Advertisement
Sino Biological
Sino Biological

Judge Jones Kicks out ID

Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the mention of Intelligent Design in Dover area high schools as an alternative to evolution was not only unconstitutional but unscientific. In the final days of the case it appeared more and more apparent that the judge was less than impressed by the arguments of the defendants as they bumblingly tried to cover their motivation for injecting ID into the schools. But Jones? ruling really takes the whole ID hypothesis to task as a blatant and undeniable extensio

By | December 21, 2005

Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the mention of Intelligent Design in Dover area high schools as an alternative to evolution was not only unconstitutional but unscientific. In the final days of the case it appeared more and more apparent that the judge was less than impressed by the arguments of the defendants as they bumblingly tried to cover their motivation for injecting ID into the schools. But Jones? ruling really takes the whole ID hypothesis to task as a blatant and undeniable extension of creation science masked by new pseudoscientific verbiage. Scanning the 140 page document turns up the following:
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, 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.
The decision could dissuade other communities from trying to introduce ID. The board members elected this November (largely on a platform not supporting ID) will not likely pursue an appeal on the decision, so the case will not likely go to the Supreme Court. They may, however, be stuck with the >$1 million price tag for the plaintiffs? attorneys. Certainly the effects on the nearly 4,000 Dover area students will be felt in more than their science classes. Judge Jones?s conclusion carried this admonition:
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.
Let?s hope this lesson serves well.
Advertisement

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
LI-COR
LI-COR
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist