# Decision in Dover ID trial expected to come down tomorrow. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353 "2005-12-19T21:40:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/61 "2005-12-20T19:14:07Z")
For the record, this is what was being taught in Dover. Note that the standardized tests students had to take covered only Darwinian evolution. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “Of Pandas and People” was used as a text book in the classroom. It was noted as a book that could be found in the library if the students wished to read it. > [@](#): > > [Dover’s ‘intelligent design’ statement](http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13449558.htm) > > Text of the statement on intelligent design that Dover Area High School administrators had been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution: > > "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. > > "Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. > > "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, ‘Of Pandas and People,’ is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. > > “With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.” Note that ID is only said to be an explanation for the origin of life, not for how life developed after it started. And note that the second part of that statement is factually incorrect since Darwin’s theory does not address the origin of life. In fact, the whole thing is very poorly written. If I were an English teacher, and a student submitted that as part of a paper, I’d give it a “D”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/62 "2005-12-20T19:14:57Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I am very happy with this decision, but one part of it I’m not sure I like:Bolding mine. > > The bolded part seems a little broad to me, and could prevent genuine scientific criticism. If a new theory comes around, a genuinely scientific one, perhaps something like how relativity came about after Newtonian physics, might this prevent the Dover Area School District from teaching the new theory if it corrects parts of current evolutionary theory found to be inaccurate? > > Does this go overboard and prevent even genuine scientific criticism? Or am I misunderstanding this statement? Read it again. It doesn’t say that teachers are not _permitted_ to criticize or disparage evolution, it just says they can’t be _required_ to do it. Do you think teaches _should_ be _required_ to disparage evolution? If not, then what’s the problem? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/63 "2005-12-20T19:16:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > ID as a scientific concept has not made the cut into acceptance or even publication More importantly, I think, it **cannot** make the cut, for approximately the same reason that a recipe for shortcake or rules for tiddlywinks or an Edgar Allen Poe story won’t appear in a scientific publication as a standalone article: **it’s not science**. It’s the wrong format, it doesn’t have predictive qualities, it’s not testable, it doesn’t involve the formulation of a hypothesis and then a series of activities designed to let you observe whether the hypothesis is accurate. It’s not like if your recipe for shortcake is good enough it’ll get published as an article in _Science_. It never will, because _Science_ publishes scientific articles, not recipes, rules for games, short stories, or religious speculation. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/64 "2005-12-20T19:22:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not necessarily. Note that it says “the scientific theory of evolution”, which would include any scientific advances made. It doesn’t say “the Darwinian theory of evolution”. If it said that, I’d be very concerned. But I see your point, and that is a bit troubling. > [@MsRobyn](#): > > No, I think you’re misunderstanding. > > I don’t think the judge intended for that to include updates to evolutionary theory backed by legitimate research. I think that just means that teachers can’t be forced to downplay evolution in favor of some other unscientific theory. > > Robin But what if an entirely new scientific theory comes about that is different enough from evolution that it cannot be cosidered an update, but a replacement? I know that seems unlikely, but we cannot legally protect any scientific theory from being replaced if new, non-junk-science evidence comes around. It kinda sounds like that’s being done here. The pessimist in me even wonders if this otherwise fine decision might be in danger of being struck down because of this. The ultra-paranoid in me wonders if this was put in there on purpose for exactly that. But that guy’s kinda nuts, I rarely let him out of his tin-foil bungalow. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/65 "2005-12-20T19:24:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Read it again. It doesn’t say that teachers are not _permitted_ to criticize or disparage evolution, it just says they can’t be _required_ to do it. Do you think teaches _should_ be _required_ to disparage evolution? If not, then what’s the problem? To be fair, if there were a district in which a large group of teachers persisted in teaching Lamarckian evolution as fact, would you object to the school board’s issuing an order requiring them to denigrate Lamarckian evolution? That wouldn’t really bother me. In theory, if, a century from now, the scientific theory of evolution gets a General Theory of Relativity-style overhaul, this order might make it difficult for the Dover school board to require teachers to respect that overhaul and teach it. However: 1. Such an overhaul isn’t exactly looming over us, I don’t think; and 2. If it does come about, I see no reason to worry that Dover high school teachers will be so resistant to teaching it that the school board will need to step in; and 3. If they are, the court can overturn the order at that point. So I’m not going to lose any sleep over the prospect :). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/66 "2005-12-20T19:28:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > For the record, this is what was being taught in Dover. Note that the standardized tests students had to take covered only Darwinian evolution. