legal groundwork in pages 14 through 36 as he defines what a “reasonable observer” is, what that observer should know and how the case will be examined through this hypothetical person’s eyes. Essentially, it needs to be determined whether a “reasonable observer” would see the inclusion of ID in the biology classroom as an unconstitutional endorsement of a religion. Starting around page 19, some history of creationism and the ID movement are given. One of my favorite parts is:

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. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment.

ID is identified as just an evolved form of the same old creationist beast. (As far as I know, John Haught has no relation to me. I have yet to meet him.)

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God.

We now learn about the nefarious Wedge Document on page 28. (IDM means intelligent design movement.)

As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

And as ID tries to muscle in on the science gig, it becomes necessary to change the very definition of science on page 30. Keep this in mind if the ID road show ever stops in your neck of the woods. Softening up science by yanking “natural” out of its definition is one tactic you will want to prepare for.

Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.

The book Of Pandas and People is now introduced on page 30 as evidence that ID is nothing more than the latest form of creationism. This book was presented to students as a secondary text to refer to in addition to the standard class biology book. Various editions of the book clearly show that the word creationism in all its forms was plucked out and replaced with intelligent design in an updated version. These guys aren’t too transparent, are they?

Beginning on page 36, the focus of “reasonable observer” is narrowed down to how it applies to a student. It’s determine that:

After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow, we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion.

The next few pages explain how that determination was made. It’s pointed out that evolution is the only thing out of all of biology and even out of all school subjects taught that is the target of any type of attack. The students are told that evolution is “just a theory,” even though there are plenty of other scientific theories out there that aren’t taking a beating.

In summary, the second paragraph of the disclaimer undermines students’ education in evolutionary theory and sets the groundwork for presenting students with the District’s favored religious alternative.

This whole case was about reading a disclaimer statement in front of 9th grade students before they began instruction in evolution. I applaud the teachers for refusing to read the statement, forcing administrators to do the dirty work.

The challenged ID statement having to be read by administrators rather than teachers, and the fact that no other subject is treated in this way lends extra weight to the statement made, thus clearly endorsing at as an official school sponsorship of the ideas presented.

In a lengthy footnote on page 46, the defendants tried to claim that the statement wasn’t in any way “teaching” the students anything. The judge slams that opinion. Yes, standing up in front of a classroom reading a statement related to education can be viewed as a mini-lecture, even if it’s “colossally bad teaching.” I gave a little cheer for that one.

The “opt out” feature is also stabbed through the heart. Students can get parental permission to not have to hear the statement, which actually serves to attract more attention to the matter rather than less. In other words, it’s a sham. The judge called it clumsy. I love how he doesn’t mince words.

This whole section is summed up on page 49:

In summary, 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. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a “God-friendly” science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the “other science,” evolution, takes no position on religion. (14:144-45 (Alters)). Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It “tells students . . . quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science.” (2:54-55 (Miller)). Introducing such a religious conflict into the classroom is “very dangerous” because it forces students to “choose between God and science,” not a choice that schools should be forcing on them. Id. at 55.

Starting on page 50, after the judge made the case for what a student reasonable observer would think, he now turns to adult reasonable observers. There is discussion on how the controversy has fanned the flames in the community. Mentioned is a newsletter mailed to everyone in the community, regardless if they had children; discussions involving religion at board meetings; and the hundreds of letters to the editor and editorials that appeared in the local newspapers.

By page 63 it has been clearly shown that both student and adult reasonable observers would see the ID statement as overtly religious. But the judge doesn’t stop there. Next, he addresses the issue of whether ID is even science at all.

Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

On page 64, the failings of ID are outlined:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. 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 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

These points are expanded on all the way through page 89. Professor Behe, a featured witness during the trial and a noted star of the ID movement, is taken down several notches over and over again in this section. Of Pandas and People is torn apart. ID is taken to task for having absolutely no scientific peer review. This section is finally wrapped up with:

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

Disingenuous! Canard! Like I said earlier, this judge isn’t messing around.

Rather than just call it a day there after having buried ID in the Establishment test, now the judge plunges into the Lemon test starting on page 90. What is being looked at here is:

We will therefore consider whether (1) Defendants’ primary purpose was to advance religion or (2) the ID Policy has the primary effect of promoting religion.

Here, the board’s actions are scrutinized. It’s not pretty. If you’re a teacher, the things revealed in this section will send cold shivers down your spine. Imagine yourself in the Dover teachers’ shoes, having to compromise your integrity just to get the materials you need to do your job. It’s sickening.

