Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
DateDecember 20, 2005
Case nameTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.
Citations400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
HoldingTeaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
JudgeJohn E. Jones III (appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush)
Laws appliedU.S. Const. Amend. 1; Penn. Const. Art. I, § 3


Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision has sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of a textbook advocating intelligent design titled Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit as a defendant but was denied.[1]

The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy there was no right to a jury trial; the Seventh Amendment did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[2]

Background

Part of the series on
Intelligent design
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic realism
Intelligent design
movement
Timeline
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
Wedge strategy
Critical Analysis of Evolution
Teach the Controversy
Intelligent design in politics
Santorum Amendment
Reactions
Jewish Roman Catholic
Scientific organizations
Certain members of the Dover Board of Education expressed concern about the teaching of evolution. In the summer of 2004, they were given legal advice by the Discovery Institute, and around July, they accepted an offer by the Thomas More Law Center to represent them. On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6–3 to add the following statement to their biology curriculum:

Students will be made aware of the 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 Dover Area School District issued a press release stating 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 is still being 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 to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with 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.


Three of the school board members in the minority of the vote resigned in protest, and science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their ninth-grade students, citing the Pennsylvania code of education, which states that teachers cannot present information they believe to be false. Instead, the statement was read to students by a school administrator.

The school board claimed there are "gaps" in evolution, which it claimed is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. The school board claimed it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denied intelligent design is "religion in disguise", despite being represented in court by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian, not-for-profit law center that uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values". Its stated purpose is "...to be the sword and shield for people of faith".

The ACLU filed suit on December 14, 2004 on behalf of eleven parents from the Dover school district, and sought a law firm willing to take on the case at the risk of not being paid if the case was lost. Eric Rothschild, one of the partners of Pepper Hamilton LLP and a member of the NCSE legal advisory council, was quick to agree to take the case on such a pro bono basis.

The Discovery Institute's John West said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court. "It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech." Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, contend that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical: the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation.

Despite its earlier involvement, the Discovery Institute was concerned that this would be a test case and that the defendants had earlier displayed their religious motivations. This tension led to disagreements with the Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three Discovery Institute fellows as defense experts prior to their depositions – William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. This was apparently because the Thomas More Law Center refused to allow these witnesses to have their own attorneys present during deposition.[3]

In May 2005, the publisher of Of Pandas and People, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), filed a motion seeking to intervene in the case. FTE argued that a ruling that "intelligent design" was religious would have severe financial consequences, citing possible losses of approximately half a million dollars. By intervening, FTE would have become a co-defendant with the Dover Area School Board, and able to bring its own lawyers and expert witnesses to the case. FTE's president Jon Buell implied that if allowed to intervene, FTE would bring William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer as expert witnesses. In his decision on the motion, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was not timely, describing FTE's reasons for not trying to become involved earlier as "both unavailing and disingenuous." Judge Jones also held that FTE failed to demonstrate that it has "a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party" and that its interests will not be adequately represented by the defendants.

In the November 2005 elections, none of the members of the Dover School Board who voted for the intelligent design policy were re-elected, and a new school board, which rejected the policy, took office. This effectively precluded the possibility of an appeal to a higher court.

Litigants

The litigants of this trial are as follows:

Plaintiffs

  • Tammy Kitzmiller
  • Bryan Rehm
  • Christy Rehm
  • Deborah Fenimore
  • Joel Lieb
  • Steven Stough
  • Beth Eveland
  • Cynthia Sneath
  • Julie Smith
  • Aralene ("Barrie") D. Callahan
  • Frederick B. Callahan

Defendants

  • Dover Area School District
  • Dover Area School District Board of Directors
Members who voted for the statement:
*William Buckingham (resigned August 2005 due to health concerns)[4]
*Alan Bonsell
*Sheila Harkins
*Heather Geesey
*Jane Cleaver (resigned October 4 2004)
*Angie Ziegler-Yingling (resigned December 6 2004)


Members who voted against it:[5]
*Noel Wenrich (announced his resignation October 4 2004 His last day of service last day of service October 31, 2004. Moved out of the district)
*Carol Brown (resigned October 18 2004 in protest
*Jeff Brown (resigned October 18 2004 in protest

Trial

The trial began on September 26, 2005.

See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents for links to official trial documents, transcripts and other materials.

Opening statements

Plaintiffs

Eric Rothschild gave the opening arguments for the plaintiffs. He said that the plaintiffs would be able to provide many examples of school board members wishing to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked prior defense claims that it was a minor affair by saying that there is no such thing as a "little" constitutional violation. He also provided the definition of creationism given by an early draft of Pandas:
Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.
He compared this with what was eventually published:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.
(The definitions had come up in an earlier hearing in a July 14 pre-trial hearing.)[6] He also argued that intelligent design was not science in its infancy but rather was not science at all.