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “Of Pandas and People” was used as a text book in the classroom. It was noted as a book that could be found in the library if the students wished to read it. It was illegal for the curriculum to direct students to the book as a legitimate science book at all. It was no different than saying they could find more information in the Bible and then providing the Bibles. > [@](#): > > Note that ID is only said to be an explanation for the origin of life, not for how life developed after it started. And note that the second part of that statement is factually incorrect since Darwin’s theory does not address the origin of life. In fact, the whole thing is very poorly written. If I were an English teacher, and a student submitted that as part of a paper, I’d give it a “D”. There are a bunch of flat out lies in that statement. It is a lie that evolution is “not a fact.” It is a lie that there are “gaps” in the theory and it’s a lie that ID disagrees with “Darwin’s view” as to the origins of life, since Darwinian evolution _has_ no view of the origins of life. It’s also idiotic to refer to evolution as “Darwin’s view,” but I expect nothing better from these people. Anyway, the judge has ruled on this. He knows both the law and the facts of the case better than we do. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/67 "2005-12-20T19:28:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Read it again. It doesn’t say that teachers are not _permitted_ to criticize or disparage evolution, it just says they can’t be _required_ to do it. Do you think teaches _should_ be _required_ to disparage evolution? If not, then what’s the problem? Depends on what is meant by “disparage”. If a new scientific theory comes about, from genuine peer-reviewed science, that contradicts evolution or parts of evolution, would teaching that be counted as “disparaging”? Because of this decision, would this hypothetical theory be prevented from being required material, even if it become accepted by the majority of the scientific community? The unlikliness of this hypothetical theory is completely beside the point, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/68 "2005-12-20T19:32:44Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > But what if an entirely new scientific theory comes about that is different enough from evolution that it cannot be cosidered an update, but a replacement? I know that seems unlikely, but we cannot legally protect any scientific theory from being replaced if new, non-junk-science evidence comes around. It kinda sounds like that’s being done here. > > The pessimist in me even wonders if this otherwise fine decision might be in danger of being struck down because of this. The ultra-paranoid in me wonders if this was put in there on purpose for exactly that. But that guy’s kinda nuts, I rarely let him out of his tin-foil bungalow. If that were to happen, the judge’s decision would not forbid any teachers from saying so. As it stands, they simply cannot be _forced_ to disparage evolutionary theory. Do you they they _should_ be forced to? I don’t understand your objection here? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/69 "2005-12-20T19:34:13Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > In theory, if, a century from now, the scientific theory of evolution gets a General Theory of Relativity-style overhaul, this order might make it difficult for the Dover school board to require teachers to respect that overhaul and teach it. > > However: > > 1. Such an overhaul isn’t exactly looming over us, I don’t think; and > 2. If it does come about, I see no reason to worry that Dover high school teachers will be so resistant to teaching it that the school board will need to step in; and > 3. If they are, the court can overturn the order at that point. > > So I’m not going to lose any sleep over the prospect :). > > Daniel Yeah, that’s what I was pretty much trying to say. But if the court overturns this order, that kinda opens the door again for the IDer’s, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/70 "2005-12-20T19:34:49Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Anyway, the judge has ruled on this. He knows both the law and the facts of the case better than we do. Can I quote you on that the next time you claim the SCOTUS gets something wrong? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/71 "2005-12-20T19:38:24Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Depends on what is meant by “disparage”. If a new scientific theory comes about, from genuine peer-reviewed science, that contradicts evolution or parts of evolution, would teaching that be counted as “disparaging”? Because of this decision, would this hypothetical theory be prevented from being required material, even if it become accepted by the majority of the scientific community? > > The unlikliness of this hypothetical theory is completely beside the point, btw. I don’t see why that would be a problem. there would be nothing _preventing_ any teachers from teaching the new facts. I guess, hypothetically, you could have some teacher who insists on teaching the old facts, but I think the prosepect of evolution is so unlikely- impossible, in fact- that it’s not worth worrying about. If the impossible were to happen, I’m sure the ruling would be changed ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/72 "2005-12-20T19:40:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can I quote you on that the next time you claim the SCOTUS gets something wrong? 🙂 Only if they know the facts and the law in a given case better than I do. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/73 "2005-12-20T19:43:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If that were to happen, the judge’s decision would not forbid any teachers from saying so. As it stands, they simply cannot be _forced_ to disparage evolutionary theory. Do you they they _should_ be forced to? I don’t understand your objection here? Some material in a class, the most important material generally, is considered required material for a class, correct? My concern is that the hypothetical new theory, which would likely be the most important theory in biological science (if it supplants evolution) could not be made required material because it would “disparage” the evolutionary theory it replaces. At the very least, it’d be kind of silly not to be able to make it required material, wouldn’t it? At worst, you can have individual teachers refusing to teach it, even though it would be such an important theory. Much like a fundie science teacher today might refuse to teach evolution. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/74 "2005-12-20T19:44:07Z")
