Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

src: i.ytimg.com

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) is the first direct challenge brought to federal court in the United States that examines public school district policies that require the teaching of intelligent design. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania changed the curriculum of biology teaching to require that intelligent designs be presented as an alternative to the theory of evolution, and that Of Pandas and People , a textbook that advocated design smart, will be used as a reference book. The excellence of this book during the trial is such that the case is sometimes referred to as Dover Panda Trial , a name that reminds the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully declared that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that school council policy violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution Clause. The judge's decision triggered a considerable response from supporters and critics.

Eleven parents in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, near the city of York, sued the Dover Area School District on the terms of the school board that the statement that presented intelligent design as "an explanation of the origin of life different from Darwin's view" was read aloud in class ninth grade science when evolution is taught. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), USA for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Science Education Center (NCSE) acts as a consultant to plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by Thomas More Law Center (TMLC). The Thought and Ethics Foundation, publisher of Of Pandas and People , attempted to join the late suit as a defendant but was rejected for various reasons.

The lawsuit was brought to the US District Court for the Central District of Pennsylvania looking for declarations and redress. As he sought a fair effort, by the Seventh Amendment, the right to a jury trial does not apply. It was tried in court from 26 September 2005, until 4 November 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican who was appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush.

Video Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Results

Legal

On December 20, 2005, Jones published a 139-page fact finding and a decision that decided that Dover's mandate that requires a statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concludes that intelligent design is not science, and permanently deters the council from "maintaining the ID Policy at any school within the Dover District School Area, from requiring teachers to undermine or belittle the theory of scientific evolution, and from asking teachers to refer to alternative theories a religion known as ID. "

Local school board

All eight members of the Dover school board re-elected on November 8, 2005, were defeated by a set of challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in the science class. (The ninth member is not ready to be re-elected.) The new school board leader then states that the council does not intend to appeal the verdict.

Maps Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

​​â € <â €

From 2002, William (Bill) Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School Education Council who are young earth creationists, have made various statements that support creationism with evolution. At a council meeting on 7 June 2004, Buckingham cited creationism and objected to the proposed use of the biology textbook written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "mixed with Darwinism" and saying it is "unforgivable to have a book that says humans descended from apes without anything to compensate."

This story makes York newspaper, and Buckingham is contacted by Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper whose job includes "communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students" to "address the topic ID scientifically and responsibly. way "in public schools. He then stated that he made the call to "direct the Dover Board away from trying to incorporate intelligent designs in the classroom or from trying to incorporate creationism into his curriculum [sic]", Buckingham accounts have been disputed. Cooper sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, which required the Dover High School science teacher to watch DVDs. They do not take the opportunity to use it in their classes.

Cooper suggested that the Discovery Institute not offer legal advice, and soon afterwards Buckingham contacted Richard Thompson of Thomas More Law Center, who agreed to represent the Dover Council, and recommended the book of Of Pandas and People . On October 18, 2004, the school council voted 6-3 settlements that there was a lecture on the subject, with Pandas as a reference book, and that the following statements should be added to their biology. The curriculum: "Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and other evolutionary theories including, but not limited to, clever designs Note: The origins of life are not taught."

On November 19, 2004, Dover District School District issued a press release stating that, from January 2005, teachers will be required to read the following statements 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 end up taking a standard test in which evolution is a part of it.

Since Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested for new evidence. Theory is not a fact. The gap in theory exists that there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a proven explanation that unifies observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. Reference books Of Pandas and People , are available for students to see if they want to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what is involved in smart design. As with any theory, students are encouraged to remain open-minded. Schools leave discussions about the origin of life to individual students and their families. As a standard-driven district, classroom instruction focuses on preparing students to achieve proficiency in a standards-based assessment.

Three members of the school board who voted against him resigned in protest, and district science teachers refused to read statements to their ninth graders, citing the Pennsylvania state code 235.10 (2), which requires that "professional educators may not... Intentional material and deliberate and deliberate curriculum. "Conversely, the statement was read to students by school administrators.

