The Chronicle: Daily news:|Federal Judge Rules, in Strongly Worded Opinion, That Teaching Intelligen

Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Federal Judge Rules, in Strongly Worded Opinion, That Teaching Intelligent Design Is Unconstitutional
By THOMAS BARTLETT
Article tools
PrinterfriendlyE-mailarticle
SubscribeOrderreprints
Headlines
Federal Judge Rules, in Strongly Worded Opinion, That Teaching Intelligent Design Is Unconstitutional
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-pageopinion, 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."
Background articles from The Chronicle:U. of Kansas Professor Pulls Plug on Course Designed to Debunk Intelligent Design (12/2/2005)
120 Professors at Iowa State U. Sign Statement Criticizing Intelligent-Design Theory (8/26/2005)
Schools Should Teach ‘Intelligent Design‘ Theory Alongside Evolution, Bush Says (8/3/2005)
Why Many Biology Teachers Aren‘t Teaching Evolution (7/22/2005)
Darwinism Under Attack (12/21/2005)
Seeking the Deity in the Details (12/21/2005)
A Biochemist Asserts Evolution of Life Was Designed (11/1/1996)
Opinion:Words, Science, and the State of Evolution (11/29/2002)
Why Bad Things Have Happened to Good Creatures (8/17/2001)
_xyz