Jones sided strongly with the plaintiffs against the board, calling Intelligent Design a religious view, not a science, and awarding damages and costs to the plaintiffs. Following are two excerpts from this landmark ruling: the section on whether Intelligent Design is a science and the conclusion. Footnotes and transcript references have been removed to make for easier reading.

4. Whether ID is 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 1980s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. 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.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter “NAS”) was recognized by experts for both parties as the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”.

This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. We are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.

ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. Further support for the conclusion that ID is predicated on supernatural causation is found in the ID reference book to which ninth grade biology students are directed, Pandas. Pandas states, in pertinent part, as follows:

Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. 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, etc.

Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point

It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper. William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper.

The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. Initially, we note that NAS, the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, views ID as follows:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (hereinafter “AAAS”), the largest organization of scientists in this country, has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it “has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims” and that “the lack of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as part of science education . . .” Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID’s failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980s to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago.

ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully understood.

As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich. Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID, as will be elaborated upon below.

We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled “Reply to My Critics,” appears as follows:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional . . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection. “Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already- functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect.

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.

As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function. For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.

Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning:

[S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the ‘history’ of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’ s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. None of this research or thinking involves ID. In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.”

Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition.

The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty- eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design.

We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.

We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out.

Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process. (As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court, throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID inference: the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence.

Accordingly, the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations. ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory.

It is appropriate at this juncture to address ID’s claims against evolution. ID proponents support their assertion that evolutionary theory cannot account for life’s complexity by pointing to real gaps in scientific knowledge, which indisputably exist in all scientific theories, but also by misrepresenting well- established scientific propositions.

Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and high- school biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.” SDespite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence. Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer. Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ expert s agree in that regard. A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record. Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology.15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted. Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.

We will provide several representative examples of this distortion. First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics. Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years. Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals. Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abrupt- appearance. Id. Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.

In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science. Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides. Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed. In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes. In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.

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.

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must “publish or perish.” Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.” In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to a void 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 canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

….

H. Conclusion

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 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.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules

John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The first book of the Bible, Genesis (1:1-31), describes the creation of the universe in six days, from out of cold nothingness, by a supernatural being to which Christianity, Judaism and Islam bid worship. As time progressed, people began to look more closely at the rocks which they trod upon, and noticed peculiarities which could not be accounted for by the Bible, and so required further explanation. Thus was born the scientific field of geology — the description of the earth’s rocks and how they came to be situated in their current locations.

Man has deduced, by adopting an objective approach, that the age of the universe is between 10 and 19 billion years old, and the earth is 4.6 billion years old (Foster, 1991). Rock formation has been explained in great detail using inductive methods and, over the course of time, has been continuously updated and improved. Fossils have been utilized to explain what life is, and how it has evolved into today’s world dominating animals and plants. Geology has allowed humans to look not only at the surface of the earth, but into the heart of the planet as well. Such techniques have also been adopted by astronomers to examine the sun and other celestial bodies.

Many different religions have, through time, told their own stories about the history of this world. None, however, have been so persistent to see the proliferation of their views as have the Christian fundamentalists. There are many sects located within fundamentalism, but one which stands out above the others is Christian Science (Scientific Creationism). The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), headed by Henry Morris, appears to be the leader in the field, refuting any and all scientific evidence pointing towards evolution and an old earth. By using unorthodox methods and abiding by a strict dogma, it has evolved into a most formidable opponent of reasonable thought. Members claim that science is the tool with which they derive their `proof’, but as this paper will show, they do no less than throw away any reason they may have learned, and warp good science so that it fits into the Creationist scheme of things. Issues supposedly proven by Creation Science are Noah’s Flood, a young earth and the refutation of evolution. The first is the backbone of the Creationist argument with the second and third following closely behind. By “proving” that there was a worldwide flood as is claimed by the Bible, the Creationist gives his explanation for the rock record and the origin of life. To discuss all the possible arguments would require volumes of material. Presented here instead is a more general focus upon the crutch of Scientific Creationism, the Noachian Deluge, as well as some background information. Most, if not all, creation arguments stem from this foundation since, from the creationist viewpoint, it is the most easily proven theory. Explained within this paper is how the creationist arguments are faulty and, if you will excuse the pun, hold no water.

