Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
2005 WL 3465563, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33647, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school policy that requires the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because intelligent design is a form of creationism, not a scientific theory, and the policy therefore lacks a secular purpose and has the primary effect of advancing a religious viewpoint.
Facts:
- Beginning in 2002, several members of the Dover Area School Board, including Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, repeatedly expressed a desire to have creationism taught alongside evolution in public school science classes.
- In June 2004, Board members publicly opposed the adoption of a standard biology textbook, describing it as "laced with Darwinism," and stated they wanted a book that balanced evolution with creationism.
- Board members William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell arranged for a donation of 60 copies of the pro-intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," by soliciting funds from Buckingham's church and concealing the source of the money.
- On October 18, 2004, the Dover Area School Board of Directors passed a resolution stating that "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
- In November 2004, the school district required ninth-grade biology teachers to read a four-paragraph statement to their students.
- The required statement asserted that Darwin's Theory is "not a fact," has "gaps," and presented "Intelligent Design" as a differing "explanation of the origin of life," directing students to the textbook "Of Pandas and People."
- The science teachers at Dover High School refused to read the required statement, asserting that intelligent design is not science and that reading the statement would violate their ethical obligations as educators.
Procedural Posture:
- Eleven parents of students in the Dover Area School District (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the Dover Area School District and its Board of Directors (Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Plaintiffs claimed the Board's Intelligent Design (ID) Policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The case proceeded to a six-week bench trial before Judge John E. Jones III, which concluded on November 4, 2005.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school board policy that requires teachers to make students aware of "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jones
Yes, a public school board policy that requires teachers to make students aware of "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court found that the policy fails both the Endorsement test and the Lemon test. Under the Endorsement test, an objective observer, whether a student or an adult, would perceive the policy as a government endorsement of religion. The history of the intelligent design movement shows it is a rebranding of creationism, and the Board's actions, including public statements by members expressing religious motivations, conveyed a message of religious favoritism. Under the Lemon test, the policy lacks a secular purpose; the Board's stated goals of improving science education and promoting critical thinking were a sham to conceal its actual purpose of promoting a religious view. The policy's primary effect is to advance religion by injecting a religious concept into the science curriculum and disparaging an established scientific theory. Furthermore, the court made a specific factual finding that Intelligent Design is not science because it invokes supernatural causation, its central claim of "irreducible complexity" is a flawed and refuted argument, and it has not gained acceptance or been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Analysis:
This case was the first federal court challenge to a public school's intelligent design (ID) policy, and its comprehensive ruling dealt a significant blow to the ID movement. By providing a detailed factual finding that ID is not science but a form of creationism, the decision established a powerful precedent that has been influential in deterring other school districts from adopting similar policies. The court’s thorough analysis under both the Endorsement and Lemon tests provides a clear roadmap for evaluating future attempts to introduce religious concepts into science curricula. The opinion is notable for its 'breathtaking inanity' remark, a sharp rebuke of the school board's actions that highlighted the judiciary's role in policing the boundary between church and state in public education.