The statement of the school board which asserts that there is a "gap" in evolution and that it is specifically a "not fact" theory chosen from evolution implies that this is only a conjecture, although this is not the true meaning of the term "scientific theory." " i> Of Pandas and People and smart design presentations as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life" presented as if it were a scientific explanation, in contrast to the way evolution is depicted Encourage students to "keep an open mind" about alternatives without offering alternative scientific explanations imply an invitation to reflect on religious views, support religious views in a manner similar to disclaimers found unconstitutional in Freil v. The Tangipahoa Parish Education Case. The school council claimed the claim did not teach intelligent design and only making students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution, but there is no statement made about another subject. As part of the presentation, the administrators stated that "there will be no other discussion on this issue and your teacher will not answer questions about the issue", providing smart design positions not applied to scientific topics. The council rejected that clever designs were "disguised religion," although represented in court by Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian profit law center that uses litigation to promote "Christian religious freedom and time-honored family value". The aim is "... to be a sword and a shield for the faithful".

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on December 14, 2004, on behalf of eleven parents from the Dover school district, and sought out a law firm willing to deal with the case at unpaid risk if the case was lost. Eric Rothschild, a colleague at Pepper Hamilton LLP and a member of the legal counsel of the National Center for Educational Sciences, quickly agreed to take the case on such grounds.

John West of the Discovery Institute said that the case demonstrates the ACLU's "Orwellian" efforts to stifle scientific discourse and object to issues decided in court. "This is a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit is that the court will try to tell scientists what is a legitimate scientific investigation and what is not," West said. "It was a striking attack on freedom of speech." Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of National Biology Teachers, argue that his statement is not only ironic, but hypocritical, since the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the fundamental principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming existence or non-existence supernatural, which, by definition, is beyond natural explanation.

Regardless of previous involvement, the Discovery Institute is concerned that this will be a test and that previous defendants have shown their religious motivation. This tension led to a dispute with Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three from the Discovery Institute as a defense expert before their deposition - William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. This is supposedly because the Thomas More Law Center refused to allow these witnesses to have their own lawyers during the deposition, but the director of the Discovery Institute Bruce Chapman later said that he had asked them not to testify (as well as Behe ​​and Minnich, who testify as well).

In May 2005, the publisher of the Pandas and People, the Thought and Ethics Foundation (FTE), filed a motion seeking to intervene in the case. FTE believes that the decision that intelligent design is a religion will have severe financial consequences, arguing the possibility of a loss of about half a million dollars. By intervention, FTE will become the defendant along with the Dover County School Board, and be able to bring his own attorney and expert witnesses to the case. FTE president Jon Buell implies that if allowed to intervene, FTE will bring Dembski and Meyer as expert witnesses. In his decision on the movement, Jones decided that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because of his movements to intervene in a timely manner, illustrating FTE's reasons for not trying to engage earlier as "both unpredictable and dishonest." Jones also argues that FTE has failed to show that FTE has "significant interests that can be protected in the litigation litigation intervention as a party" and that its interests will not be adequately represented by the defendants.

In the November 2005 election, no Dover School Board members voted for a smart design policy re-elected, and the new school board, which rejected the policy, took over the office. This effectively precludes the possibility of appeals to a higher court.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Litigants

Students in this trial are as follows:

Plaintiff

The plaintiffs are all parents of students enrolled in the Dover County School area.

