now available.
The 139 page document finds for the plaintiffs.
Judge Jones finds that “intelligent design” is not science. The DASD ID policy
fails the “endorsement test” for both student and adult observers, violates both
purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test, and also violates the Pennsylvania
constitution.
From the conclusion:
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, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus
religious, antecedents.
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.
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 ID 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 ID Policy.
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. 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.
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
