PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 20. The bottom line in Dover. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/the_bottom_line_in_dover/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The bottom line in Dover
The final word in Judge Jones' ruling (mmm, that's good reading!):
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. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
-
I expect much whining and special pleading from the usual creationist suspects in response to having their knuckles so soundly rapped by this ruling.
I think this judge is making a larger point to the whole creationist movement, which is STOP WASTING THE COURT'S VALUBLE TIME WITH THIS BULLSHIT.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 11:03 AM -
The judge added attorney fees, that is pretty rare... and pretty much a big F-You to ID.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 11:13 AM
-
"knuckles rapped". Man, they didn't get their knuckles rapped, nor did they get their butt kicked.
They had their head handed to them. On a platter. With garnishes.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 11:21 AM -
I read through the ruling, although there were some portions that were more scroll-worthy, such as the stuff that went into the motivations of the school board... yeah I knew all that. But right now what I am scratching my head over is what does this mean for ID? As in, is this a narrow ruling or a broad ruling concerning the constitutionality of ID in high school biology? Can other courts in other states cite this as a legal precedent in their states?
Props to the Honorable Judge Jones III. Quite a lot of strong, damning language. Maybe not enough, though!#: Posted by The Inoculated Mind on 12/20 at 11:34 AM -
As binding precedent, it covers only that area which Judge Jones' federal district court serves, at the moment. Other courts may refer to it approvingly. It's not binding, but another court would have to have good reasons to rule differently.
And that is why the issue of appeals is so important. If this case is appealed to the full circuit court, the decision that court makes would bind the entire circuit, including several states. From there, if it were appealed to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court took the case, the decision would bind the entire nation and territories of the U.S. Even were the Supreme Court to deny a writ of certiorari, that would be taken as a likely concurrence with the circuit court's ruling.
This is part of the reason that conservatives are up in arms about the Supreme Court's looking to foreign courts for similar cases. A lot of conservative causes have lost case after case in lower courts and in foreign courts; keeping that information away from the courts might make it easier for Bush-style activist judges to change the laws, to make it legal for a president to impose martial law without making such a declaration, to make it easier for a Nixon to have the CIA burgle your offices to find out what you really think, etc., etc.
In briefs on ID, now, lawyers will have to refer to the Dover case, and explain the ruling, and either explain why their argument is similar and should get the same ruling, or why their argument is different and should get a different ruling. It's not a near-fatal blow to ID as Edwards v. Aguillard was to creationism, but ID is wounded, bleeding badly, and hoping few will notice.
It's time for the board of the Discovery Institute to wake up and demand a course change for the group that promotes ID, for example, or to disband the group altogether as a waste of time, money and intellect. Anybody want to wager on what they'll do?#: Posted by on 12/20 at 11:52 AM -
This ruling proves that there is, in fact, a god. It is the trinity of rational thought, logic and courage. Now, can I get a RAMEN!!!
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 11:59 AM
-
All I have to say is: Ha ha!
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 12:12 PM
-
Cephalopodmas will be joyous indeed this year.
3 more days.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 12:33 PM -
Oh, frabjous day! Calloo! Callay! He chortled in his joy.
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [P.136]
Well, Judge Jones has brought a great deal of cheer to my Christmas.
I'm only part way through reading the decision (but skipped to the end for the quote above), but already he's nailing down that ID is inherently religious in nature. That is the big win. It is as big as it could possibly be, given that this is a trial decision and not in the USSC. Judge Jones might have found narrowly against the Board on the basis that their purpose was obviously religious and saying that, thus, he didn't need to decide whether or not ID was science. That would have let the IDers say their Trojan Horse was still intact. Instead Judge Jones knocked the thing over, poured gasoline on it and set it on fire.
The only regretable thing is that the good citizens of Dover threw out the creationist board members who might well have been dumb enough to appeal Judge Jones' decision. The only way you'll get an appeal now is if the plaintiffs' lawyers said they do the whole thing strictly pro bono and there was someone who'd step in and do the same for the Board (since I think even TMLC wouldn't), specifically so that it would get affirmed on appeal. I can't see it happening and I'm not sure it would be ethical for the board to do it.
