From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was a 2005 American court case which ruled that the Intelligent Design Policy of the Dover Area School Board was "unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution". That policy required the following statement be read to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:

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.

As a part of the reasoning behind its opinion, the Court, presided over by Judge John E. Jones III, determined that Intelligent Design was not science and that it could not uncouple itself from its "creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

It goes on: "To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".

The Court found that a number of those who voted for the ID Policy lied to disguise the real purpose behind the policy, however, the opinion then states: "With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom".

The ruling remains unpopular with the creationist and ID communities who dispute the reasoning employed by Judge Jones.^[1][2]

Contents 1 Criticisms 1.1 Criticism of the decision itself 1.1.1 Deciding too much 1.1.2 Error of fact 1.1.3 Claiming too much authority 1.2 Criticism of using the decision in the wider debate 1.2.1 Religious antecedents 1.2.2 Compatibility with a Creator 2 References 3 See Also 4 External Links

Criticisms

Criticisms of the decision fall into two main groups, criticism of the decision itself, and criticism of using the decision in the wider creation/Intelligent Design/evolution debate.

Criticism of the decision itself

Deciding too much

The judge passed judgment on several matters which, according to the opinion of non-lawyers inexperienced with the American legal system, are outside the mandate of a court to decide:^[3]

• The nature of science
• Whether or not Intelligent Design is science
• The compatibility of evolution with religion
• That evolutionary theory is solid
• That irreducible complexity has been refuted

Error of fact

The judge said that ID "has not generated peer-reviewed publications", yet such peer-reviewed publications exist.^[4]

Claiming too much authority

Casey Luskin says,

Incredibly, this trial court decision describes itself as the final answer for all courts, behaving and talking like it was handed down from the Supreme Court, as precedent for all. (pg. 63-64).^[3]

Jonathan Sarfati:

Even philosophers of science who were themselves strongly anticreationist have warned against using a judge as an authority on the philosophy of science.^[5]

Criticism of using the decision in the wider debate

The decision didn't consider other, related, matters, and while it was not necessarily appropriate for the court to consider these matters as they were not raised, it is also not appropriate to use the decision in wider debate of the issue for the very reason that they are relevant to the wider debate but were not considered.

Religious antecedents

The decision concluded that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", but failed to consider the relationship between evolution and atheism. Numerous people, from creationists to evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins and other "New Atheists" believe evolution to be strongly coupled to atheistic or other non-Christian worldviews.^[6]

Whilst it's true that other theists and evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould argue that evolution and theism are not incompatible,^[7][8], it's also true that ID proponents and creationists believe that ID is not coupled to religion

Compatibility with a Creator

The judge's opinion that the theory of evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator" ignores that evolution is totally inconsistent with the Biblical account.

References

See Also

• Of Pandas and People
• Brian Alters, a witness for the plaintiffs.

External Links

Court's Opinion dated 20 December 2005