'Intelligent design' trial concludes

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' trial concludes

By Martha Raffaele, NEPA News, November 4, 2005

A lawyer for eight families who oppose the inclusion of "intelligent design" in a high school biology curriculum urged a federal judge Friday to overturn the policy on grounds that it promotes religion in public schools.

The landmark federal trial could determine whether the concept, which holds that evolution cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms, can be mentioned in public school science classes.

But lawyer Eric Rothschild said during closing arguments that Dover Area School Board members who pushed for the curriculum change knew that intelligent design promoted the Bible's view of creation.

"Intelligent design became the label for the board's desire to teach creationism," Rothschild said.

Patrick Gillen, a lawyer for the school board, countered that its October 2004 decision was intended to improve science education by calling attention to "a new, fledgling science movement."

The policy requires students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to the textbook "Of Pandas and People" for more information.

"The defendants' policy has the primary purpose and primary effect of advancing science education," Gillen said.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said he hoped to issue a ruling by early January.

Friday marked the conclusion of a six-week trial that featured expert witnesses for each side debating intelligent design's scientific merits and disagreements among other witnesses over whether creationism was discussed in school board meetings months before the curriculum change.

In court, Rothschild replayed a June 2004 TV news clip showing former board member William Buckingham saying that evolution lessons should be balanced "with something else, such as creationism." Buckingham, who resigned from the board in August, has testified that he felt ambushed by the camera crew and "misspoke."

"That was no deer in the headlights," Rothschild said, referring to Buckingham's demeanor.

Gillen insisted that neither Buckingham nor school board member Alan Bonsell _ whom Rothschild also singled out as a leading advocate of the curriculum change _ favored the teaching of creationism. He added that the policy didn't change the way evolution is taught in Dover.

"While the students are taught evolutionary theory in class, they are merely made aware of intelligent design in a one-minute statement," Gillen said.

Outside of court, Gillen said Jones could base his decision on the board's motives in adopting the curriculum change, without having to determine whether intelligent design is a scientific concept.

"He can resolve this case quite easily without going to the merits of a scientific theory," Gillen said.

The plaintiffs hope that Jones will address the scientific arguments about intelligent design, said Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the families.

"An awful lot of time and resources have been put in by both side to put intelligent design on trial," Walczak said. "If the judge does not reach that here, there's going to be another judge in the not-too-distant future who's going to have to reach that same decision."

Earlier Friday, the defense concluded its case with testimony from University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich, who supports discussing the concept in high school science classes.

Minnich said under cross-examination that "intelligent design" articles are not found in the major peer-reviewed scientific journals because it is a minority view.

"To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it's a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process," he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center, which says that its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

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.