AU Logo

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Nashville Chapter
PO Box 210005 . Nashville TN 37221


Editorials

Intelligent Design (or Creationism) is Not Science


Intelligent design (or creationism) is not science, it is a religious point of view. And while individuals are certainly free to believe in creationism, the courts have held that teaching it in a public school science class is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Our Constitution was designed to protect minority opinion from "the tyranny" of the majority. So it is of no consequence that a majority of people in any given area might think that creationism and evolution should be taught side-by-side, or even that creationism (intelligent design) should replace the teaching of evolution in a public school science class. The law doesn't support this.

Read Judge John Jones' conclusion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

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.

You can read the full decision here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html#p294.



Intelligent Design (or Creationism) is Not Science

Church-State Separation is Well-Established in Laws
written by Charles Sumner

"Under God" In Pledge Indoctrinates Youth
written by Charles Sumner

One Nation, Easily Divisible?
written by Steve Benen

The Issue of Tax-Exempt Bonds
written by Charles Sumner

America Invented Separation of Church and State
written by Charles Sumner

Religious Liberty Principles Enunciated By the Supreme Court

Congressional Resolution Promoting Government-Sponsored School Prayer is Divisive, Americans United Charges

A Critique of David Barton's "America's Godly Heritage"
written by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

"How the Declaration of Independence Changed a New Nation"
written by Charles Sumner