ON NOVEMBER 4, 2005, AFTER 40 DAYS AND NIGHTS OF testimony, the first evolution-Intelligent Design trial of the 21st century drew to a close in Federal court in Harrisburg, PA. While evolution trials in the 20th century had focused more on traditional creationism, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District pitted the teaching of evolution against a more legally sophisticated challenger, Intelligent Design (ID).

On the morning of December 20, 2005, Judge John Jones III handed down his ruling against the teaching of Intelligent Design:

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...