Defense

Patrick Gillen gave the opening arguments for the defense. He started by saying that the goal of the board and its supporters was to enhance science education. He argued that the policy was a "modest change." He distanced the policy from alleged statements made by then board member William Buckingham which the plaintiffs argued showed clear religious intent: "The board listened to the science faculty more than it listened to Bill Buckingham." He argued that the policy did not have a "religious agenda." Gillen mentioned that board member Alan Bonsell had done his own reading. He said Bonsell was "aware of intelligent design theory, and that 300 or so scientists had signed a statement indicating that biologists were exaggerating claims for the theory. He had read about the famous Piltdown man hoax. He had an interest in creationism."

Witnesses

Witnesses for the plaintiffs

September 27, 2005
  • Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." He said that the idea of intelligent design was not subject to falsification, but many claims made by intelligent-design advocates had been falsified. Asked what the harm was in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) "[I]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith."
  • Tammy Kitzmiller testified as a fact witness. She was the lead plaintiff and a parent of a child in the Dover school system.
  • Aralene "Barrie" D. Callahan was a plaintiff, a Dover parent, and was for ten years a board member of the Dover Area School District. She had previously resigned over the actions of the board in relation to this case. She testified that Alan Bonsell, a board member, argued in a board retreat in Spring, 2003 that if evolution were taught then creationism should also be taught: "fifty-fifty."
  • Bryan Rehm was the last witness of the day. He was a former physics teacher at Dover and a parent to children attending school at the Dover Area School District. Both he and his wife were plaintiffs and taught Vacation Bible School. Rehm testified that Alan Bonsell, then-chairman of the board's curriculum committee, had asked teachers to watch a video on intelligent design titled Icons of Evolution. Teachers had expressed concern that Bonsell did not believe in evolution and wished to see classroom discussions of evolution balanced "fifty-fifty" with creationism.
September 28, 2005
  • Robert T. Pennock is a philosopher now working on the Avida digital organism project at Michigan State University where he is an associate professor. He is the author of many books and articles critical of intelligent design. He testified as an expert witness.
  • Julie Smith is a parent and plaintiff. She made only one point: that the policy created a hostile atmosphere for her daughter, Katherine. She said her daughter was harassed for her Catholic background, being told that she is an atheist since she accepted evolution.
  • Christy Rehm testified as a parent and plaintiff.
  • Beth Eveland testified.
  • Frederick Callahan testified.
September 29, 2005
  • Carol Brown testified.
  • Jeffrey Brown testified.
September 30, 2005 2005-10-05—2005-10-06 Prior to her testimony the TMLC filed a motion to have her excluded as an expert witness. In that motion they characterized her as "little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing, 'cyber-stalker' of the Discovery Institute." [10][11] Jones denied the motion.

Forrest gave testimony on the history of the intelligent design movement, citing writings of prominent figures (such as Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document", Phillip Johnson's "How the Evolution Debate Can be Won", and of William Dembski). She also testified that ID was merely another name for the creationism movement, attempting to present a religious proposition as a scientific viewpoint. She stated that Johnson "regards evolution as a threat to the Bible in its entirety and as a threat to the moral fabric of American culture," and that one of the goals of his movement is to unify the religious world. She added that there is "no way to reconcile [...] at all" the Dover school board newsletter statement that intelligent design is a scientific theory with Paul Nelson's statements in the interview "The Measure of Design".

Forrest noted that she was unaware of any evidence that the members of the School board had seen the "Wedge Document" prior to the lawsuit. During her testimony the TMLC requested Judge Jones exclude her as an expert witness. Their request was denied by Jones.

According to Forrest, just several days prior to her scheduled testimony the Discovery Institute attempted to publicly ridicule her on their website. [12] Many of both her supporters and critics have written they believe her testimony had a significant influence on the outcome of the trial.

October 6, 2005
  • Jennifer Miller testified.
  • Bertha Spahr testified.
October 12, 2005 October 14, 2005
  • Steven Stough testified.
  • Kevin Padian testified.
  • Joel Lieb testified.

Witnesses for the defense

2005-10-17—2005-10-19 2005-10-20—2005-10-21
  • Richard Nilsen testified.
2005-10-21, 2005-10-28, & 2005-11-03
  • Michael Richard Baksa testified. He was the Dover Area School District Assistant Superintendent. In an email response to a complaint by social studies teacher Brad Neal, Baksa referred to The Myth of Separation by David Barton, a book Baksa had received from Superintendent Richard Nilsen, who had received it from board member Alan Bonsell. The book calls separation of church and state "absurd." Baksa also discussed attempted changes to the statement. Teachers suggested adding "Darwin's theory of evolution continues to be the dominant scientific explanation of the origin of species," but this was eliminated by the board. The teachers also recommended altering it to read "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the theory, although it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered." Citing his belief the board would reject this, Baksa eliminated the "significant amount of evidence."
October 24, 2005
  • Steve Fuller testified. He provided a qualified defense of the scientific status of intelligent design, observing that its history can be traced back to Newton and should include such luminaries of modern biology as Linnaeus and Mendel. He also stressed a distinction from the philosophy of science between the "context of discovery" (what motivates a scientist) and the "context of justification" (how the scientist's theory is judged) in order to mitigate the undeniably religious origins of intelligent design. Fuller memorably called for an "affirmative action" program for intelligent design, which did not win much favor with Judge Jones in his final decision. Fuller's testimony was cited by lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defense in their closing statements.