Still, we can't fault Judge Jones for not being the USSC, so it's party time for science!#: Posted by on 12/20 at 01:37 PM - gad, matelot! aye, the bottle-heads got their burgoo, reckon me. they be born under a threepenney-halfpenney blanket, they be. if th'counsel of the black boxes and lords be had, if they be casting around, by Davy Jones, w'might've needed t'hoist gollywobblers an' clap on, lest th' black flies make th' crew galoots.
-
>Anybody want to wager on what they'll do?
Well, they've already shown they know how to do find/replace in a word processor. The possibilities are endless!
-Non-random Biological Development
-Deterministic Bio-architecture
-Guided Organization
-Ultra-Rapid Punctuated Equilibrium
Heck, they could get 10 more editions out of that same textbook. Their customers are dumb enough to fall for it.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 05:42 PM -
"a waste of time, money and intellect"
Right, except that they _want_ to waste our intellect. And there is ample evidence that they have no intellects to waste.
Actually, they are, as I am sure is discussed elsewhere here, continuing their backpedalling and stating that ID must first be proven science, or words to that effect. Which is as likely to happen as they are to win the Dover case.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 05:54 PM -
I just skimmed through the full ruling - it's a really good read and I agree, he has really got to grips with the science. The stuff about the bacterial flagellum is spot on.
The phrase "lemon test" is new to me - I love it, and how apt. -
The phrase "lemon test" is new to me - I love it, and how apt.
Yes, I know, even though it is the First Amendment equivalent to Miranda Rights, I envision a Church Lady who has just sucked a lemon complaining about how the Court is being so evil when they poke at these actions with their prongs.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:56 PM -
Based on the Edwards decision "nationlizing" the prohibition on teaching creation science, and Judge Jones tracing the direct lineage from creation science to ID, I'd say this is about as close to binding as you can get without technically being binding nationally.
I have a long blog post which lists most of Judge Jones’ most telling comments, indexed by page number in the PDF.
Let’s put it this way: If Jones is telling Behe he doesn’t even have a firm grasp on his own centerpiece of ID, the idea of “irreducible complexity,” ID now has zero credibility. Period.#: Posted by SocraticGadfly on 12/20 at 07:31 PM -
This is GREAT!
I have a law degree and still am licensed to practice law. So I read the case with an eye to the potential appeal.
As I read the decision, it is a stinging rebuke to ID. Bu more important, it is written in a fashion to insulate it from the disingenuos dissent of Scalia in the 1987 case, Edwards v. Arkanas. Scalia lied in the dissent by stating that "there was no evidence of a religous promotional intent of the Arkansas legislators".
For Scalia to write this, he had to accept obviously false statements of the legislators as "true" for the extent of appellate review. The trial judge foreclosed this lying challenge of Scalia by challenging and rejecting the School Board's rationalizations.
Quantum11
http://desertoftherealecononomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#: Posted by on 12/20 at 08:06 PM -
There won't be an appeal. Who's going to appeal it?
The school board? Not when eight of the nine ID wingnuts got voted off the board.
The Discovery Institute? Nope -- they're going to save their money for influencing school board elections in a venue they're more likely to win (and which has ultra-con judges). This case has taught them that in order to win, they must have control of both the school board AND the judicial bench. Even Bush-appointed Republicans like Judge Jones can't be trusted to be conservative/loony/corrupt enough to back the Discovery gang.
Nope, this sucker won't be appealed. It's a hard precedent at the very least.
The best part of it is how it really damages future efforts by the IDers to repair their reputations. It marks ID's proponents as liars, and ID's main expert witness, Behe, is demolished as an airhead. The Discovery Institute is going to have to either find a much more Fundie-ridden area and judge in which to have a new test case, or it's going to have to stop using outright lies as part of its legal strategy. And we all know how likely THAT's going to be.#: Posted by Phoenix Woman on 12/20 at 08:25 PM -
The original school board press release contains an unintentionally truthful line: "Gaps in the Theory [of evolution] exist for which there is no evidence."
#: Posted by Jane Shevtsov on 12/20 at 08:34 PM
- evolution and its connection with economics, interpreted generously, is the lead in this week's print edition of The Economist, a newsweekly.
-
The school board? Not when eight of the nine ID wingnuts got voted off the board.
All 8 ID wingnuts were voted off of the Dover school board. The 9th board member was against the ID policy.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 12:18 PM