A Definition of Science

Before the Creationists put forth their cases, before they attempt to research evidence which may support their position, they fail to meet the qualifications of scientific exploration. Scientific Creationism always comes back to quotations from scripture, a doctrine which is set in stone. They claim that their evidence proves that the tales told within the Bible are true. Real science, on the other hand, sets out to prove nothing, and holds no truths to be self-evident. Rather, an hypothesis is formulated from the evidence provided, changing to provide a better hypothesis as new information is made available (Hanson and Hanson, 1993).

In order to be considered scientific, a theory must be testable. Creation science is not testable. It lies outside the realm of nature due to its indispensable `acts of God’, and mankind can only use natural methods to examine a theory (Hanson and Hanson). Without the possession of this trait, a theory would be infallible, and thus no more accurate than a religious dogma. The second important characteristic of science is that a theory must, from its very conception, be able to be shown to be false. Every scientific theory has the opportunity to be argued against, for which contrary evidence may be presented. Such is not the case with Scientific Creationism, since those who practice it, will not allow contradictory evidence. Therefore, when these people accuse scientists of performing such a heresy, they themselves turn around and use it as the basis of their ideals. Such hypocrites cannot possibly qualify to be proper researchers.

Uniformitarianism

A frequent cause of confusion among creationists and scientists alike is the principle of uniformity. By definition, it does no more than simply state that present geologic processes can be examined and extrapolated in order to interpret past events. Gould (1965) distinguishes between substantive and methodological uniformitarianism. The former describes the testability of geologic change while the latter is a statement of proper scientific procedure in general. It is the methodological type that Christian Scientists misquote in their refutations of proper scientific procedure. They claim that true scientists say that deposition rates, mountain building and similar events have remained constant throughout time (Heylmun, 1971). Such a statement is untrue, for very few geologists would assert that the Appalachians have always existed as they are seen today, since there is no orogenic activity occurring at the moment. Most geologists would also agree that geosynclinal processes which occurred in the Precambrian were quite unlike those which acted in the Palaeozoic (Valentine, 1966). Methodological uniformitarianism was a useful tool when it was first introduced to oppose the presence of the supernatural in science, but it is now only a burden to the field (Gould, 1965).

Flood Mechanism

It is written in Genesis 7:17-20: And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Morris (1974) puts forth his interpretation of the deluge in his book. The waters would come from the sky as rain, and would well up from within the earth into the oceans. This poses a problem for the Creationist: a great amount of water would have been required to cover the tallest mountains. They claim that there was a vapour canopy which encompassed the earth that would provide the torrential rainfall as God commanded it so. However, such a flood would need a downpour which had a pressure great enough to shatter Noah’s Ark. How did this canopy remain aloft? Such a volume of water would have blocked out the sunlight, inhibiting the survival of all organisms by cutting off the base of the food chain.

Accompanying the rainfall would be magmatic extrusions from the mantle, gigantic earth movements, landslides, tsunamis and explosions (Morris, 1974). Most, but not all, marine organisms would perish, as would all the land animals. Soils would be carried away as floating mats of vegetation. Eventually, even the tallest mountains would be destroyed by erosion and cause great landslides on land, and turbidity currents within the sea. Clastic fragments of boulders and gravel would be produced when the rocks cracked and bounced. The waters would undergo rapid temperature and salinity changed and large amounts of chemicals would dissolve into the water, spreading throughout the globe. Land sediments would ultimately unite with those of the ocean and, as the waters calmed down, would settle out and cement into rock while chemicals would precipitate out as allowed by temperature and salinity.

Post Depositional Modification

If water flow were to cease during an interruption in deposition of the flood (assuming that deposition is continuous underwater), then subaerial exposure would occur (Morris, 1974). Uplift and tilting of the strata would take place, truncating the beds by erosion producing an unconformity which can be used to separate geological ages. As Morris (1974) points out, only fossils can be used to indicate the end of one geological age, and the beginning of another. But he says that two of the most important boundaries, the Permian-Triassic boundary and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, grade imperceptibly from one age into the next.