Apart from two consecutive Board retreats, Bonsell raised the issue of creationism on numerous other occasions as well. When he ran for the Board in 2001, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution, that he wanted creationism taught side-by-side with evolution in biology class, and that taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake which he wanted reinstated in the Dover public schools.

…

It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19). Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects. Finally, Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism taught in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the social studies curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to Baksa that he wanted students to learn more about the Founding Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled Myth of Separation by David Barton.

The first problem noted in the above quote is, of course, that a man in a leadership position over children’s education blatantly lied about what he did. That’s never a good thing. Then, it must be kept in mind that even though biology and evolution in the schools make the headlines, this character had designs on social studies as well. Do you feel the bile rising in your throat yet?

On page 98 we learn that teachers started feeling nervous about a sudden spotlight on evolution and so modified their instruction to avoid controversy.

Therefore, although Defendants have asserted that the ID Policy has the secular purposes of promoting critical thinking and improving science education, the opposite of such purposes occurred in fact as biology teachers had already began to omit teaching material regarding the theory of evolution in the months preceding the adoption of the ID Policy.

The insanity gains steam:

Late in the 2003-04 school year, Baksa arranged for the science teachers to watch a video from the Discovery Institute entitled “Icons of Evolution” and at a subsequent point, two lawyers from the Discovery Institute made a legal presentation to the Board in executive session.

Next, a biology book that should have been easily approved for purchase and use is kept in limbo because it featured evolution. The book is haggled over at school board meetings and said to be “laced with Darwinism.” Religion is constantly evoked: “This country was founded on Christianity …” It’s determined that evolution needs to at least be balanced by other theories, namely intelligent design.

And then teachers found themselves backed into a corner:

Moreover, at the meeting, although the teachers had already watched the video “Icons of Evolution” from the Discovery Institute, at Buckingham’s insistence they agreed to review it again and consider using in class any portions that aligned with their curriculum. (26:122 (Baksa)). Although Baksa believed that the teachers had already determined there were no parts in the video that would be appropriate for use in class, the teachers capitulated in order to secure Buckingham’s approval to purchase the much needed biology textbook.

And the tales of horror keep on coming. A mural about evolution in one teacher’s room is torn down and burned. You read that right: burned.

Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students.

…

Subsequently, at the August 2, 2004 meeting, Buckingham opposed the purchase of Biology, which was recommended by the faculty and administration, unless the Board also approved the purchase of Pandas as a companion text.

…

Despite the fact that the teachers strongly opposed using Pandas as a companion text, they agreed that Pandas could be placed in the classroom as a reference text as a compromise with the Board.

Rolling on into page 114 we find out that the fact that several of the Panda books were bought via a church collection was kept under wraps in order to keep the Christian source out of the mix. Lying was par for the course here. Apparently, any method to combat evil evolution was considered good.

The biology curriculum was modified to mention intelligent design and supposed problems with evolution. This change wasn’t made in the typical fashion, as normal procedures were not followed. On page 120 it says:

The unrebuted evidence reveals that the teachers had to make unnecessary sacrifices and compromises advantageous toward Board members, who were steadfastly working to inject religion in the classroom, so that their students would have a biology textbook that should have been approved as a matter of course.

Despite all these changes being made, many board members voting in favor of intelligent design claimed to have no idea what it was. On top of that, it is a matter of record that they ignored the actual science teachers warning them against it, and they didn’t bother to seek any scientific organization’s opinions. Two board members opposed to intelligent design eventually resigned in frustration over the conflict. On page 125 it says:

The evidence clearly reveals that Board members who voted in favor of the curriculum change blindly adopted the recommendations of the architects of the ID Policy, Bonsell and Buckingham, with respect to their decision to incorporate it as part of the high school biology curriculum, while disregarding opposition by the science teachers and administration.

The statement to be read to students was crafted with help from a senior science teacher, but that teacher’s input was ignored and cast aside. Finally, the teachers stood together against the onslaught and refused to be a party to the reading of the statement.

Tempers flared as seen on page 129:

Moreover, Board members and teachers opposing the curriculum change and its implementation have been confronted directly. First, Casey Brown testified that following her opposition to the curriculum change on October 18, 2004, Buckingham called her an atheist and Bonsell told her that she would go to hell.

The judge takes the board to task, plainly stating that their supposed secular purpose was nothing short of a sham. From page 132:

Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

In wrapping up this case, the judge is relentless with the board. Page 137:

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.

…

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.

That’s it in a nutshell, folks. This decision has dealt a serious blow to intelligent design, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s down for the count. Use this case as a learning tool so that we can be prepared to beat back the next assault.

Now that you have an idea of what this case covered, you can learn tons more about this decision at this link-filled carnival post.