In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover , tried in in a Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, " intelligent design " was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore, unconstitutional to teach in American public schools. As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design," the trial attracted national and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from September 26 through November 4, On December 20, , Judge John E.
|Country:||Central African Republic|
|Published (Last):||25 October 2011|
|PDF File Size:||17.38 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.16 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Print "Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. The parents had precedent on their side. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that a law requiring that creation science be taught with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.
Throughout the trial, witnesses both for the plaintiffs and the defendants demonstrated how creationism evolved into intelligent design. Witness testimony showed that it was precisely because of its controversial religious message that the School Board adopted intelligent design and not because of any scientific evidence to support it.
Even defense witness, assistant superintendant Mike Baska admitted that School Board member Bill Buckingham discussed creationism at board meetings when discussing the biology curriculum. This came after a year of denying that they were attempting to promote their religious beliefs in the curriculum. Plaintiff attorney Eric Rothschild, of Pepper Hamilton, honed in on such deliberately false statements during his closing argument: "What I am about to say is not easy to say, and there is no way to say it subtly.
Many of the witnesses for the defendants did not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth at their depositions, and they have not told the truth in this courtroom," Rothschild said.
ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro talks about the intelligent design case at the Membership Conference The strategy describes how to promote their personal religious beliefs by denigrating science and promoting supernatural intelligent design as a competing theory. School board members Buckingham and Alan Bonsell consulted the Discovery Institute before voting to change the biology curriculum.
They also consulted the Thomas More Law Center, the organization representing the defendants at no charge. According to the New York Times, a lawyer from the group visited school boards around the country in an attempt to promote their beliefs even when it would mean that taxpayers would need to subsidize a risky, high-profile trial.
It also involves a rejection of the established methodologies of science, and this is all for religious reason. Despite their involvement with these organizations, school board members still maintained that intelligent design was not a religious opinion.
Barbara Forrest, Ph. Forrest traced the development of Of Pandas and People, an intelligent design-focused textbook that is at the center of the Kitzmiller case. She demonstrated that after the Edwards Supreme Court decision, the publishers substituted the phrase "intelligent design" almost every place that "creationism" had appeared. Creationism means a number of things, Forrest testified. First and foremost it means rejection of evolutionary theory in favor of special creation by a supernatural deity.
Expert plaintiff witness John Haught , a Catholic theologian at Georgetown University, reinforced the religious nature of intelligent design. Plaintiffs testified that they witnessed such religious motivations by the Dover Area School Board. In what often sounded like an advanced biology course, expert witness Kenneth Miller , a biology professor at Brown University, said that, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community.
Scott Minnich conceded as much. I reserve the right to teach my child about religion. Parents echoed this sentiment. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept. I reserve the right to teach my child about religion, testified plaintiff Christy Rehm. And I have faith in myself and in my husband and in my pastor to do that, not the school system. Pennock, Ph.. Related Issues.
Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Kitzmiller v. The disclaimer stated that the school only taught evolution because it was mandated by the state, and that Intelligent Design ID is an alternative explanation of the origins of life that differs from evolution. Further, the disclaimer provided that if students were interested in ID, the school could provide a reference book on the subject. Parents and teachers sued the district, arguing that the disclaimer impermissibly promoted religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The district contended that ID is not a religious theory; it is a theory independent of creationism that does not specifically promote God as the creator, though it does provide that some unidentified force created humankind.
The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover
Conclusion A. Background and Procedural History[ edit ] On December 14, , Plaintiffs filed the instant suit challenging the constitutional validity of the October 18, resolution and November 19, press release collectively, "the ID Policy". It is contended that the ID Policy constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In addition, the power to issue declaratory judgments is expressed in 28 U.