A somewhat more narrow ruling than I had hoped for, but a welcome one. I hope the precedent can be used to settle this irrational medeival bullshit when it rears its head elsewhere.
I'm curious as to why you think it's too narrow. The specific statement, "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," is certainly all I'm looking for. I think ID has its place in a philosophy or comparative religion class... just nowhere near a science class.
I would have prefered a broader ruling on the utter lack of scientific merit of the idea, rather than a ruling that the proponents were religiously motivated. Now every subsequent court case will have to be focused on proving the motivations of whatever assholes try again to put this in the science curriculum.
But it should do. This plus the voting out of the board members, should be a decent deterrent, at least.
BTW - All hail MSNBC for using the power of the Web to provide first sources. I would love to see more of this in online news reporting, as there's really no reason not to and it serves the public interest.
An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism
How can you not love the phrase "Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism?"
Honestly, I don't believe it's the purvey of the court to rule on the scientific merit, except on the basis of equivalency to evolutionary theory. The reason that these fatheads get this stuff in front of courts is that they know they have no chance in the peer-reviewed scientific community. They are trying to gain acceptance of the unprovable, and every time they do that they get their asses handed to them.
Unfortunately, they also know the courts are there to interpret law, not science, and so they keep trying this back-door stuff. But it's still possible, as shown today, to get 'em on how much they lean on The Unfathomable Mysteries Of Somebody Or Other Who We Swear Isn't God No Really.
Oh I know. The ruling makes mention of space aliens and time-travelling cell biologists. It's really a fun and informative read. And it's heartening, in its way, to read the history of how the Fundies have risen up en masse in the past, and the courts have held.
Wow, I'm glad I skimmed the whole ruling. The reporting on it is not quite complete. The judge does rule that ID is not science by any of three standards:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. 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. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
What may be even more valuable is that in the meantime, the entire school board in Dover that had the bright idea in the first place has been thrown out by the voters in a blaze of bad publicity.
"Don't push ID because lying is wrong" apparently isn't enough to get them.
"Don't push ID because it will make your school district look like sh*t kicking morons on national news" also apparently lacks something.
"Don't push ID because it will lose you your cushy government job" -- now THAT hits school boards where they live.
On the other hand, girls don't count to these Ancient Patriarchs so am I safe and my little brother doomed instead? We have this argument every darned Passover.
I was kinda cheesed off at the main report, but, then, I get pissed whenever ID "scientists" are given unrebutted time to vent their superstition as if it were substantiated fact.
I'm just shocked that there was no reference to the Flood in the whole document, that seems to be my local fundie's excuse for any inconvinent scientific evidence I might bring up to him.
There are some really interesting statments in this decision...
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory"
"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 instructions students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere"
"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 instructions students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere"
"Accordingly, the one textbook to which the DOver ID policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case"
"It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell [Dover School board member] disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants' opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects".
"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 time again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy"
I thought there was something in the Bible about bearing false witness or something?
Oh, yes... one of those few genuinely beautiful decisions that the US courts come up with every now and then. Looks like a pretty thorough smackdown to me!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 04:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 04:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 04:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 06:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 03:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 04:41 pm (UTC)But it should do. This plus the voting out of the board members, should be a decent deterrent, at least.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 05:01 pm (UTC)Full Text of the Ruling in .PDF (139 pages)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 05:12 pm (UTC)An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism
How can you not love the phrase "Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism?"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 05:19 pm (UTC)Honestly, I don't believe it's the purvey of the court to rule on the scientific merit, except on the basis of equivalency to evolutionary theory. The reason that these fatheads get this stuff in front of courts is that they know they have no chance in the peer-reviewed scientific community. They are trying to gain acceptance of the unprovable, and every time they do that they get their asses handed to them.
Unfortunately, they also know the courts are there to interpret law, not science, and so they keep trying this back-door stuff. But it's still possible, as shown today, to get 'em on how much they lean on The Unfathomable Mysteries Of Somebody Or Other Who We Swear Isn't God No Really.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 06:33 pm (UTC)After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. 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. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.
:D
Huzzah.
Date: 2005-12-20 08:04 pm (UTC)"Don't push ID because lying is wrong" apparently isn't enough to get them.
"Don't push ID because it will make your school district look like sh*t kicking morons on national news" also apparently lacks something.
"Don't push ID because it will lose you your cushy government job" -- now THAT hits school boards where they live.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 05:27 pm (UTC)"Release the frogs!"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 12:25 am (UTC)Is it the Green Arrow?
Is it the Blue Beetle?
No! It's...
The SALMOOOOOON MOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE!!!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 02:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 04:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 05:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 07:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-22 12:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-22 02:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 06:24 pm (UTC)On the other hand, girls don't count to these Ancient Patriarchs so am I safe and my little brother doomed instead? We have this argument every darned Passover.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 10:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 10:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 11:14 pm (UTC)He's a GWB appointee, which diffuses many of the argument about bias in the judiciary doesn't it?
I'm only 22 pages into the ruling....
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-20 11:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 12:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 12:34 am (UTC)"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory"
"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 instructions students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere"
"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 instructions students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere"
"Accordingly, the one textbook to which the DOver ID policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case"
"It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell [Dover School board member] disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants' opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects".
"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 time again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy"
I thought there was something in the Bible about bearing false witness or something?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 02:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 03:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-21 07:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-22 04:01 am (UTC)