Editing Intelligent design (section)

==Legal challenges in the United States==
===Kitzmiller trial===
{{Main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}}
''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' was the first direct challenge brought in the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|United States federal courts]] against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.<ref name="NCSE 2008-17-10">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover |title=Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover National Center for Science Education |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* [[#Matzke 2006a|Matzke 2006a]]</ref>

Eleven parents of students in [[Dover, Pennsylvania]], sued the [[Dover Area School District]] over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU), [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] (AU) and [[Pepper Hamilton|Pepper Hamilton LLP]]. The National Center for Science Education acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the [[Thomas More Law Center]].<ref>
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
|court=United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
|url=http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/pamd/files/opinions/04v2688a.pdf
}} Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.</ref> The suit was tried in a [[bench trial]] from September 26 to November 4, 2005, before Judge [[John E. Jones III]]. [[Kenneth R. Miller]], Kevin Padian, [[Brian Alters]], [[Robert T. Pennock]], Barbara Forrest and [[John F. Haught]] served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. Michael Behe, [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Steve Fuller]] and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.

On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page [[Question of fact|findings of fact]] and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. On November 8, 2005, there had been an election in which the eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.<ref>{{cite news |last=Powell |first=Michael |date=December 21, 2005 |title=Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design' |url=http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055938/http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 |archive-date=September 28, 2007 |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref>

In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the "Teach the Controversy" strategy:

{{Blockquote|Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'', but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a [[Wikt:canard#Noun|canard]]. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 89</ref>}}

===Reaction to Kitzmiller ruling===
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

{{Blockquote|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 the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.<ref name="kitz137">
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion]] pp. 137–138</ref>}}

As Jones had predicted, [[John G. West]], Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said:

{{Blockquote|The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_intelligent_design_decis.html |title=Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education |last=Crowther |first=Robert |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref>}}

Newspapers have noted that the judge is "a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] and a churchgoer".<ref>{{cite news |last=Raffaele |first=Martha |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Intelligent design policy struck down |url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html |newspaper=[[Dallas Morning News]] |agency=Associated Press |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035635/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html |archive-date=September 30, 2007 |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Judge rules against 'intelligent design' |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10545387 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |agency=Associated Press |others=Contributions by [[Alan Boyle]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Provonsha |first=Matthew |date=September 21, 2006 |title=Godless: The Church of Liberalism |url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21/ |magazine=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|eSkeptic]] |type=Book review |issn=1556-5696 |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/discovery-institute-tries-to-swift-boat-judge-jones |title=Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones |last1=Padian |first1=Kevin |last2=Matzke |first2=Nick |date=January 4, 2006 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref>

The decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In its Winter issue of 2007, the ''Montana Law Review'' published three articles.<ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=Winter 2007 |title=Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2036&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=1–5 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309110106/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2036&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}</ref>
In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.<ref name="DeWolf">{{cite journal |last1=DeWolf |first1=David K. |last2=West |first2=John G. |author-link2=John G. West |last3=Luskin |first3=Casey |date=Winter 2007 |title=Intelligent Design Will Survive ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2037&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=7–57 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> In the second [[Peter H. Irons]] responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Irons |first=Peter |author-link=Peter H. Irons |date=Winter 2007 |title=Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2038&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=59–87 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309105941/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2038&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}</ref> while in the third, DeWolf, ''et al.'', answer the points made by Irons.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=DeWolf |first1=David K. |last2=West |first2=John G. |last3=Luskin |first3=Casey |date=Winter 2007 |title=Rebuttal to Irons |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=89–94 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309110010/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/07/irons-responds-to-west-luskin/#more |title=Irons Responds to West, Luskin and DeWolf |last=Brayton |first=Ed |date=June 7, 2007 |website=Dispatches from the Creation Wars |publisher=[[ScienceBlogs|ScienceBlogs LLC]] |type=Blog |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301020525/http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/07/irons-responds-to-west-luskin/#more |archive-date=2014-03-01 |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" />

===Anti-evolution legislation===
{{Main|Anti-evolution legislation}}
A number of [[anti-evolution]] [[bill (proposed law)|bills]] have been introduced in the [[United States Congress]] and [[State legislature (United States)|State legislatures]] since 2001, based largely upon language drafted by the [[Discovery Institute]] for the [[Santorum Amendment]]. Their aim has been to expose more students to articles and videos produced by advocates of intelligent design that criticise evolution. They have been presented as supporting "[[academic freedom]]", on the supposition that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution, and an investigation in [[Florida]] of allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred. The vast majority of the bills have been unsuccessful, with the one exception being Louisiana's [[Louisiana Science Education Act]], which was enacted in 2008.{{cn|reason=This paragraph needs citations.|date=January 2024}}

In April 2010, the [[American Academy of Religion]] issued ''Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K–12 Public Schools in the United States'', which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, these worldviews as well as others "that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712 |title=American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=July 23, 2010 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2010-08-09}}</ref>