The problem with this argument is that the described boundaries are arbitrary, being based on a certain faunal succession, and the finer one examines the boundary, the less defined it appears. When viewed from a distance, however, it is well defined and useable. Biostratigraphy is not absolutely perfect due to an incomplete fossil record, but it is accurate to a degree which is of use to all the appropriate scientists.

And so the Creationist standpoint is that the entire geologic column is continuous, produced by rapid formation of sediment deposition from the floodwaters, and that there is rarely a clear physical boundary between formations.

Problems With Flood Geology

Many questions arise if one considers the flood as an alternate to the modern paradigm. How did mountains form? Surely sedimentation from a global flood didn’t accumulate in isolated areas producing such high peaks. Morris already claimed that all the pre-existing mountains were eroded away, just as is stated in the Bible. If these sediments were distributed worldwide, then sediment deposition would occur roughly at a uniform rate. One formation which is six kilometers thick would have had to have been deposited at 15 m/day in the year of the flood. Despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered.

Chalk is another important problem. It is composed of planktonic organisms between 700 and 1000 angstroms in diameter and these settle out of the water at a rate of 1.54e-5 mm/second. In the span of one year, they would have settled but only 0.5 m, not anywhere near enough to account for the vast chalk deposits such as are seen in the White Cliffs of Dover, England.

Deep within the column, when the top of one stratum is examined, rain drops, dunes, desiccation cracks, footprints, and other features can be seen. These can only be produced while exposed above water, indicating that the strata were repeatedly flooded and exposed in order to deposit sedimentary rock on top.

Most of the fossils found have been wholly mineralized. That is, the original bone or shell has been degraded and replaced by a mineral deposit. This occurs over a long time as seen by the fact that Egyptian commoners, buried during the time of Moses, are not extensively mineralized. Therefore, if animals were buried during the flood, they should not be as mineralized as they actually are, instead, a great deal of bone or shell should remain.

Another major problem is that of banded iron formation. When the earth was young (some 2 Ga), the banded iron formation was produced by chemical precipitation in the oceans with oxygen (Foster, 1991). The importance is that, had there been oxygen in the atmosphere, the iron would have been oxidized on land into red beds, and never make it to the oceans by erosion. But since the banded iron formation is found during a certain time frame, one can deduce that there was no atmospheric oxygen to oxidize it, appearing much later as organisms produced it through photosynthesis (Foster, 1991). It is assumed that Noah and all those who proceeded him breathed oxygen just as all land animals are known to do.

Polystrate Fossils

A favourite weapon of scientific creationism is the appearance of polystrate fossils. While not a technical scientific term, polystrate refers to an anomaly which crosses many consecutive rock layers. Such an example is that of Joggins, Nova Scotia, a one kilometer thick fossil forest of Carboniferous age (Dawson, 1868). The forest contains many specimens of Calamites, Sigillaria and Stigmaria roots. The Calamites and Sigillaria stems are found to grow upright through succeeding strata. An underclay is found at the lower boundary of the forest, and is extensively penetrated by the Stigmaria roots and rootlets. These structures, like modern root systems, were extremely delicate yet are found to extend through all planes of the underclay, indicating that they grew in situ. They were not, as the Creationists claim, swept by waters and deposited into place by a single event.

One fossil in particular seemed to cause excitement upon its discovery. The fossilized skeleton of a whale aged 10— 12 Ma was found in a diatomaceous earth quarry in Lompoc, California (Reese, 1976). Initial reports had it standing on its tail, progression through many layers of strata. This would, of course, indicate deposition under catastrophic conditions strengthening the creationist stance. However, as more information was made available, it was realized that instead, the whale was not vertical but instead at about 50 to the horizontal and parallel to the strata in which it lay, that had been folded to its current attitude. The strata do not exhibit catastrophic deposition, but rather have laminations present which are characteristic of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Moreover, diatomaceous earths are built up over millions of years as diatoms settle out of the water, not from an instantaneous deposition.

