'Intelligent design' friends and foes make final pitch

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-910-9153

'Intelligent design' friends and foes make final pitch

Judge wants to have decision in evolution case by year's end.

By Christina Gostomski, The Morning Call Online (Allentown, PA), November 5, 2005

The Harrisburg trial over evolution that has gripped national headlines for weeks ended Friday with attorneys arguing whether a school board intended to promote religion by including a statement about ''intelligent design'' in its high school biology curriculum.

''Make no mistake … [board members] knew intelligent design was a form of creationism when they added it to the curriculum,'' said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing the families suing the school district, in his closing arguments. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism - based on biblical teachings about creation - could not be part of public school science curriculums.

Patrick Gillen, a lawyer for the school board, countered that the statement ''may lead [students] to the library, but it does not advance religion.''

The federal lawsuit against the Dover Area School Board was filed in U.S. Middle District Court by eight families over a policy adopted last year that requires willing biology students to listen to a four-paragraph statement.

The statement informs ninth-graders that there are alternate views to evolution, including intelligent design, the belief that mankind's development is too complex to have evolved without an intelligent designer, and directs them to the library for more information.

The families, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, maintains that the board purposefully introduced religion into science classes and that the statement promotes Christianity.

The school board, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, says it designed the statement for a secular purpose - to inform students of multiple viewpoints and help them think critically - and that mentioning intelligent design does not promote any particular religion.

The trial, which began six weeks ago, has played out in a mostly packed courtroom that has included the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin, prospective moviemakers, a cadre of media from around the globe and scientists and lawyers coming to observe the proceedings.

Witnesses included parents and school board members; Kenneth Miller, who wrote Dover's biology textbook; and Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, a leading advocate of intelligent design who testified at the trial for three days.

The bench trial, which will be decided by Judge John E. Jones, is expected to be appealed regardless of his verdict. Still, legal analysts and education experts say the case could have significant ramifications for how public schools teach evolution.

Jones will probably base his ruling on the Lemon test, which is used by courts to determine if a law or policy has the effect of establishing religion. The test consists of three prongs - two of which the plaintiffs have asked Jones to rule on, and a third that addresses whether an action creates excessive ''entanglement'' between church and state.

Jones will not use that prong because the plaintiffs have not alleged the board created that entanglement.

Under the first prong, Jones probably would address whether the board's purpose in introducing the statement was religious or secular, and under the second prong, he would address whether the statement promotes religion.

Plaintiffs have also asked Jones to consider using the endorsement test, which bars government from explicitly endorsing religion, but defendants have opposed that and it was unclear Friday whether Jones will use that test.

Rothschild and Gillen tailored their closing arguments to address the requirements of the Lemon test, specifically whether the board intended to promote religion through the intelligent design statement and whether the statement, regardless of the board's intent, advanced religion.

''The case for intelligent design as a religious proposition is overwhelming,'' Rothschild said. Later, he added, ''Clearly, no valid secular purpose can be derived from those facts.''

He emphasized that major scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Scientists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, do not support intelligent design.

Rothschild said the Dover statement is part of the ''wedge strategy.'' Critics say creationists are trying to use intelligent design - which does not explicitly mention God - to ''wedge'' religion into the classroom.

''Dover is now the thin edge of the wedge,'' Rothschild said Friday. ''When we talk about an actor outside nature … we are talking about God.''

Gillen countered that the board taught evolution but ''merely made [students] aware of intelligent design.'' He said the purpose is to expand students' knowledge.

He also said there was ''no evidence'' that the school board ''ever saw'' the wedge strategy and said the board purposefully voted not to teach intelligent design. Intelligent design is mentioned in the four-paragraph statement, but it is not elaborated on.

Following closing arguments, Jones thanked both sides, telling the lawyers, ''Every single one of you made me aware of why I became a lawyer and why I became a judge. … Your advocacy was so impressive to me.''

He urged the lawyers to submit final documents within the next 21 days, saying he'd like to reach a verdict by year's end.

Gillen noted that Friday marked the 40th day since the trial began and asked Jones whether 40 days and 40 nights was his intent.

''That was an interesting coincidence,'' Jones retorted, then paused. ''But it was not by design.

The courtroom erupted into laughter and applause and Jones stood up and left.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.