• Tammy Kitzmiller
• Bryan Rehm
• Christy Rehm
• Deborah Fenimore
• Joel Lieb
• Steven Stough
• Beth Eveland
• Cynthia Sneath
• Julie Smith
• Aralene "Barrie" D. Callahan
• Frederick B. Callahan

Defendants

• Dover Area School District
• Dover Area School District Board of Directors

  Members who choose the statement:

  • Bill Buckingham (resigned in August 2005 due to a health problem)
  • Alan Bonsell
  • Sheila Harkins
  • Heather Geesey
  • Jane Cleaver (resigned October 4, 2004)
  • Angie Ziegler-Yingling (resigned December 6, 2004)

  Members who voted against it:

  • Noel Wenrich (announcing his resignation October 4, 2004; the last day of the service was October 31, 2004, moving from the district)
  • Carol Brown (resigned October 18, 2004, in protest)
  • Jeff Brown (resigned October 18, 2004, in protest)

src: slideplayer.com

Trial

The trial began on 26 September 2005.

Opening statement

Plaintiff

Eric Rothschild gave the opening statement to the plaintiffs. He said that the plaintiff would be able to provide many examples of school board members who wanted to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked the earlier defense claim that it was a minor matter by saying that there was no "minor" constitutional violation. He also provides the definition of creationism given by the original concept of Pandas: "Creation is the theory that various life forms begin suddenly, with their distinct characteristics: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with feathers and mammary glands. "He compared this to what was finally published:" Smart design means that various life forms begin suddenly through intelligent agents, with their distinct characteristics: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, and so on. " (The definition had appeared earlier in the pre-trial hearing on July 14.) He also argues that intelligent design is not a science in its infancy, but it is not science at all.

Defense

Prior to his testimony, TMLC filed a motion for him to be expelled as an expert witness. In the movement they characterized him as "little more than a conspiracy theorist and web explorer, the 'cyber-stalker' of the Discovery Institute." Jones denied the motion.

Forrest testifies to the history of the intelligent design movement, citing the writings of prominent figures (such as "Wedge Document" in the Discovery Institute, "How Debate Evolution Can Be Won" by Phillip Johnson, and William Dembski). He also testified that ID is just another name for the movement of creationism, trying to present a religious proposition as a scientific point of view. He stated that Johnson "considers evolution as a threat to the Bible as a whole and as a threat to the moral mood of American culture," and that one of the aims of the movement is to unite the world of religion. He added that "there is no way to reconcile [...] at all" Dover school board statement bulletin that intelligent design is a scientific theory with Paul Nelson's statement in "The Measure of Design" interview.

Forrest notes that he does not know proof that school board members have seen the "Wedge Document" before the lawsuit.

A few days before his scheduled testimony, Discovery Institute openly taunted him on their website.

October 6

• Jennifer Miller testified.
• Bertha Spahr testified.

October 12

• Brian Alters gave testimony.
• Cynthia Sneath testified.

October 14

• Steven Stough testified.
• Kevin Padian testifies.
• Joel Lieb testified.

Witness for defense

October 17-19

Michael Behe ​​is the first witness to defense. Behe is a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a prominent intelligent designer who coined the term of irreducible complexity and defined the idea in his book Darwin Black Box.

As the main witness to the defense, Behe ​​was asked to support the idea that intelligent design is a legitimate science. The critics of Behe ​​have pointed out a number of key exchanges under cross-examination, in which he admits that, "No articles are reviewed by anyone who advocates for intelligent designs supported by experiments or related calculations that provide detailed reports on how intelligent design of any biological system takes place. "In response to the question of astrology he explains:" Based on my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation that focuses on or points to physical data, observable data and logical conclusions.There are many things throughout history the science we now think of as incorrectly... will fit that definition.Yes, astrology is actually one, and so is the ether theory of spreading light, and... many other theories as well. "

His evolutionary model of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper has been registered by the Discovery Institute among the claimed "Scientific Peer Review & Peer Review and Support of Intelligent Design Theory", but under oath he accepts that it shows that the biochemical system described can evolve in 20,000 years, even if the simulated parameters are rigged to make that result impossible.

October 20-21

• Richard Nilsen testified.

