Intelligent Design and the Lemon Test

Tuesday, December 20th, 2005

Judge John Jones has found for the plaintiff in the Kitzmiller case. The order can be found on page 139 of the pdf.

A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Here’s more of the court language, whose tenor and force is plainly stated

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 personal resources.

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.

For more go to The Panda’s Thumb.


7 responses to “Intelligent Design and the Lemon Test”

  1. Josh says:

    Eh.. What exactly should Christians such as myself expect than these kinds of rulings? This ruling does not surprise nor fase me. As long as I have the right to teach my kids the “alternate theory of Intelligent Design” in my home, then I could care less what the state dictates for its places of learning.

  2. Steve says:

    As answer to your first question: to feel relief.

  3. Josh says:

    Relief in what sense?

  4. Steve says:

    Did you read the ruling? I skimmed then went a little deeper through for the logic. You have to objectify the sense of the ruling and its context. There’s nothing here that’s anti religion.

  5. Josh says:

    And that the ruling still allows for the theory of “Intelligent Design” to be taught (just not required) wasn’t lost on me if that was the “relief” you spoke of :-)

    But for the “religious”, this ruling is a defeat.

  6. Steve says:

    Posted originally by Josh (I inadvertantly deleted this comment and reinsert it):

    Oh I read it, a few times. I also read the USA Today story about it. I didn’t write my first comment angrily or with a sense of defeat. I wrote it with a sense of fact. I know that a lot of Christians believe that the government owes us the right to teach our principles and morals in a public setting. And at one time this was indeed the case, because at one time this nation viewed itself as a Christian nation.

    I remember posting a comment on your weblog sometime ago that this is no longer a Christian nation. This ruling further supports that sentiment. Our history of being built on Christian principles is being forgotten or changed the best it can. In large part this is because in the minds of a lot of Americans, History began at the moment of their birth.

    In my mind America has moved beyond just being ashamed of its Christian heritage. Just look at the controversy of “Merry Christmas” that has dominated so many media headlines this season in a way that I have never seen.

    America has become a martyr to our own concept of the melting pot, with Emma Lazarus now reading as a eulogist.

    Josh

  7. Lynn S says:

    — “A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.”” — Arthur C. Clarke