ACLU Over
Dover
Backgrounder
“WASHINGTON – A federal judge in Pennsylvania yesterday ruled that intelligent design is “nothing less than the progeny of creationism” and should not be taught in public schools. . . The ruling, the first legal test of intelligent design, comes after a six-week trial in which expert witnesses and parents on both sides of the dispute took the stand to argue their positions on a Dover, Pa, school board policy requiring science teachers to inform students of “gaps” in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and to share competing views, including intelligent design.
– “US judge rejects intelligent design” Nina J. Easton, The Boston Globe, Dec. 21, 2005
Of Pandas and People Was Central to the Lawsuit
Anyone reading the Complaint which the Plaintiffs submitted to the court in Kitzmiller, et. al. v. the Dover Area School Board can quickly see that Of Pandas and People was at the center of the case, in the cross-hairs of the ACLU. The charge? That the book is really creationism in disguise, and thus is religion, and unconstitutional in accordance with the 1987 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard. Moreover, many media accounts cited the book’s centrality. “That book...is central to the trial here.” (“At Issue in Trial: Is ‘Intelligent Design’ Really Creationism?” Suzanne Sataline, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2005.)
ACLU Seizes Editor’s Draft of The Design of Life!
Under color of legal discovery, the ACLU and the National Center for
Science Education seized the still-in-editing manuscript of the forthcoming
book, The Design of Life, which incorporates some of the content of
Pandas. They have, of course, passed it around to other censorial locksteppers,
who will have more than a year to fine tune their multilateral strike
against it when released later this year.
Darn! Due Process Summarily Denied;
Lost the Very First Lawsuit We
Were Never In
After learning that the case turned on specific allegations about key passages in Pandas, and more importantly, the allegation that “Intelligent Design”originated with creationism, FTE sought to intervene. Why? Because the term “Intelligent Design” was first introduced into current public discourse through FTE’s 1989 publication of Pandas, and the only two eyewitnesses to the question of continuity with creationism and to the other historical events in the core allegations at issue initiated the project themselves in 1982 and worked at FTE to produce the book. But Judge John E. Jones, III, ruled against FTE’s intervention. Perhaps he felt that the Plaintiffs knew more than the eyewitnesses about the events surrounding the publication of Pandas, or that the intervention would just drag the trial out even longer. For whatever reason, uncontested allegations made by persons who were not eyewitnesses proved to be sufficient evidence for the court on this matter. Sadly, FTE was not even allowed to participate in a trial over its own book, and was denied the opportunity to explain and defend its own publication.
No wonder John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University marveled, “Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.”
In addition Judge Jones insisted at the hearing that the Thomas More Law Center (the public interest law firm defending the Dover School Board) would defend FTE’s interests also. But by the time FTE was served a subpoena by the ACLU, TMLC had not so much as sent FTE a copy of the Complaint, nor even notified FTE the Complaint put FTE in serious jeopardy. These facts hinted as to how well they would defend its interests!
The real truth about the key passages of the book and the origin of Intelligent Design are laid out for the visitor to this site. See the links to “Is ID creationism in disguise?”, “Does ID require supernatural creation?”, and “Did Pandas ever advocate creationism?”
Ahead - Nothing Sells Like a Banned Book!
Many intelligent design advocates expect this decision to have limited effect because it applies only to the federal court middle district of Pennsylvania. Casey Luskin, house counsel for the Discovery Institute, noted that the theory’s “ultimate validity” will be determined “not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.” “Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world,” said John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Americans don’t like to be told there is some idea that they aren’t permitted to learn about. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a best-seller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory.”
In a note to FTE, a leading
optical information processing scientist and former National Research
Council Senior Research Associate at NASA’s
Ames Research Center writes: “We’re anticipating that “Pandas” will
see phenomenal sales as a “backlash” to the Dover Schoolboard
case decision.”