October 21, 28, November 3

• Michael Richard Baksa testified. He is the Superintendent of the District Dover School District Supervisor. In an email response to a complaint by IPS teacher Brad Neal, Baksa refers to the Separation Myths by David Barton, a book that Baksa received from Inspector Richard Nilsen, who received it from board member Alan Bonsell. The book calls the separation of church and state "absurd." Baksa also discussed the efforts to change the statement. The teachers suggested adding "Darwin's theory of evolution continues to be the dominant scientific explanation of the origin of species," but this is omitted by the council. The teachers also recommend changing it to read "Since Darwin's theory is a theory, there is some evidence to support this theory, although it is still being tested as new evidence found." Quoting his belief the council would refuse this, Baksa eliminated "some significant evidence."

October 24

• Steve Fuller is a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick in England, and author of books on social epistemology and science and technology. His testimony basically seeks a defense that qualifies the scientific status of intelligent design, arguing that its history can be traced back to Newton, and should include such modern biologist figures as Linnaeus and Mendel. He also emphasized the difference from the philosophy of science between the "discovery context" (what motivates a scientist) and the "context of justification" (how the theory of scientists is assessed) to reduce the undeniable origins of intelligent design. Fuller is remembered to be called for a "affirmative action" program for intelligent design, which did not win much support with Jones in his final decision. Fuller's testimony was quoted by lawyers for plaintiffs and pleadings in their concluding remarks.

Witness to the plaintiff (called out- of -play)

October 27

• William Buckingham testified and commanded a hostile witness.

October 28

• Heidi Bernhard-Bubb testifies.
• Joseph Maldonado testified.

Witness for defense

October 28

• Heather Geesey testified.

October 31

• Jane Cleaver testified.
• Alan Bonsell testified. His testimony initially included a claim that he did not know where the money had been raised to donate sixty copies of the Pandas and People to the school library. Hearing that money had been raised in William Buckingham's church, and directed through Bonsell's father that it might be donated anonymously, Jones chose to take over Bonsell's own examination, questioning him for about ten minutes.

November 3

• Robert Linker testified.
• Scott Minnich testified.

Closing the argument

The closing argument was made on November 4, 2005. After completing the closing argument, Gillen asked Jones, "Based on my calculations, this is the 40th day since the trial begins and tonight will be the 40th night, and I wonder if you did it was deliberately. "(40 days and nights is the length of the biblical Great Flood.) Jones replied," Mr. Gillen, it's an interesting coincidence, but that's not for design. " This funny exchange provides the title for Matthew Chapman's book on trial, 40 Days and 40 Nights .

Decisions

On December 20, 2005, Jones found the plaintiff and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

• For the reasons that followed, we concluded that the religious nature of the ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, an adult or a child. (page 24)
• An important aspect of IDM [smart design movement] is that regardless of the opposing protests of the Defenders, it describes the ID as a religious argument. In that case, the leading ID supporters' writings reveal that the designer argued by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
• The evidence in the trial indicates that the ID is no less than the progenies of creationism. (page 31)
• Extraordinary evidence in the trial establishes that ID is a religious view, only re-labeling creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
• During the trial and in various filings to the Court, the Defendant vigorously held that the reading of the statement was not 'teaching' the ID but simply making the students aware of it. In fact, a consistency between the testimony of Dover School Board members, characterized by selective memories and directly under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they do not think they need to have knowledge of IDs because they are not taught to students. We do not agree.... an educator who reads disclaimer engaging in teaching, even if it is a very bad teaching.... The defendant's argument is a red fish because the Establishment Clause not only prohibits the 'teaching' of religion, but also the government's actions that support or have a primary purpose or influence to advance religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)
• After reviewing the applicable records and eligibility lists, we found that although the argument ID may be true, a proposition in which the Court does not take a position, ID is not a science. We found that the IDs failed at three different levels, one of which was enough to hinder the determination that the ID was a science. They are: (1) ID violates the basic rules of the science of centuries by applying and permitting supernatural causes; (2) the irreducible argument of complexity, which is the center of the ID, uses the same false and illogical dualism that destroyed the creation science of the 1980s; and (3) ID negative attacks on evolution have been denied by the scientific community.... It is also important to note that IDs have failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, the ID has not resulted in peer-reviewed publications, nor is it a subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolutions of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see the false dilemma.]
• [T] him a textbook [Pandas] in which the Dover ID Policy directs students containing outdated and flawed science concepts, as recognized by even defense experts in this case. (pages 86-87)
• ID supporters have tried to avoid the scientific examination that we have now decided that it can not survive by advocating that the controversy, but not the ID itself, should be taught in the science class. This tactic is the most dishonest, and the worst is the canard. IDM's goal is not to encourage critical thinking, but to trigger a revolution that will replace the theory of evolution with ID. (page 89)
• Thus, we find that the secular goal claimed by the Council amounts to excuses for the Council's true purpose, namely to promote religion in public school classrooms, which violate the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

