I also just love this push to censure him. Yeah, unlike Clinton, it will sorta piss him off, but big f-ing deal. It's like hitting him on the head with a rolled-up newspaper and saying "bad Bush! no warrantless searches! no torture! no lying us into war! bad President! Don't look at me with those innocent eyes!"
A federal district judge declared a public school policy supporting "Intelligent Design" unconstitutional in strong and dismissive language [www.chicagotribune.com] today. Some key quotes (headings mine, quotes from opinion):
Tricky use of the word "theory": This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are
learning, is "just a theory," which plays on the "colloquial or popular understanding of the term ['theory'] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch.'"
Evolution and ID as only options dodge: The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not.
"Don't Challenge / Question: Second, the administrators made the remarkable and awkward statement, as part of the disclaimer, that "there will be no other discussion of the issue and your
teachers will not answer questions on the issue."
ID is not science: 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.
ID is based on shoddy evidence: As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.
Oppose ID and You Are An Atheist: Moreover, Board members and teachers opposing the curriculum change and its implementation have been confronted directly. First, Casey Brown testified that following her opposition to the curriculum change on October 18, 2004, Buckingham called her an atheist and Bonsell told her that she would go to hell.
Religious Judicial Activism: 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 [such a policy].
The judge was appointed by President Bush (II). Per the news article linked above:
The controversy divided Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg. It galvanized voters in the Nov. 8 school board election to oust several members who supported the policy.
The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board intends to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class. "As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal," she said.
The opinion hopefully will caution other areas as well. Overall, it is a fine (and ultimately angry) work of judicial scholarship backed up with plenty of facts.