Kitzmiller v. Distrito Da Escola Da Área De Dôvar

Kitzmiller, et al. v. Distrito da escola da área de Dôvar, et al. é o primeiro desafio direto trazido dentro de encontro a a de que tentou exijir o ensino como uma alternativa a . que o projeto inteligente é um formulário de , e a política da placa da escola violates assim Cláusula Do Estabelecimento do .

Os pais de alguns estudantes no distrito da escola dentro e aproximam-se suing sobre uma indicação que a placa da escola requeira para ser lida quando é ensinado. Os plaintiffs são representados pelo (ACLU), (AU) e Pimenta Hamilton LLP. (NCSE) está agindo como consultantes para os plaintiffs. é representado pelo . Fundação para o pensamento e o ethics, o publisher de um textbook que advoga o projeto inteligente intitulou , tentado juntar o lawsuit como um réu mas era negado. O caso nicknamed Experimentação Do Panda De Dôvar [ 1 ], uma referência ao .

Os argumentos da abertura foram ouvidos sobre 26 setembro . Este é a , que há um No. , assim será feito pelo juiz. O juiz experimental é John E. Jones III do , apontado pelo presidente dentro , . A experimentação concliu com argumentos de fechamento novembro em 4, 2005. O juiz disse que governaria de janeiro adiantado.

Índices

Background

In 2004 the Dover Board of Education passed a resolution requiring 9th grade biology teachers to read the following statement:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments. [2]

Three of the school board members in the minority of the vote resigned in protest, and science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their ninth-grade students, citing the Pennsylvania code of education, which states that teachers cannot present information they believe to be false. Instead, the statement was read to students by a school administrator.

The school board claims there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. The school board claims it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise," despite being represented in court by the Thomas More Law Center, a non-profit organization which uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values."

The Discovery Institute's John West said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court. "It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech." Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers contend that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical: the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes.

In May 2005, the publisher of Of Pandas and People, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), filed a motion seeking to intervene in the case. FTE argued that a ruling that "intelligent design" was religious would have severe financial consequences, citing possible losses of approximately half a million dollars. By intervening, FTE would have become a co-defendant with the Dover Area School Board, and able to bring its own lawyers and expert witnesses to the case. FTE's president Jon Buell implied that if allowed to intervene, FTE would bring William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer as expert witnesses. In his decision on the motion, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was not timely, describing FTE's excuses for not trying to become involved earlier as "both unavailing and disingenuous." Judge Jones also held that FTE failed to demonstrate that it has "a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party" and that its interests will not be adequately represented by the defendants.

Litigants

The of this trial are as follows:

Plaintiffs

  • Tammy Kitzmiller
  • Bryan Rehm
  • Christy Rehm
  • Deborah Fenimore
  • Joel Lieb
  • Steven Stough
  • Beth Eveland
  • Cynthia Sneath
  • Julie Smith
  • Aralene ("Barrie") D. Callahan
  • Frederick B. Callahan

Defendants

  • Dover Area School District
  • Dover Area School District Board of Directors
Members who voted for the statement
  • William Buckingham (resigned August 2005 due to health concerns [3])
  • Alan Bonsell
  • Sheila Harkins
  • Heather Geesey
  • Jane Cleaver (resigned 4 October 2004)
  • Angie Ziegler-Yingling (resigned 6 December 2004)
Members who voted against it
  • Noel Wenrich (resigned 4 October 2004 for personal reasons [4])
  • Carol Brown (resigned 18 October 2004 in protest IBID)
  • Jeff Brown (resigned 18 October 2004 in protest IBID)

Trial

The trial began on September 26, 2005. For details see the official trial transcripts and other materials.

Opening statements

Plaintiffs

Eric Rothschild gave the opening arguments for the plaintiffs. He said that the plaintiffs would be able to provide many examples of school board members wishing to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked prior defense claims that it was a minor affair by saying that there is no such thing as a little constitutional violation. He also provided the definition of creationism given by an early draft of Pandas:

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

He compared this with what eventually published:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

(The definitions had come up in an earlier hearing in a July 14 pre-trial hearing.) He also argued that intelligent design was not science in its infancy but not science at all.

Defense

Patrick Gillen gave the opening arguments for the defense. He started by saying that the goal of the board and its supporters was to enhance science education. He argued that the policy was a "modest change." He distanced the policy from alleged statements made by former board member William Buckingham which the plaintiffs argue show clear religious intent: "The board listened to the science faculty more than it listened to Bill Buckingham." He argued that the policy did not have a "religious agenda." He mentioned that board member Alan Bonsell had done his own reading and discovered flaws in evolution such as Piltdown Man.

Witnesses

Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist from Brown University and noted author and debater against intelligent design and creationism, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." And that while the idea of intelligent design is irrefutable, many claims made by intelligent-design advocates have been falsified. Asked what the harm is in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) "[I]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith."

Tammy Kitzmiller is the lead plaintiff and a Dover parent. She testified as a fact witness on September 27, 2005.

