Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

This is a long post so let me start it by doing what journalists fight kicking and screaming against: State my personal beliefs. I believe this Earth and the universe were created by God. I believe we were created in His image. Paint me a Creationist. Does that mean I’m a wacko religious nut? No. My temporal calling here on Earth is an engineer. Or “engi-nerd” if yer the fetching Mrs. Guano (not her real name) or her friends. Whatever. Fine. As an engineer, I recognize the handiwork and craftsmanship of a “Colleague” whenever I observe the planets making their mathematical trajectories across the night sky, watch the recycling of energy in thunderstorms unleashing hydraulic power in the Sierras for the power producing return to the Pacific, watching our physical laws at work in general. How can I describe the laws of nature as “handiwork” or “craftsmanship?”

Many moons ago when yours truly was a kid, cosmological theory held to something called the “Steady State” universe. In essence the universe always existed and was infinite in size. Nowadays, cosmological theory has embraced the “Big Bang” theory based on evidentiary rules. Meaning the available observable evidence indicates the infinite universe does not exist. The universe is somewhere around 15 billion years old according to what our observations of it tell us. The so-called “Big Bang” was the moment it …. Ummmm, hmmm, what word should I use here…. Conceived? No, no, that implies thought behind it. Consummated? No, no that’s too sexual (right afterwards came the Big Cigarette according to the late, great Johnny Carson). Ah heck, CREATED. Okay? The universe was created, came into existence, popped into being, by this massive, boggles the mind, explosion and release of immense energy. From what you may ask? Nothing. That’s right, nothing. Before the Big Bang (gasp, creation) the time and space that we are so comfortable with and take for granted didn’t exist. The atoms in my fingers and this keyboard they’re banging away on didn’t exist. Nothing existed in the formless void that preceded the Big Bang, at least that we’ll know of anyway. To create what we see all around us from nothing. Now that’s a skilled Craftsman.

In a statement of absolute faith, some scientific types (notice I’m not calling them scientists) make the claim that science will explain the Big Bang. The how’s and why’s it happened, that is. “Poppycock! Balderdash! Absolute rot! Take another toke, Carl.” How do I know that? Because the nanosecond before ignition is unobservable. Remember the space-time thing? Science is the observation of phenomena (leading to a conclusion is the desired result) in time and space. Time and space are prerequisites to working science. The Big Bang, even though we know it happened, will never be explained by human science because we can not observe it let alone recreate the prior conditions to model it.

What does this all have to do with Kitzmiller? Kitzmiller is a question of what science is and what faith is. I have said before that a government with no basis in righteousness is doomed to failure, but should a government promote bad science to its population to maintain its righteousness? No, but government should desire a population that can scientifically reason its way through life. That is where our schools fail us. Dogma passes for the scientific method these days. Most of the defenses of evolution are it’s accepted in the scientific community. So what?!?!? How are my kids to know that the scientific community is right, other than by blind faith, if they don’t know how to execute the scientific method? If all they get in biology class is what Stephen Jay Gould said is pretty much gospel, where’s the science in that? “Where’s the facts?” to borrow from an old Burger King commercial. The philosophy of science is what’s missing in education, or how do we know what we know. That particular philosophy is called epistemology. Ever hear of it? Most likely not.

As far as the particulars of Kitzmiller, it was an absolute loser of a case for Intelligent Design and never should have seen the inside of a courtroom. It was an embarrassment that will set ID back a few years and I’m thankful the Dover School Board will not appeal it. It was damaging to ID in Judge Jones found the school board members pushing this case “would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” Ouch. So much for credible proponents of science education. This school board was not the poster child for ID promotion. The judge’s conclusion (starting at page 136 of 139 of the decision) is repeated below (with some commentary):


The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, (He’s right. It’s philosophy, which isn’t a bad thing) and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. (true, and no reason that it should)

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID 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. (Rather evolutionary theory constructed by good science may be exposing for all to see the handiwork of the Creator. It that sense evolutionary discoveries should be celebrated) To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. (yes) 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 (Some aspects of Darwin theory isn’t exactly testable either, your Honor, that would be the “gaps” and “flaws”) alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. (yes, Yes, YES as should be the case for any theory – including ID. It had better be prepared to take the same hardball vetting its proponents want Darwin subjected to)

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. (Absolutely) 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 ID Policy (my theory is the Dark One got them good and fever swamp-ish over this policy until they lost all sense of bearing, such that they would make complete asses of themselves thus adding discredit to believers in God as all being similar wingnuts) . With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. (Perhaps because they sounded and behaved reasonably) Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID 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 ID, 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. (SLAM! Thanks DASB. Thanks a heap! There were two Board members in particular behind this insanity. I won’t mention their names out of respect for their hopeful remorse over embarrassing the rest of us) To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

We should be thankful this case is over and regret it ever came to be.