In the News

The above story by Fox News is typical of many stories across the world. Getting some of the details correct, but not all.

For instance, while the reading of "the statement" would have been mandatory, ID would not have been taught in the Dover School District.

Some comments from those in the higher ranks of the ID movement:

- Is ID science or not? If it's science, some judge's opinion somewhere doesn't really matter. He can't make things true that are actually false or false that are actually true. He delays the day of reckoning.

- Has a court ever considered whether a civil rights ordinance would be unconstitutional because a legislator thought he was conforming the country to the will of God that all people be treated equally?

- Welcome to the USSA where you can't question the anti-religious motives of those who want the exclusive teaching of the Theory of Unintelligent Design in our public schools.

- The judge said IDers "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors". The ACLU could not have written it any better. By implication, evolution is just science.

- U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.
Sounds like we should be hearing some perjury trials coming up, if this is true.

- The judge's ruling said "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".

In my mind, this is one of the most misleading statements in the opinion. It ignores the fact that everyone has a metaphysical commitment of some kind. It buys into the positivist notion that philosphical materialism or naturalism is somehow neutral, unbiased, and can be simply ignored.

- The judges opinion says that "to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Does this mean that Punctuated Equilibrium (a criticism/alternative of traditional evolutionary theory) cannot be required to be taught? What about endosymbiotic theory a la Margulis? Surely that denigrates Darwin's gradualistic vision. Does this forever enshrine a 19th century theory as everlasting dogma, regardless of where future science leads? This is a sad day for Dover.

No doubt, opponents of ID will spin this story to dizzying proportions: some with a humble tone, and some not, such as this example in Time online.

You asked for it and here it is: Mind Preceded Matter 12 Month Wall Calendar

It includes thirteen stunning space photos from the Hubble Telescope and twelve fabulous quotes about the design of the universe. Order today and request overnight shipping to get it before Christmas.

Merry Christmas from the ARN Staff!

Judge Jones ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and accepted the theory that the board's policy was adopted as part of the "Wedge" strategy. Here is an excerpt that summarizes his opinion:

“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.

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.

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.”

There were some surprise statements in the decision such as the implication that teachers in Dover cannot criticize the theory of evolution in any way:

"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

What are they afraid of? Apparently Judge Jones has forgotten what Justice Jackson said in the flag salute case:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943)

Although there was some fascinating testimony by ID scientists such as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, and many interesting aspects to the case, Discovery Institute and many other supporters of Intelligent Design saw this as a poor test case for ID and predict that this will be just the first court case on the Intelligent Design, not the last.

A column by Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune speaks to the overarching quest to answer the "Big Question" about origins. This is a fair and balanced piece, which deserves a look.