Kitzmiller v. Dover: And so the ID-creationism trial begins... - Page 3

Doodler · #61 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:19 PM

Nothing wrong with faith, as long as it doesn't cloud reason. Therein lies the fall of the Dover School Board.

TriangleMan · #62 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:24 PM

Metricyard · #63 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doodler

Nothing wrong with faith, as long as it doesn't cloud reason. Therein lies the fall of the Dover School Board.

Quite true. I wonder why though, that some peoples faith is so challenged that they have to try and turn it into a scientific curriculum?

Maybe the ID'ers should be asking themselves why their faith can't stand alone, and why they have to try and backdoor their beliefs into a science theory.

TriangleMan · #64 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:27 PM

This pretty much sums it up:

Quote:

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.

s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

Now back to your regularly scheduled program:

Doodler · #65 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metricyard

Quite true. I wonder why though, that some peoples faith is so challenged that they have to try and turn it into a scientific curriculum?

Maybe the ID'ers should be asking themselves why their faith can't stand alone, and why they have to try and backdoor their beliefs into a science theory.

Because evolution as it applies to humans is a direct challenge to humans being made in "God's Image (tm)". Rewrite all the rules about how the universe all you want, but this is getting personal. Accepting evolution means you're directly relating Man (capitalized for context) with Beasts (same here).

Rather bitter pill for some of the more devout to swallow, it seems.

DodgerDean · #66 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:32 PM

From page 138 of Judge Jones' decision...

"breathtaking inanity"... "utter waste of monetary and personal resources"...

Gee your Honor, don't try and sugar coat it!

Doodler · #67 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerDean

From page 138 of Judge Jones' decision...

"breathtaking inanity"... "utter waste of monetary and personal resources"...

Gee your Honor, don't try and sugar coat it!

And why should he?

DodgerDean · #68 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:40 PM

He certainly didn't, Doodler!

Apparently the Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' legal fees.

Doodler · #69 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerDean

He certainly didn't, Doodler!

Apparently the Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' legal fees.

That's not unheard of in cases where the judge decides that the defendants have really wasted the court's time in forcing a trial.

In all honesty, I want this to be challenged on appeal, the higher this case gets, the wider the blast range against ID and Creationism. Its in the system now, so unless the ID crowd wants to come out now and admit defeat, a series of appeals could actually work to science's benefit.

Swift · #70 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerjumperdon

This is such incredibly good news, kinda restores faith (oops) in the system. Can someone with legal expertise address whether or not this case can or is likely to be used as a precedent to shut down similar activities elsewhere without going thru all the motions again?

I'm not a legal expert, but I'll give my thoughts. This case will act as a strong legal precedent, but will not completely rule out other cases. What makes it strong is that the violation wasn't of some Pennsylvania law (which would only make it applicable to Pennsylvania and states with similar laws) but a violation of the constitution. Additionally, this was a federal district court; again, it makes the precedent particularly strong in states covered by that district.

Since the school board that started this has new, anti-ID members, I suspect that an appeal is less likely. I echo Doodler's thoughts about appeal, though I have concerns about the composition of federal Appeals Courts and/or the Supreme Court.

But particularly since school curriculum is left to the states and their designees (local school boards), I suspect there is little to stop other school boards from putting similar curriculum in place. It will just make it that much easier for others to sue them on these grounds.

Doodler · #71 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

I'm not a legal expert, but I'll give my thoughts. This case will act as a strong legal precedent, but will not completely rule out other cases. What makes it strong is that the violation wasn't of some Pennsylvania law (which would only make it applicable to Pennsylvania and states with similar laws) but a violation of the constitution. Additionally, this was a federal district court; again, it makes the precedent particularly strong in states covered by that district.

Since the school board that started this has new, anti-ID members, I suspect that an appeal is less likely. I echo Doodler's thoughts about appeal, though I have concerns about the composition of federal Appeals Courts and/or the Supreme Court.

But particularly since school curriculum is left to the states and their designees (local school boards), I suspect there is little to stop other school boards from putting similar curriculum in place. It will just make it that much easier for others to sue them on these grounds.

Perhaps this case might serve as a legal springboard to attack the Kansas system? Or is their premise of redefining science broader than this case's perview?

TriangleMan · #72 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

But particularly since school curriculum is left to the states and their designees (local school boards), I suspect there is little to stop other school boards from putting similar curriculum in place. It will just make it that much easier for others to sue them on these grounds.

I suspect that because teaching ID in science class is against the Constitution the ACLU would be quick to take to court other school boards trying to implement ID.

Anyone know what the Discovery Institute is saying about the ruling?

Moose · #73 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:49 PM

Yet another interesting quote from the opinion: (any typos are mine)

Quote:

... In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questionned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. ...

Matherly · #74 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Anyone know what the Discovery Institute is saying about the ruling?

Apparently the usual. "Rampant Activist Judge is trying to take over the world"

Yup, those wacky George W Bush judges. Bunch of liberal activists all of 'em :laughs:

Y'know what the worst part of this is? The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are on vacation. I would have really loved to have seen them cover this tonight.

Kristophe · #75 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Anyone know what the Discovery Institute is saying about the ruling?

Yeah. Pretty much exactly what you'd expect

Quote:

“The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work,”

Doodler · #76 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

Yet another interesting quote from the opinion: (any typos are mine)

Quote:

... In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questionned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).

Basically, Behe was sitting on his high horse saying that no amount of evidence would ever convince him. Fascinatingly singleminded for someone preaching openmindedness in order to let ID in, doncha think?

Moose · #77 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 06:59 PM

Yup, and the judge ripped him several new ones during the trial.

ToSeek · #78 (**permalink**) 20-December-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerjumperdon

This is such incredibly good news, kinda restores faith (oops) in the system. Can someone with legal expertise address whether or not this case can or is likely to be used as a precedent to shut down similar activities elsewhere without going thru all the motions again?

Panda's Thumb has a good writeup on just this topic. The short answer is that district court decisions, strictly speaking, are binding only on the district, but such a decision can be cited elsewhere and, if well-argued (as I think this is) can be very influential.

One of the key creationist trials of the 80s, McLean v. Arkansas, never made it beyond district court but is nevertheless widely used, as it was in this decision.