The Pennsylvania "intelligent design" ruling: Could this be one (small) sign of the "anti-Apocalypse"--i.e., a national return to sanity?

No doubt everyone has heard about the federal district court ruling that threw out the teaching of intelligent design as science in schools under that court's jurisdiction. If you haven't seen the actual text, though, it's worth looking at least at this excerpt printed by The New York Times.

Actually, there's lots of juicy material in the omitted portions of the ruling, including Judge Jones's methodical tracing of the intellectual and literal dishonesty of the Dover school board members who conspired to sneak intelligent design into their schools' science curriculum. But the most important--and heartening--thing to remember is that, as the judge makes clear in this excerpt, he is no fan of "judicial activism." He is, in fact, a Republican and a Bush appointee.

And he apparently had no difficulty sorting out the issues at stake in this case.

While even this struggle is far from over (for example, the main NYT article quotes Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, "an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution," saying in an interview: "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum like the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent"), this decision is as clear and decisive a step as we might hope toward a return to national sanity.

I like to think of it as a bracing antidote to the perennial watch being conducted by so many of our fellow citizens for signs of the Apocalypse.



The New York Times, December 21, 2005
Excerpt From the Ruling on Intelligent Design

Following is an excerpt from the ruling by Judge John E. Jones III that the policy of the Dover, Pa., school board to introduce intelligent design as an alternative to evolution violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The full text of the opinion is at nytimes.com/evolution.

"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether I.D. is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of I.D. 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 I.D. 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 I.D. policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of I.D. have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that I.D. should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach I.D. 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 I.D., 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."