Many claims are made that fossils are not seen forming today, therefore, countering uniformitarianism. Besides the blatant misuse of the term as has been previously dealt with, the statement is outright false. A deep sea dive by oceanographers on November 10, 1987 spotted a 20 m long whale skeleton, half buried in ocean bottom sediments (Smith and Kukert, 1989). This was found in the Santa Catalina basin at a depth of 1240 m, and is an excellent example of a modern fossil in the earliest stages of its formation.

Meteor Impacts

A hard-hitting question often posed to Creationists is: When did meteors impact the earth? There is factual evidence worldwide that the earth, moon and other celestial bodies, were bombarded by meteors long ago. Genesis 1:26,27 states that man and woman were created on the sixth day, and thus inhabited the earth with all the animals God had created. When did this bombardment occur then? Don de Young of ICR says that the impact craters were formed during the time of the flood. The magnitude of such a bombardment within the span of one year would vapourize the waters which encompassed the earth.

Francis Graham of Kent State University has calculated that if one meteor the same size of that which formed the Imbrium Basin on the moon, had hit the earth which was covered by waters 5 kilometers deep, it would have released more than 3 x 1026 joules of energy, which is about twenty times the energy needed to evaporate the entire flood (Fezer, 1993). Needless to say, if such an impact occurred while life was flourishing upon the planet, it would entirely be destroyed.

Conclusions

The plight of science has always been to seek the truth. The best of science has no hopes of finding a certain conclusion to research, and is called inductive science. Poorly conducted science has a conclusion before it has conducted any research. Such is the case for Creation Science. Determined that the doctrine of God is correct in its entirety, such fundamentalists go forth and criticize good science because it does not conform to the Bible. It is truly sad when people who can put their talents to good use, cannot, for they are blinded by their faith, and so are a hindrance to proper scientific research.

By refuting the geologic column, that has been investigated and accurately displayed for centuries, Scientific Creationism digs itself a hole from which it cannot escape. It calls on the invalidity of the principle of uniformity and claims that those who use it, use it wrongly, when in fact the movement does not even understand the proper meaning of the term. Those who call themselves Creationists in the name of “science”, accuse the scientific world of building a paradigm from a house of cards, and as they pick at the cards, the house falls to the ground. Some aspects, not all, may in fact be built like such a house, but by looking at the evidence they provide, we see Scientific Creationists don’t even have a deck of cards.

Figure 1. An erect tree at Joggins, Nova Scotia. Within the hollow tree trunk was found the remains of a small reptile which had fallen in and become fossilized as well. (from Dawson, 1868. p. 192)

Figure 2. Section showing polystrate Calamites within a bed of sandstone. The dark layer laying above the tree is 1 foot of shaley coal, the dark band on which the tree stands is a 1 inch thick coal seam. The many lines which cross through the strata are Stigmaria roots. (from Dawson, 1868. p. 200)

References

Fezer, K.D. 1993. “Creationism: please don’t call it science.” Creation/Evolution. v. 13, no. 1, p. 45-49.

Foster, R.J. 1991. Historical geology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 374p.

Genesis 1:1-31, 7:17-20

Gould, S.J. 1966. “Is uniformitarianism necessary?” American Journal of Science. v. 263, p. 223-228.

Hanson, J.R. and Hanson J.E. 1993. “Creation science and creation myths: an ethnological perspective.” Creation/Evolution. v. 13, no. 1, p. 20-31.

Heylmun, E.B. 1971. “Should we teach uniformitarianism?” Journal of Geological Education. v. 19, p. 35-37.

Morris, H.M. 1974. Scientific creationism. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego. 277p.

Reese, K.M. 1976. “Workers find whale in diatomaceous earth quarry.” Chemical & Engineering News. v. 54, no. 42, p. 40.

Smith, C.R. and Kukert, H. 1989. “Vent fauna on whale remains.” Nature. v. 341, p. 27-28.

Valentine, J.W. 1966. “The present is the key to the present.” Journal of Geological Education. v. 14, p. 59-60.