It’s entirely \*legal \* to teach alchemy and astrology, too. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/75 "2005-12-20T19:48:36Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Yeah, that’s what I was pretty much trying to say. But if the court overturns this order, that kinda opens the door again for the IDer’s, doesn’t it? Not really, I don’t think: the door would be opened **because of overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution was no longer scientifically defensible**. If that very unlikely event happens, it still won’t open the door for ID folks, because there’s **also** an overwhelming scientific consensus that ID is not even science. At any rate, the event is so amazingly unlikely that I don’t see it as worth worrying about: it requires both an overhaul of evolution and an inexplicable unwillingness of Dover science teachers to teach the new theory. AND (I didn’t mention this before) it also requires that the Dover district have no other remedy, which seems extraordinarily unlikely. For example, right now, North Carolina and (I believe) most other states have Standard Course of Study documents that determine what teachers must teach at various grade levels, and evolution figures heavily into these. A district may fire a teacher who refuses to teach materials from the SCoS, without reference to whether the teacher is denigrating evolution. If evolution ever becomes scientifically outdated, that’s going to be reflected in the SCoS, and the school board may rely on teh state requirement for teachers to cover this material to keep science teachers in line with mainstream scientific thought. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/76 "2005-12-20T20:01:26Z")
Good points **LHOD**. I realize it’ll almost certainly never be a real problem, but I still would have preferred that that part of the decision not be there, or be worded differently. Smacks too much of protecting a theory from even genuine scientific criticisms, or at least preventing making the criticisms or genuine scientific alternate theories part of required material. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/77 "2005-12-20T20:07:30Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Good points **LHOD** I still would have preferred that that part of the decision not be there, or be worded differently. Smacks too much of protecting a theory from even genuine scientific criticisms, or at least preventing making the criticisms or genuine scientific alternate theories part of required material. Hmm. I guess I see what you’re saying. Since the schoolboard doesn’t enter into scientific debates normally, however, I don’t see this prevention from entering into a specific debate to provide the theory any special protection. If the school board were regularly in the business of deciding scientific controversies, I’d have more of an issue with keeping them out of this particular hypothetical controversy. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/78 "2005-12-20T20:14:50Z")
Hey, is anybody else looking forward to hearing some whackery from Pat Robertson about this decision? That’s usually good for a laugh or two. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/79 "2005-12-20T20:30:22Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Hey, is anybody else looking forward to hearing some whackery from Pat Robertson about this decision? That’s usually good for a laugh or two. I don’t know what he’s said about the decision but [here](http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190011) is a sampling of his incredibly articulate and incisive commentary on the case in general. > [@](#): > > From the December 15 broadcast of Christian Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club: > > ``` > ROBERTSON: You know, what we have got to recognize just there in this case is that the evolutionists worship atheism. I mean, that's their religion. And evolution becomes their religion. It is a matter of religion. So this is an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And the fact that somebody comes along and says, "We are not sure that it's accurate, it's a theory and not a fact" -- how can you say it's a fact? You are talking about 10 to 15 billion years ago. Who was there? > > TERRY MEEUWSEN (co-host): Scientifically, you would think that the scientific community would rise to the occasion and say, "Absolutely, let's keep an open mind. Let's continue to discover and search." > > ROBERTSON: Yeah, well, a lot of scientists are. More and more are. They are saying there are just too many things that can't be explained by evolution. But, I mean, these fanatics, I mean, it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish religion, and whenever you start talking about the origins of life, you now get into religious matter, and theirs is just as much religion. The only difference is that even questioning, questioning that -- the ACLU says even if you question our religion, you are guilty of violating the First Amendment. I mean, give me a break. > > ``` Really…I mean where do you start with this stuff? “Evolutionists worship atheism?” Atheism is a deity now? When did that happen? Evolution is a “cult?” Scientists are “fanatics?” I think Robertson is just descending more and more into raving senility lately. I’m sure he’ll probably wish a hurricane or something on Pennsylvania now. It raises an interesting contradiction, though. IF ID s not religion then why do so many of its supporters think that opposing it is anti-religious? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/80 "2005-12-20T20:51:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It raises an interesting contradiction, though. IF ID s not religion then why do so many of its supporters think that opposing it is anti-religious? Wouldn’t it have been beautiful if the anti-evolution folks called Robertson to the stand and pointed this out? Not sure if that would have helped the case, but it’d be pure entertainment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353.md?page=5)