In In conclusion , he writes:

• The proper application of Lemon's test of support and test to the facts of the case makes it very clear that the Council ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have discussed the seminal question whether the ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID can not separate itself from its creationist, and thus religion, its predecessor. [...]
• Residents of Dover are not well served by Board members who choose ID Policy. It is ironic that some of these people, who are so firm and proud to call their religious beliefs in public, will repeatedly lie to cover their tracks and disguise the true purpose behind the ID Policy. Thus, we do not question that many of the leading ID supporters have bona fide beliefs and have strong convictions that drive their scientific endeavors. Nor do we confront IDs that need to be continuously studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach IDs as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.
• The overwhelming madness of the Council's decision is evident when considered against the factual background that has now been fully revealed through this trial.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Responses

Jones anticipates that his decision will be criticized, saying in his decision that:

Those who disagree with our ownership will likely mark it as a product of an activist judge. If so, they will be mistaken because this is clearly not an activist tribunal. Instead, this case came to us as a result of less informed faction activism on the school board, aided by a national public interest law firm that wanted to find a case of constitutional testing on ID, which in combination encouraged the Council to adopt an unwise and unconstitutional policy. The astonishing madness of the Council's decision is evident when considering the factual background that has now been fully revealed through this trial. Students, parents, and teachers from the Dover County School Area deserve better than dragged into this vortex, thereby wasting both financial and personal resources.

Meeting Jones' predictions, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, said:

Dover's decision was an attempt by federal judge activists to stop the spread of scientific ideas and even to prevent Darwin's evolutionary criticism through censorship imposed by government rather than open debate, and it would not work. He has attributed the position of the Discovery Institute to the Dover school board, and he completely misinterpreted the intelligent design and motivation of the scientists who examined it.

The newspaper has noted that the judge is "a Republican and a church congregation." In the months following the decision, Jones received a mailing bag, including threats against him and his family serious enough to ensure the protection of the US Marshal at all times.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Legal cost settlement

On February 21, 2006, the newly elected Dover School School Board voted unanimously with one abstention to pay $ 1,000,011 in legal fees and damages due to parents and their lawyers as a result of the verdict in this case, a large sum of money for small district. Previous school councils have been offered the opportunity to cancel their policies, and avoid paying legal fees, as soon as the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but rejected. Parent lawyer Pepper Hamilton stated that the court records would show they were entitled to more than $ 2 million, but would receive less than half that amount in recognition of the small size of the school district, and because the school council voted because the policy had been decided out of the office , leaving the new school board "having bills placed on their laps." Previous school councils have been defended at no cost by the Thomas More Law Center. Richard Katskee, assistant director of law for the United States, said the cost of the trial, "Any board that thinks of trying to do what the Dover board has to look for bills of more than $ 2 million," and "I think $ 2 million much to explain to payers tax for a lawsuit that should never have been fought. "

src: highplainsskeptic.files.wordpress.com

Potential for perjury and hoax

Source of the article : Wikipedia