Witnesses for the plaintiffs (called out-of-turn)

October 27, 2005 October 28, 2005
  • Heidi Bernhard-Bubb testified.
  • Joseph Maldonado testified.

Witnesses for the defense

October 28, 2005
  • Heather Geesey testified.
October 31, 2005
  • Jane Cleaver testified.
  • Alan Bonsell testified. His testimony initially included a claim that he did not know where the money had been raised to donate sixty copies of Of Pandas and People to the school's library. On hearing that the money had been raised in William Buckingham's church, and directed through Bonsell's father so that it might be donated anonymously, Judge Jones elected to take over the examination of Bonsell himself, questioning him for about ten minutes.
November 3, 2005

Closing arguments

Closing arguments were made on 4 November 2005. Upon completion of the closing arguments, Mr. Gillen asked Judge Jones, "By my reckoning, this is the 40th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose." To which the judge responded, "Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design," eliciting laughter and applause from those present.

Decision

On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiff and issued a , adopting much of the plaintiff's findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he wrote:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" ()


"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." ()


"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" ()


"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." ()


"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." ()


"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not 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 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." ()


"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." ()


"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 IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." ()


"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." ()


Enlarge picture
Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case
In his on pages 136–138 of 139 of this decision he writes:

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. [...]


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.

Responses

Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

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.


Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."[13]

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer."[14][15][16][17]

Settlement of the legal fees

On February 21, 2006, the newly elected Dover Area School Board voted, unanimously with one abstention, to pay $1,000,011 in legal fees and damages due to the parents and their lawyers as a result of the verdict in the case, a large sum of money for a small district. The previous school board had been offered the opportunity to rescind its policy, and avoid paying legal fees, immediately after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but it declined. The parent's attorneys Pepper Hamilton stated that court records would show that they were entitled to more than $2 million, but were going to accept less than half that amount in recognition of the small size of the school district, and because the school board that voted for the policy had been voted out of office leaving the new school board "having the bill placed in their laps." The previous school board had been defended without charge by the Thomas More Law Center.[18] Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United, said of the trial's cost, "Any board thinking of trying to do what the Dover board did is going to have to look for a bill in excess of $2 million," and "I think $2 million is a lot to explain to taxpayers for a lawsuit that should never be fought." [19]

Allegations of perjury

After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful. saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed". Other discussions concluded that for various reasons it was unlikely that prosecutions would proceed.[20]

Analysis and criticism

Various parties have examined the decision for flaws and conclusions. The University of Montana Law review published three articles addressing this topic in its winter 2007 issue.[21] David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, senior fellows or officers of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, that the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the decision will have no effect on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.[22] Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al article, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned, and that it marks the end to legal efforts by the intelligent design movement to introduce creationism in public schools.[23] DeWolf et al responded to the Irons article in the same issue.[24]

References

1. ^ [1]
2. ^ [2]
3. ^ [3]
4. ^ [4]
5. ^ [5]
6. ^ [6]
7. ^ [7]
8. ^ [8]
9. ^ [9]
10. ^ [10]
11. ^ [11]
12. ^ [12]
13. ^ [13]
14. ^ [14]
15. ^ [15]
16. ^ [16]
17. ^ [17]
18. ^ Kauffman, Christina. "Dover gets a million-dollar bill", York Dispatch, February 22, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
19. ^ "Intelligent design" costs Dover over $1,000,000. NCSE Resource (February 24, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-08-12.
20. ^ Weblog: Dover Board Lied! Intelligent Design Died! (December 2005).
21. ^ Articles - Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 10, 2007.
22. ^ INTELLIGENT DESIGN WILL SURVIVE KITZMILLER V. DOVER, David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, May 4, 2007.
23. ^ DISASTER IN DOVER: THE TRIALS (AND TRIBULATIONS) OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN, Peter Irons, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.
24. ^ Rebuttal to Irons, David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.

