Win in Dover!

It is big … see p. 136 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmi[…]ller_342.pdf

Let the spin begin!!!

Yeah baby!.…On to Kansas!!!

Page 136:

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. 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.

*pops champagne*

Anyone?

The conclusion is worth a read, even if you don’t get time to read the whole thing:

Judge Jones Wrote:

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.

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 propositions. 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 personal resources.

Merry Kitzmas, everyone! I’ve made egg-nog!

“Big win. Huge congrats to the people here who worked on the case — you guys should really take a bow, b/c this opinion is evidence that you helped put on a great case before the judge. From this non-scientist (who at least knows a wolf in sheep’s clothing when he sees it), Thank You for defending reason.”

I agree! Outstanding job by all involved! Thank You and Congratulations!

I rather like this part, myself:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

I am literally jumping for joy here. Good news at last.

One for ‘Renard’ and Keith S, who have been having this argument on Dembski’s blog:

ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer

I have argued the same in the past. Page 29.

Wonderful news. Those of you who have stood against ignorance and superstition so long and so well, thank you.

Well done guys, I’m drinking a beer for you in England. A big, big win indeed; the Judge pulled no punches, in fact I don’t think Lenny could have been much more scathing. A nice present for Noodlemas indeed; although I expect us all to suffer withdrawl symptoms. The next challenge is to start educating the public so this sort of nonsense doesn’t crop up again and again - that’s going to take a bit longer I fear, but at least the DI will have zero credibility if they continue to try to confuse the masses. Judge Jones has given you some priceless quotes for years to come; and he’s even answered some of Lenny’s questions for the DI!

Dang, if I got my butt kicked as bad as the the DI did, I wouldn’t talk tough and pretend I won with an inane press release.

I might add, in response to that last bit, that in the larger debate over what’s science and what’s not, attorney Luskin will be of zero significance.

As will Behe, Meyer, and, uh, “Isaac Newton”.

I wonder when Sal will drop in to declare victory? (snicker) (giggle)

Congrats Lenny - and ‘proper’ beer of course!

I think the judge was wise to drop the opportunity for perjury charges. Why sully a magnificant ruling with a sideshow where upstanding, drug-taking, members of the community could cry religious persecution and confuse the issue. Nah! just call them “LIARS THAT LIED FOR THEIR FAITH” and leave them with no come-back - far more cruel.

You can hve fun with Sal now - pasting bits of the ruling into your questions; although personally I don’t see many IDiots coming back here to be humiliated. Dembski’s been struck dumb as far as I can see.

Well done again to all you guys who have been fighting the cause of reason over there - you should be proud of yourselves!!!!

Ah, but once you’ve reached critical mass.… A barley pop is a barley pop is a barley pop.… Congrats to everyone!

I hear pencils frantically tapping paper over at the DI, desperate to determine when the Rapture will remove them from this humiliation.…

To misquote Blade

“some people are always trying to skate uphill”

We need to get over to CafePress and print some victory items.

how about:

Hey John West:

KISS MY ASS!

What interests me the most is the relentless obsesssion with “the best explanation” for whatever. It seems obvious to me that the best explanation would always be one that cant possibly be disproven. In 21^st century science “detecting design” will never be good enough; how is that design made manifest through a mechanism of action will always come up. This will require a redefinition of science to avoid this “straw man” as many design advocates refer to this untestability-unfalsifiability-unpublishability of original research issue. Mr. West must be slipping as he failed to mention how Darwinism is incapable of proving the origin of matter or life through blind random forces.

This is not meant to ruin the celebratory mood here but I am reminded of the story with Galileo. As he was forced under penalty of death to recant his statements that the earth is not at the center of the solar system and that it moves, he got up and famously muttered in Latin, “and yet it moves!” So, despite the Court’s decision, I am sure some history-conscious ID supporters out there are saying, “and yet it was intelligently designed!”

So now the status quo will be maintained in our schools. That’s what this “victory” is all about. And that means that decades from now we will still find more than half of americans subscribing to the view that life in all its diversity appeared a mere few thousand years ago, as all studies indicate they believe today. Why would that change, if the status quo is maintained? I don’t see much to celebrate in all this.

that means that decades from now we will still find more than half of Americans subscribing to the view that life in all its diversity appeared a mere few thousand years ago, as all studies indicate they believe today. Why would that change, if the status quo is maintained? I don’t see much to celebrate in all this.

You can take the horse to the water, but you can’t make him drink. Half of the States’ population believes in Creationism - you, for example. That is, almost certainly, because of a poor education at school and fundamentalism at church. What this victory means is that the fundamentalists will not manage to poison the water.

Or, dropping the allegory: this victory prevents the already poor education of the States from becoming even poorer by stopping fundamentalists from lying to the children. Of course, since you want the children lied to and told things like “Noah’s ark is literal truth - and he spent both a year and only ten months at the same time” and “birds and fish appeared in the same day in God’s eyes, by God’s hand”, you don’t see this as a victory. But that’s alright - it is a free country.

Yes, thirty years from now, people who choose to believe the private opinions of Landa as facts will continue to be clueless about the real facts of our world, but that cannot be helped. At least it won’t be because they were fed false information when they were young, which I at least consider immoral.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

This is not meant to ruin the celebratory mood here but I am reminded of the story with Galileo. As he was forced under penalty of death to recant his statements that the earth is not at the center of the solar system and that it moves, he got up and famously muttered in Latin, “and yet it moves!” So, despite the Court’s decision, I am sure some history-conscious ID supporters out there are saying, “and yet it was intelligently designed!”

And I’m quite sure that the delicious irony of saying it would escape them.

Just as it has escaped you.

Carol Wrote:

This is not meant to ruin the celebratory mood here but I am reminded of the story with Galileo. As he was forced under penalty of death to recant his statements that the earth is not at the center of the solar system and that it moves, he got up and famously muttered in Latin, “and yet it moves!” So, despite the Court’s decision, I am sure some history-conscious ID supporters out there are saying, “and yet it was intelligently designed!”

I sincerely hope you’re presenting this merely as rhetoric, and that the difference truly isn’t too subtle.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some calculations to do. Galileo offered to let me look through his telescope, and I saw exactly what he described.…