(I imagine this is actually a General Question, but I am sure it will turn into a Great Debate…)
My housemates know that I’ve been following this trial, and the two other grad students agree that ID shouldn’t be taught as science, but they don’t follow this kind of thing like I do. One of them asked me a question on the immediate rammifications from the decision, and I gave him my WAG. But I’m sure someone here can give a better answer than I did.
The Question:
So what does this decision mean for Kentucky/another state requiring that IDT be taught?
My WAG:
The court was not the SCOTUS, so there is no immediate application to any other district. However,
a.) now that there is legal precedence, lawsuits to remove IDT from science classes will be “easier.”
b.) If this particular case makes to the SCOTUS (and they uphold, in whatever manner) this ruling, then it will be immediately applicable to all states.
My question for the board:
Was my WAG close? and if not… ahhh… see “The Question.”
Legally speaking, a district court’s ruling is binding only on the parties to the case. A circuit court’s ruling is binding within the federal circuit on ALL cases, and of course the Supreme Court’s ruling is binding nationwide.
However, especially in the case of a well researched, comprehensive opinion like this, other courts may well use this ruling as persuasive authority.
I haven’t studied the decision in detail. One thing that did strike me was the judge’s findings of fact. He found as a matter of fact that the decision to teach Intelligent Design was an effort to circumvent previous court rulings prohibiting creationism being taught.
This is significant for this particular case’s posture on appeal, if is is appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed “de novo” - meaning looked at anew, with no particular deference. The theory is that the apellate court is perfectly entitled to substitute their view of the law for the trial court’s view of the law.
But the trial court’s finding of fact (as long as it has support in the record) cannot be reviewed on appeal. The appellate court must accept the findings of fact made at trial.
So while that seems to lock in this particular decision, I’m not sure how much precedential value it has. Can another jurisdiction come to court and say, “Well, those guys in Dover may have been underhanded in their motives for pushing ID, but WE aren’t!” And how much of that factual finding drives the decision’s result?
I’d suspect the battle isn’t over, but this is a strong win for the good guys.
From what I heard on the radio, this decision applies only to the court district in Pennsylvania. It is unlikely to be appealed, since the new school board is against teaching ID, and has said that they will abide by the judge’s decision. (Saves Dover some money also.) That being said, it could be used to guide other school boards and judges. It appears that Jones heard so much testimony, and wrote such a complete decision, to be broad instead of narrow. So, it has no direct bearing on Kansas, but perhaps an indirect one.
The direct implications of this decision will probably be that Creationists will be far more circumspect in their discussions of Christian Creationism when deciding to sneak ID into school districts.
When the testimony includes so many direct statements of religious intent by the defendants (and so many blatant lies as they try to cover their actions that the judge remarks on it), it is a pretty clear indication that publicly declaring religious intent will not go well in court.
Yep, look for the camel to try to stick his nose under a different flap of the tent. Instead of a frontal assault on science education by the True Believers, one that can be identified and dismissed as easily as this one, look for the next approach not to mention “alternate theories” at all. Instead, look for stealth school board members to advocate the teaching of alleged weaknesses in the “theory” of evolution along with demonstrating the wonderful complexity of life. The religious angle there would be much harder for the next “activist” judge to identify, but would still be palliative.
I have been impressed by the actual wording of the decision, surprised at its scope and impressed by its arguments. Courts have a normal bias against a broad decision, and Judge Jones could have narrowly ruled that in this particular case, the plaintiff’s claim was valid just because it mixed religion with secular activities, but he went to the trouble of analyzing the claims of ID and found them wanting. He didn’t waffle, he didn’t dance around the issue or avoid any parts of it; he went right to the core issue.
He therefore provided some strong, well-organized material that could be applied, in philosophy, if not in formal court jurisdiction, to other, similar cases around the country. Anyone tempted to try the same stunt in their school district would have to be prepared to strongly refute this decision, and I think that would be quite a difficult task.
With reference to ElvisL1ves’ post, Judge Jones also pointed out that the disclaimer notice that the school board wanted to mandate was unique:
Unless the IDers want to challenge a broader range of instruction and object to Shakespeare, geometry and history on similar grounds as well, it seems future efforts of this type are doomed.
Think of it as an arms race. There is now an established legal opinion on this, but that also lets the next group of ID proponents know what won’t work. They will most likely try a different tack, certainly one that doesn’t use “Of Pandas and People”. The action of the school board in this case was very minor-- all they wanted done was to have a 4 paragraph disclaimer read before the biology class began its instruction on evolution. The next effort, if it its proponents want to give it a chance of survival, will almost certainly have to be even more circumspect. They might not even mention ID, but simply use a disclaimer about evolution being “only” a theory.
Anyway, as others have already said, this battle is far from over.
I agree on your “arms race” analogy, but if you haven’t read the entire decision, I urge you to do so. It would certainly seem like much ado about 4 paragraphs, but Judge Jones delved into the history leading up to those words and the personal involvement of the board members in various tactics and activities. Jones indicated that the 4 paragraphs were only the tip of the iceberg, and he took the entire iceberg (and part of the surrounding ocean) into account. He also demolished the misconception of IDers as to the word “theory” when applied to science.
IDers will have to find holes and weaknesses in the decision, and I don’t see many. My guess is they may try to find judicial districts or judges who have a more religious bent and don’t feel the wall of separation should be so rigidly applied. I’m worried this might apply to the new US Supreme Court, depending on who fills the still-open position.
I’m going to mark that on my calendar right now. December 22, 2010: “Check to see how much solid evidence ID has acquired compared to 5 years ago.” :rolleyes:
Whoops. Pat Robertson ate my homework, and the link above is to another article, still worth reading, but not the NYT. Here is the real deal (registration might be required):
I’ll stop posting now, and let someone else get a word in edgewise.
Hell, I think ID is damfoolishness but what Demsbki laid out there is fine by me. By all means if he thinks there’s a means by which to test and falsify ID I’d love to see the work on it.
Admittedly, I’d be shocked if he pulled it off. But I’d also be accepting.
I (finally) support Dembski, on this one. Heck, if he and Behe and their ilk had done the science instead of running to the popular press ten years go, we would not be having this battle in the courts and school boards.
The IDers in the Dover case left religious fingerprints all over the place. People who want to cast doubt on evolution will, in the future, most likely try to eliminate as many of those fingerprints as possible. That’s all I’m trying to say. Anyone who thinks this case shut the door on any further efforts to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools is fooling himself.
This was my favorite quote in the article. It seems the IDers creed is: teach first, publish second, do the research third. Kind of like verdict first, trial later.
I am willing to acknowledge the existence of ghosts if you can prove it scientifically; I am willign to acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot, Sasquatch and/or the Abominable Snowman if you can prove it scientifically; I am willing to acknowledge the existence of the Loch Ness Monster if you can prove it scientifically; I am willing the acknowledge the validity of Intelligent Design theory if you can prove i scientifically. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these are extraordinary claims. If you don’t have a mountain of very sound evidence to prove your point, you’re not going to manage it, and shouldn’t be able to.
This is the whole problem with attempts to “muscle” Intelligent Design into science class through political action. It’s pure Lysenkoism in America. Doesn’t matter if it’s capitalist politicos or commie politicos are tryng to do it, it stinks either way.
Thanks for the replies gang. If you’re in the mood for talking legalish matters, I gots me another question over hee-ah. (wherein we find out that Geek done can’t remember a silly thing like an accident.)