Dover Board rescinds ID. YAY!!!!

[JLam]

This just crossed the AP wires here at work.

BC-APNewsAlert,0023
DOVER, Pa. (AP) -- The Dover school board has voted to rescind
its "intelligent design" policy.
:yahoo

[jj]

Well, I figured it would happen, but wouldn't that have happened no matter what the board did, given the Judge's ruling?

[JLam]

Yeah, it's more symbolic than anything. Just nice to see. :D

[HeyLeroy]

I wish we had that whole 'Separation of Church and State' bidness here in Canada.

Although the Fundies haven't gained quite the toe-hold here, in Ontario we have two school boards, public and 'separate' (read: catholic), both fully funded through taxes.

Back in 2000 the provincial (conservative) gov't quietly removed the direct teaching of TOE from public highschool curriculum, so as not to offend anyone. It wasn't replaced with anything, and the elements are still there, but nothing directly about evolution is taught.

Kinda funny, with the Vatican's strand on evolution, that catholic kids get a better-rounded education than us heathens.

[tsg]

Well, I figured it would happen, but wouldn't that have happened no matter what the board did, given the Judge's ruling?

My guess is it would have happened with or without the Judge's ruling considering every Pro-ID member of the board was voted out last election.

[Tricky]

Lemme guess. First day back at work after the newly elected board took their seats.

[Pauliesonne]

I got this from Yahoo;

Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago



DOVER, Pa. - Dover's much-maligned school policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night.

ADVERTISEMENT

On a voice vote, and with no discussion beforehand, the newly elected Dover Area School Board unanimously rescinded the policy. Two weeks earlier, a judge ruled the policy unconstitutional.

"This is it," new school board president Bernadette Reinking said Tuesday, indicating the vote was final and the case was closed.

A different group of school board members had been in control when the policy was approved in October 2004. The policy required that a statement be read to Dover public school students about "intelligent design" before ninth-grade biology class lessons on evolution.

The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It also referred students to an "intelligent-design" book, "Of Pandas and People."

Eight families sued, and on Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with their argument that the concept of "intelligent design" — which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause — is religious, not scientific. The judge said that violated the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller was relieved Tuesday night to know the policy was officially off the books.

"I will feel comfortable again teaching what I'd always felt comfortable teaching," she after the meeting, attended by a crowd of about 100 people.

School board members declined to comment after the vote.

Most of the previous board members who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate the policy.

Policy defenders had said they were trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives with the policy. But the judge said the board's real purpose was "to promote religion in the public school classroom," and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.

"I tried ... to warn the board that we were facing a disaster and obviously I was not persuasive enough," said Jeff Brown, a former board member who resigned in protest after the policy passed. He said the costly court battle could have been avoided.

The Dover policy and high-profile lawsuit added fuel to a national debate over "intelligent design."

In Kansas, where state officials have been arguing over the teaching of evolution since 1999, education officials recently approved science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

In Georgia, the state schools superintendent drew protests in 2004 for proposing a science curriculum that replaced the word "evolution" with "changes over time." Last year, a federal judge ordered Cobb County schools to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.

Damn, that put a smile on my face!

( apart from the Kanasa bit ):D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Ed]

This just crossed the AP wires here at work.


:yahoo

Amidst all of the happiness, let me point out that this is not a good thing.

Not a good thing at all.

This was a strong case against the teaching of ID but it only applied to the narrow geography that includes Dover. It takes a SCOTUS ruling for there to be any relevance.

They should not have removed the rule and they should have appealed the decision. All this does is put off the accounting. Nothing to really cheer about.

[tsg]

Amidst all of the happiness, let me point out that this is not a good thing.

Not a good thing at all.

This was a strong case against the teaching of ID but it only applied to the narrow geography that includes Dover. It takes a SCOTUS ruling for there to be any relevance.

They should not have removed the rule and they should have appealed the decision. All this does is put off the accounting. Nothing to really cheer about.

Not entirely true. While a SCOTUS ruling would make it "the law of the land", Judge Jones' findings of fact were so detailed, unusually so, that any other district pushing Intelligent Design is going to have a very hard time defending it in light of the decision. Any judge with a similar case before him is almost certainly going to read Kitzmiller v. Dover. If they can't show how their case is substantially different, it's likely to be decided rather quickly.