Aralene "Barrie" D. Callahan is a plaintiff, a Dover parent, and was for ten years a board member of the Dover Area School District. She had previously resigned over the actions of the board in relation to this case. She testified that Alan Bonsell, a board member, argued in a board retreat in Spring, 2003 that if evolution is taught then creationism should also be taught: "fifty-fifty."

Bryan Rehm was the last witness for September 27, 2005. He was a former physics teacher at Dover and a parent to children attending school at the Dover Area School District. Both he and his wife are plaintiffs and teach Vacation Bible School. Rehm testified that Alan Bonsell, then-chairman of the board's curriculum committee, asked teachers to watch a video on intelligent design titled Icons of Evolution. Teachers had expressed concern that Bonsell did not believe in evolution and wished to see classroom discussions of evolution balanced "fifty-fifty" with creationism.

Robert T. Pennock is a philosopher now working on the Avida digital organism project at Michigan State University where he is an associate professor. He is the author many books and articles critical of intelligent design. He testified on September 28, 2005 as an expert witness.

Julie Smith is a parent and plaintiff. She made only one point: that the policy created a hostile atmosphere for her daughter. Her daughter, she alleged, was harassed for her Catholic background, being told that she is an atheist since she accepted evolution. She testified on 28 September.

Christy Rehm is a parent and plaintiff who testified on 28 September.

Beth Eveland testified on 28 September.

Carol Brown testified on 29 September.

Jeffrey Brown testified on 29 September.

Frederick Callahan testified on 28 September.

John Haught testified on 30 September.

Barbara Forrest testified on 5 October and 6 October. Based on the history of the intelligent design movement, and citing writings of prominent figures (such as Paul A. Nelson's "Wedge Document", Phillip Johnson's "How the Evolution Debate Can be Won", and of William Dembski), Forrest testified that ID was merely another name for the creationism movement, attempting to present a religious proposition as a scientific viewpoint. She stated that Johnson "regards evolution as a threat to the Bible in its entirety and as a threat to the moral fabric of American culture," and that one of the goals of his movement is to unify the religious world. She also testified that there "no way to reconcile [...] at all" the Dover school board newsletter statement that intelligent design is a scientific theory with Paul Nelson's statements in the interview "The Measure of Design". Under cross examination, Forrest admitted that she did not know of any evidence at all that any member of the School board had seen the "Wedge Document" prior to the lawsuit, that she joined the ACLU because she supports the cause of civil liberties "especially as it concerns education and the separation of church and state", and that she was also a member of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Jennifer Miller testified on 6 October.

Bertha Spahr testified on 6 October.

Brian Alters testified on 12 October.

Cynthia Sneath testified on 12 October.

Steven Stough testified on 14 October.

Kevin Padian testified on 14 October.

Joel Lieb testified on 14 October.

Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Testified on 17-19 October.

Richard Nilsen testified on 20-21 October.

Michael Richard Baksa is the Dover Area Achool District Assistant Superintendent. He testified on 21 and 28 October and 3 November. In an email response to a complaint by social studies teacher Brad Neal, Baksa referred to The Myth of Separation by David Barton, a book Baksa had received from Superintendent Richard Nilsen, who had received it from board member Alan Bonsell. The book calls separation of church and state "absurd." Baksa also discussed attempted changes to the statement. Teachers suggested adding "Darwin's theory of evolution continues to be the dominant scientific explanation of the origin of species," but this was eliminated by the board. The teachers also recommended altering it to read "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the theory, although it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered." Citing his belief the board would reject this, Baksa eliminated the "significant amount of evidence."

Stephen William Fuller testified on 24 October.

William Buckingham testified on 27 October as a hostile witness.

Heidi Bernhard-Bubb testified on 28 October.

Joseph Maldonado testified on 28 October.

Heather Geesey testified on 28 October.

Jane Cleavertestified em 31 outubro.

Alan Bonsell testified em 31 outubro. Seu testimony incluiu inicialmente uma reivindicação que não soubesse de aonde o dinheiro tinha sido levantado para doar sessenta cópias à biblioteca da escola. No hearing que o dinheiro tinha sido levantado na igreja de William Buckingham, e dirigido através do pai de Bonsell de modo que possa ser doado anonymously, o juiz Jones eleito a faz exame sobre da examinação de Bonsell ele mesmo, questionando o por aproximadamente dez minutos.

Linker De Robert testified em 3 novembro.

Scott Minnich testified em 3 novembro.

Os argumentos de fechamento foram feitos em 4 novembro 2005.

Veja também

Ligações externas

Recursos

  • Centro nacional para a instrução da ciência - originais legais, sumários de notícia, e podcasts do caso. (muitos recursos excelentes para a experimentação, mas também algumas opiniões do pro-pro-plaintiff)
  • Blog de ACLU - updates experimentais vivos da equipe legal do plaintiff.
  • Conversa.Arquivo Das Origens - transcripts na ordem cronológica (no formato do HTML), e ligações à outra pro-evolução dos recursos e projeto pro-inteligente.

Opinions/Coverage Conduzindo

Histórias Da Notícia

 

  > Português > en.wikipedia.org (Traduzido por computador no português)