"Intelligent design" scam loses big-time in federal court

Judge John E. Jones III of the Pennsylvania federal district court hearing the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, challenge to the required teaching, a challege to the required teaching of "intelligent design" (ID) as science, has handed down his ruling. And he came down hard on the Christian Right scamsters.

His opinion is available online: Memorandum Opinion 12/20/05, US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The court's bottom-line ruling:

For the reasons that follow, we hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

What's valuable about this opinion is that Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, lays out his reasoning in some detail for finding that ID is a "religious" claim, not science.


One sample from Jones' opinion:

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts." (my emphasis)

The decision is getting wide news coverage:

Federal judge rules against intelligent design in science classrooms: Dover, Pa., school board requirement unconstitutional, 'sham,' judge says by Tracie Mauriello Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 12/21/05

Intelligent design is struck down: A judge ruled it a "relabeling of creationism" and said it had no place in a 9th-grade science class by Amy Worden Philadelphia Inquirer 12/21/05

Intelligent design loses: Pa. judge rejects concept; next challenge could target Ohio plan by Scott Stephens Cleveland Plain Dealer 12/21/05.

Intelligent design ruled religion, not scientific theory Judge rules against intelligent design by Mike Weiss San Francisco Chronicle 12/21/05

Darwin's descendant likes how the 'intelligent design' case evolved by Tracie Mauriello Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 12/21/05 (Ouch! at the headline writer's sense of humor)

Judge Says 'Intelligent Design' Is Not Science: He calls a school board's effort to teach it as an alternative to evolution unconstitutional by Henry Weinstein Los Angeles Times 12/21/05

US judge rejects intelligent design: Broad ruling finds Pa. school board promoted religion by Nina Easton Boston Globe 12/21/05

US judge rejects intelligent design by Jill Lawrence USA Today 12/21/05

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that "Intelligent Design" cannot be mentioned during classes in a Pennsylvania school district, bringing to a close the most significant trial involving evolution in nearly 20 years Christian Post (a fundamentalist source) 12/20/05

Federal judge rules against Intelligent Design theory by James Patterson [Southern] Baptist Press 12/20/05

I hope someone from our "press corps" asks Maverick McCain and President Bush, both of whom have endorsed teaching the ID hustle as science, to give their responses to Judge Jones' ruling.

| +Save/Share | |