[Ed]

Not entirely true, correct. A clear victory would have been better. Dover was simply a battle.

Sorta like not going after the Russkis after WWII.

[tsg]

Not entirely true, correct. A clear victory would have been better. Dover was simply a battle.

If it makes you feel any better, to continue the analogy, it was a battle that showed the enemy's best weapon is remarkably ineffective. They won't use it again.

[Ed]

And to paraphrase the sainted Churchill..

When told that a political opponent had died and was asked what his party should do, replied:

"Hang him, burn him, bury him. Take no chances."

[Dr Adequate]

They should not have removed the rule and they should have appealed the decision. You forget that their consituency is the people of Dover.

Presumably the reason the Dubrians kicked out the old board and brought in the new was to stop wasting their money and turning their town into a circus. The new board members can't then explain that they're going to spend more money on appealing the decision in the hope that (a) they'll lose (b) this will be useful to the good people of Kansas.

As far as the scope of the verdict goes, I think you underestimate the importance of a legal precedent. If you look at the nitty-gritty of Jones' verdict, he keeps citing cases which are local in their scope, such as McLean v Arkansas.

Any judge who ignores a precedent already set by other judges is just handing out grounds for appeal on a plate tied in ribbons.

The decision, therefore, is indeed a national victory and not just good news for the people of Dover, and you should join me in doing the happy dance.

[Ed]

Any judge who ignores a precedent already set by other judges is just handing out grounds for appeal on a plate tied in ribbons.

The decision, therefore, is indeed a national victory and not just good news for the people of Dover, and you should join me in doing the happy dance.

Being a person of color, I do know how to move my bootie.

[1 and 2 and] spasmatic moves [rest period]

There.

[drkitten]

As far as the scope of the verdict goes, I think you underestimate the importance of a legal precedent. If you look at the nitty-gritty of Jones' verdict, he keeps citing cases which are local in their scope, such as McLean v Arkansas.

Any judge who ignores a precedent already set by other judges is just handing out grounds for appeal on a plate tied in ribbons.


I think the key aspect that needs to be restated -- yes, you already know this, but just to hammer the point home -- is that Kitzmiller is only BINDING precedent locally. It's a precedent, but not binding, elsewhere.... meaning that judges do not have to follow it, but will almost certainly have to take its findings and arguments into account.

In particular, if another judge (hypothetically, in Kansas) completely ignores Kitzmiller and writes an entirely different decision finding that ID is, in fact, constitutional to teach, the appeals court will sit down with a copy of both decisions in trying to decide which one makes more sense. Which one is more convincing. Which one is better argued and has a more convincing set of evidence. And having read Kitzmiller, I would hate for my career to depend upon my ability to write a better decision than Kitzmiller.

[Dr Adequate]

The decision could have been improved by more frequent use of the phrase "lying bunch of tossers".

I could have been a judge, but I never had the Latin.

[drkitten]

The decision could have been improved by more frequent use of the phrase "lying bunch of tossers".


I'm not sure. Overrepetition has never really worked for anyone but Gertrude Stein. And Gertrude Stein.

[jj]

My guess is it would have happened with or without the Judge's ruling considering every Pro-ID member of the board was voted out last election.

Well, yes, there is that, too. :D

[BS Investigator]

Good news. Dover was ID's Waterloo.

[jemimaharrison]

Maybe ID's Waterloo, but not creationism's. We filmed in Dover for a BBC documentary about a month ago. There was no doubt that some people objected to the pro-ID board because they were dyed-in-the-wool creationsists, very anti-evolution, who objected to the fact that ID didn't name God as the creator. It's Pennsylvania, don't forget - rural and traditional.

[tsg]

There was no doubt that some people objected to the pro-ID board because they were dyed-in-the-wool creationsists, very anti-evolution, who objected to the fact that ID didn't name God as the creator.

Which just goes to show, no matter how much of a whackjob some people are, there's always someone they can stand next to that will make them look sane by comparison.