Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

David Opderbeck wrote:

> Pim -- right, but the court didn't have to decide whether ID is in
> fact "science" to decide whether the Board's purpose was a "sham." The
> record as to the Board's motives was clear -- they intended to use ID
> as a way of sneaking their own religious views into the classroom.
> After that, whether ID qualified as "science" in any broader sense was
> irrelevant. And, in fact, Judge Jones' discussion of "science" didn't
> relate to the Lemon "purpose" prong. It related to the "endorsement"
> test, which makes this discussion of "purpose" interesting but not
> relevant to Kitzmiller.

Let's revisit the Judge's ruling and see if David has a valid point here

    We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult
    member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants’ conduct to be a
    strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test.
    Having so
    concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an
    additional
    issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be
    sure, our answer
    to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing
    analysis. While
    answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is
    entirely complex, if
    not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and
    included
    countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court
    is confident that
    no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than
    are we to traipse
    into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion
    on whether ID is
    science not just because it is essential to our holding that an
    Establishment Clause
    violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it
    may prevent the
    obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be
    occasioned by a
    subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

In other words, the issue of science was raised by the Plaintiffs

Namely that the defendants believed that IDT was a scientific theory,
that the board had a valid secular purpose namely to advance science
education.

    Even if the Plaintiffs had proven that IDT was religion (which they
    have not), this would not support their claim that the defendants'
    primary purpose was to advance religion because the board's actual
    purpose , based upon the actual conclusion it derived from its
    deliberations, was to enhance science education by making students
    aware of what they regarded as a scientific theory.

    and

    Even if the policy could be said to "advance" IDT in any meaningful
    evidence sense the evidence shows, and the Court finds, that this
    does not amount to advancing religion because IDT is in fact a
    scientific theory, not Creationism and the statement provides
    truthful and accurate information about ET.

Like the court did in McLean v Arkansas, it shows, quite in depth, why
the essential claim that ID is science fails.

When discussing the Lemon purpose prong the court revisits "valid
secular purpose"

The court finds that "Defendants Presented No Convincing Evidence that
They were Motived by Any Valid Secular Purpose"

In the effect prong, the science issue shows up once again

    "To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science,
    the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID
    Policy is the advancement of religion.See McLean, 529 F. Supp. at
    1272. "

Leading to the conclusion that

    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 the proposed findings of fact by plaintiffs and defendants show the
relevance of the issue of ID being science to be a 'central defense'
arguing that there is a valid secular purpose because ID is science. The
issue is relevant both to the purpose AND effect prongs of Lemon, as
well as the endorsement test.
Received on Fri Jan 6 13:04:45 2006