Science Wins (again) in Dover, PA

Overview at Panda's Thumb has the following excerpts from Judge Jones's decision:

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.

(emphasis mine)

The Power of the Headline (to mislead and misinform)

"Liberal Media" indeed.

The headline from Reuters:

Judge bans teaching intelligent design

The headline from AP:

Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum

now tell me, which of the two is the accurate summary of the judgement?

---

Update:
in the car driving around way too crowded lunch spots, i came to the same realization as the first two comments did: both headlines suck.

"ban" is not the appropriate term, and neither was "PA biology curriculum"

science WILL debate creationists, but on terms that matter, not as the public circus

What is really significant about the Kitzmiller decision:

[an excerpt from the decision...] is exactly what scientific critics of ID have been saying for years. In fact, as I read through the opinion, I am struck by the extent to which Judge Jones' opinion, based entirely on the evidence before him and the relevant caselaw, matches almost perfectly what people on my side of this have been saying for years.

This is highly significant. Evolutionists are constantly being accused of being unwilling to engage proponents of ID. We are besieged by juvenile taunts like, “If the evidence for evolution is as strong as you say, then why are you so afraid to let a dissenting voice be heard?” Such bleats were especially loud in the wake of the decision by scientists to boycott the Kansas evolution hearings a while back.

We now see what nonsense this really is. Evolutionists are perfectly happy to engage their opponents, as long as the venue is one in which facts and evidence will be the basis for the verdict. Public debates in front of lay audiences are primarily about good theater and flashy rhetoric.

-- Prof Jason Rosenhouse, JMU. [emphasis mine]

It should be noted also, Judge Jones wrote this decision with the inevitable Kansas case in mind. he makes it very clear in his findings that "science can not be defined differently" (pg 70) from a definition based on "the scientific method" (pg 65) (i.e., methodological naturalism and the emphasis on physical evidence and causality).

He had every intention of having this work be referenceable in the same manner that he himself referenced the conclusions of McLean, which was also merely a district-level decision that technically did not set a precedent that he had to acknowledge.

Even when precedent for the conclusions isn't applicable, his findings of fact in this matter are likely to be referenced in both the Cobb County Appeal and the looming Kansas case that the DI *really* wants to win (in the long run, after a million appeals).

There won't be any appeals of this case, as its already cost Dover, PA taxpayers a million dollars, plus the school board that started it all were all thrown out in the last election.

Oh, and the footnotes in the document are just as telling, if not more so, than the text itself that the judge was less than impressed with the supposed credentials of the ID supporters, as in this example concerning the authors of On Pandas and People: Moreover, the Court has been presented with no evidence that either Defendants’ testifying experts or any other ID proponents, including Pandas’ authors, have such paleontology expertise as we have been presented with no evidence that they have published peer-reviewed literature or presented such information at scientific conferences on paleontology or the fossil record. (17:15-16 (Padian)).