From Judge Jones’ ruling disallowing mandated teaching of Intelligent Design as science in Dover PA school district:
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is
imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render
an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust
an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the
science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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.
With that said, we do not question that many
of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs
which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID
as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product
of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly
not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of
the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a
national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test
case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.
The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when
considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully
revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of
the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into
this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and