FW: ruling on intelligent design

[McNamara, Laura A]

 
Actually, I think I'd like an intelligent designer, especially if she
believes in secular democracy...  In any case, you can interpret this as
proof that our courts haven't all gone to hell... Or, conversely, that
they are indeed going directly to hell on a very fast bobsled.  

Anyway, read on.    


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard L Wood [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:20 PM
To: Catherine and Art; Chuck and Becky; Dana Bell; Hancock, Randall D;
Julie Hicks; Lezlie and Hardy; Mary and Clay; Matt and May; maven;
mtheinrich at gmail.com
Cc: Cummings, John C; Ghanbari, Faraj; McNamara, Laura A; Mohagheghi,
Amir H
Subject: ruling on intelligent design

Important news here:

>   *EXTRA*                  DAILY REPORT                   *EXTRA*
>         for subscribers to The Chronicle of Higher Education
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> *  IN A BROAD AND WITHERING OPINION, a federal judge ruled today
>    that intelligent design was nothing more than creationism in
>    disguise and therefore that it is unconstitutional to teach it
>    in a public-school science classroom. The judge, in the U.S.
>    District Court in Harrisburg, Pa., took proponents of
>    intelligent design to task in his 139-page opinion, saying
>    that they wished to "change the ground rules of science to
>    make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a
>    particular version of Christianity."
>
>    --> SEE http://chronicle.com/free/2005/12/2005122001n.htm

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Federal Judge Rules, in Strongly Worded Opinion, That Teaching
Intelligent Design Is Unconstitutional By THOMAS BARTLETT

In a broad and withering opinion, a federal judge ruled today that
intelligent design was nothing more than creationism in disguise and
therefore that it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public-school
science classroom.

The judge, John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg,
Pa., took proponents of intelligent design to task in his 139-page
opinion, saying that they wished to "change the ground rules of science
to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a
particular version of Christianity."

He also chastised the former members of the Dover Area School Board who
insisted that teachers in the Pennsylvania district present intelligent
design as a legitimate alternative to the widely accepted principles of
biological evolution laid down by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago.
The judge cited the "breathtaking inanity" of the board's decision and
the board members' "striking ignorance" about the concept of intelligent
design, often called "ID." (Eight board members who supported inserting
intelligent design into the science curriculum have since been voted out
of office.)

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
board who voted for the ID policy," the judge wrote. "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."

Judge Jones also had harsh words for intelligent-design proponents in
general, writing that the concept is "at bottom premised upon a false
dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is
discredited, ID is confirmed." At one point in the ruling, he stated
plainly that intelligent design is "not science"
-- a view that reflects the arguments of ID's strongest critics.

Intelligent design is the notion that some aspects of living organisms
are so complex that they could not have evolved according to Darwinian
principles, but must have been designed by some superior intelligence.
Critics of intelligent design say it is little more than creationism,
and is in any event not a scientific theory.

The ruling did not please John G. West, a senior fellow at the Center
for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a leading think tank
for intelligent-design research. Mr. West said his organization did not
support the Dover policy but was upset that Judge Jones, who was
appointed to the bench by President Bush, had used his ruling to attack
intelligent design. "Bottom line is that he was so interested in having
his place in history that he is pontificating about things that were not
directly required by the decision,"
Mr. West said.

Mr. West, who is also an associate professor of political science at
Seattle Pacific University, said the decision would "further embolden
those who favor Darwinist theory and think that, rather than winning
arguments, they can get the government to censor those who favor
intelligent design."

But censorship isn't the point, said Harold Morowitz, a professor of
biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, who has
argued against the teaching of intelligent design (The Chronicle,
September 2). "They're not trying to censor them -- they're trying to
say this is not science," Mr.
Morowitz said. "It seems like this judge was trying to establish a
precedent so that this case will not have to be fought over again in
federal court."

Aside from its broad effect on the culture wars that have consumed some
in academe, the ruling could have an indirect effect on the work of
higher education, says Michael Weisberg, an assistant professor of
philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. He is chairman of the
Evolution Project at Penn's museum, which helps public-school teachers
explain evolution to their students.
"It helps clear the air," Mr. Weisberg said of the ruling. "Now I can
perhaps go into a school and talk about evolution without having to deal
so much with intelligent design."

And if students have a better grounding in evolution during high school,
he said, they will be better science students in college.

Robert E. Hemenway, chancellor of the University of Kansas, warned,
however, that the ruling probably will not put an end to efforts by
intelligent-design proponents to win attention for their beliefs in
classrooms. Mr. Hemenway has been outspoken in his support of the
teaching of evolution as his state's school board considers requiring
teachers to present intelligent design (The Chronicle, September 28).

Other scholars agreed that the ruling was unlikely to stop those with a
strong religious motivation from pursuing their goals. But Kevin Padian,
a professor of integrative biology at the University of California at
Berkeley, said he was "ecstatic" about the decision. "The judge really
understood that ID is not science," said Mr. Padian, who testified as an
expert witness for the plaintiffs during the six-week trial.

Mr. Padian, who is also president of the National Center for Science
Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in public schools,
said he could not have hoped for a better outcome. "I don't think there
is a single sentence the ID folks could point to and say 'Yea!'" he
said. "It's pretty gloom and doom for them."

He added, "It's a grand slam."