Evolution vs Intelligent Design as Science in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge John E Jones III Presiding. (January 9, 2006)

Judge John E Jones III

    The introduction to the 139 page decision handed down by Judge John Jones III in what had become a test case with regard to the teaching of Intelligent Design as science in the public schools of the United States reads:

On October 18, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School Board of Directors passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution:

 

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.

 

Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

 

On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:
 

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 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.

According to Science "In his ruling, Jones went beyond the question of whether the policy was religiously motivated and tore into the whole foundation of ID. His 139-page decision, which incorporates substantial portions of the plaintiffs' arguments, also castigates the school board for the "breathtaking inanity" of its policy."

Here are the critical excepts from the decision as reported by Science:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:

1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

2) The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s, and;

3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. …

ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. … It is notable that defense experts' own mission is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the [district] court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. … Not a single expert witness over the course of the 6-week trial identified one major scientific association, society, or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the National Academy of Sciences. …

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact the same argument, termed 'contrived dualism' in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980s to support 'creation science'. … However, we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. …

The concept of irreducible complexity is ID's alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design. Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID. … As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by 'irreducible complexity' renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means.

Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function. For example, Dr. [Kevin] Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor [Michael] Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. …

We find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory. … [It] is grounded in theology, not science. … It has no place in a science curriculum. ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous and, at worst, a canard. The goal of the ID movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution that would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.