See also

Further reading

  • Chapman, Matthew (2007). 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania. Collins. ISBN 0061179450. 
  • deWolf, David K., West, John G., Luskin, Casey & Witt, Jonathan (2006). Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision. Discovery Institute Press. ISBN 0-9638654-9-8. 
  • Humes, Edward. . New York: Ecco, 2007. ISBN 9780060885489.
  • Mirsky, Steve. "Teach the Science." Scientific American, February 2006, pp. 36–38.
  • Slack, Gordy (2007). The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA. Jossey-Bass. ISBN
0787987867. 

Media files

External links

Resources

December 20 is the 1st day of the year (2nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 0 days remaining.

Events

  • 69 - Vespasian, a former general under Nero, enters Rome to claim the title of emperor.

..... Click the link for more information.
20th century - 21st century - 22nd century
1970s  1980s  1990s  - 2000s -  2010s  2020s  2030s
2002 2003 2004 - 2005 - 2006 2007 2008

2005 by topic:
News by month
Jan - Feb - Mar - Apr - May - Jun
..... Click the link for more information.
John Edward Jones III (born June 13 1955) is an American lawyer and jurist from the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. A Republican, Jones was appointed by President George W.
..... Click the link for more information.
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, originally inaugurated on January 20, 2001. Bush was first elected in the 2000 presidential election, and reelected for a second term in the 2004 presidential election.
..... Click the link for more information.
Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
If you are prevented from editing this page, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or .
..... Click the link for more information.
United States of America

This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution

Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
..... Click the link for more information.
The current Constitution of Pennsylvania, most recently revised in 1968, forms the law for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Although considered a new document, it is heavily based on the previous Constitution of 1874, and is often considered a revision of the earlier version.
..... Click the link for more information.
United States of America

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
the United States




Federal government
Constitution
Taxation

President Vice President
Cabinet


Congress
Senate
..... Click the link for more information.
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
..... Click the link for more information.
Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
If you are prevented from editing this page, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or .
..... Click the link for more information.
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.
..... Click the link for more information.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
..... Click the link for more information.
United States of America

This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution

Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
..... Click the link for more information.
Borough of Dover, Pennsylvania
Map Of Pennsylvania, USA
Coordinates:
Country United States
State Pennsylvania
County York
Incorporated 1925
Government
..... Click the link for more information.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Flag of Pennsylvania Seal
Nickname(s): Keystone State, Quaker State,
Coal State, Oil State

Motto(s): Virtue, Liberty and Independence

Capital Harrisburg
Largest city
..... Click the link for more information.
York, Pennsylvania

Seal
Nickname: The White Rose City
Coordinates:
Country United States
State Pennsylvania
County York
..... Click the link for more information.
The Dover Area School District is a public school district located in Pennsylvania, United States. It consists of Dover Township, Washington Township and Dover Borough, in York County, Pennsylvania.

See also

  • Kitzmiller v.

..... Click the link for more information.
American Civil Liberties Union

ACLU logo

Formation 1920
Headquarters New York, NY
Membership 550,000 members[1]
Website The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU
..... Click the link for more information.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United or AU for short) is a religious freedom advocacy group in the United States which promotes the separation of church and state, a legal doctrine seen by the AU as being enshrined in the Establishment
..... Click the link for more information.
Pepper Hamilton LLP is a law firm founded in 1890 by George Wharton Pepper.

Notable cases

  • Federal League Baseball Case
  • Myers v. United States
  • United States v. Smith, 286 U.S.

..... Click the link for more information.
The Thomas More Law Center is a conservative Christian, not-for-profit law center based in Ann Arbor, Michigan and active throughout the United States. Its stated goals are defending the religious freedom of Christians [1] , restoring "time honored values" and protecting
..... Click the link for more information.
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) is a non-profit organization based in Richardson, Texas that publishes textbooks and articles promoting intelligent design, abstinence, and Christian nationism.
..... Click the link for more information.
Of Pandas and People

Author Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon
Publisher Foundation for Thought and Ethics
Publication date 1989
Media type Hardcover
Pages 170
Size and weight 1.
..... Click the link for more information.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is district level federal court with jurisdiction over approximately one half of Pennsylvania. The court was created in 1901 by subdividing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
..... Click the link for more information.
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions for
..... Click the link for more information.
In law, equitable remedies are the remedies developed and granted by the old courts of equity, such as the Court of Chancery in England, and still available today in common law jurisdictions.
..... Click the link for more information.
jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right; however most other nations do not recognize it as a fundamental civil liberty, civil right, or human right, because jury trials evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems.
..... Click the link for more information.
United States of America

This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution

Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
..... Click the link for more information.
A bench trial in U.S. law is a trial before a judge in which the right to a jury trial has been waived by the necessary parties. In the case of a criminal trial, in most states the criminal defendant alone has the ability to waive the right to a jury. In a U.S.
..... Click the link for more information.
John Edward Jones III (born June 13 1955) is an American lawyer and jurist from the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. A Republican, Jones was appointed by President George W.
..... Click the link for more information.


This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.