Kitsmiller vs. Dover School District

PDF of decision hosted on Wikimedia Commons at File: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.pdf .

The Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case is the first lawsuit to address the relevance of teaching smart concept to US public school policies ^[1] . In October 2004, the Dover school district, which includes the Dover borough and the Dover and Washington townships, changed biology curricula by introducing the concept of “Intelligent Design” as an alternative to the theory of evolution using the book “ Of Pandas and People "As a reference ^[2] . The main arguments of the plaintiffs were that “Intelligent Design” is a form of creationism and, therefore, its teaching in schools is a violation of Establishment Clause The first amendment to the US Constitution .

11 parents of Borough Dover students (York County, PA ) sued the Governing Council of the school district for stating that “Intelligent Design” is “a representation of the origin of life that is different from Darwin’s view” and should be taught in classroom courses ninth year of study ^[3] . The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union , the American Union for the Separation of the Church and the State and the law firm Pepper Hamilton LLP . Advised plaintiffs National Center for Scientific Education . The defendants were represented by Thomas More Law Center . Publisher of The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Of Of Pandas and People tried to join the process as a defendant, but this access was rejected for several reasons ^[4] .

In December 2005, Judge John Jones decided that the decision of the Dover School District Council was unconstitutional, thereby satisfying the plaintiffs' claim. The court concluded that “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific theory and forbade the school district’s leadership “to require teachers to slander or underestimate the scientific theory of evolution and invoke a religious alternative theory known as Intelligent Design” ^[5] .

“We conclude that ID [intelligent design, that is, intelligent design] does not belong to the field of science and cannot be recognized as a genuine and authoritative scientific theory, since it is not published in peer-reviewed journals, is not involved in research and verification, and is also not accepted in the scientific community. The foundations of ID, as has been noted, lie in theology, and not in science. <...> In addition, supporters of ID strive to avoid scientific criticism, which, as we have now established, he cannot stand even if his supporters insist on studying at the disciplines of scientific disciplines the existing differences, and not the ID itself. Such tactics imply insincerity at best, and frank lies at worst. The goal pursued by the IDM [intelligent design movement, that is, the movement of intelligent design] is not to encourage critical thinking, but to provoke an ideological revolution and replace evolutionary theory with the concept of ID. ”

- The origin of life. Science and Faith

In November 2005, eight out of nine members of the school board lost the election to opponents of teaching the concept of smart design as a scientific one. (The ninth member of the council was not re-elected.) Subsequently, the new chairman of the council stated that the council did not intend to appeal the court's decision ^[6] .