The Dover Question: Will Kitzmiller V Dover Affect the Status of Intelligent Design Theory in the Same Way as McLean V. Arkansas Affected Creation Science?
2007; Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1938-9809
Autores Tópico(s)Diverse Educational Innovations Studies
ResumoIntroduction In Dover Pennsylvania, the local school board mandated the reading of the following statement which includes both a disclaimer marginalizing the biological theories of evolution and the recommendation of a school library book Of Pandas and People. These were presented as referenced alternatives to the existing scientific theories of evolution to all tenth grade biology classes. The Kitzmiller court testimonies and depositions provided the following information: On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: 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 continues to be 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 who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to 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. (4) The initial reaction was immediate and came from the school's biology teachers. They refused to read the statement to their classes; consequently, members of the school board visited each biology class and personally recited the disclaimer. Tammy Kitzmiller and other parents filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (5) When loosely disguised religious dogma is proposed to be a new scientific theory to be presented in public science classes it is traditionally met with intense opposition from the scientific community and consistently challenged in the courts. Additionally, there is a continuum linking court decisions that allow for reasonable conclusions about the fate of Intelligent Design Theory if it is ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It can be argued that the influence of the Kitzmiller outcome will be will be infavorable to Intelligent Design Theory in any potential Supreme Court hearing that challenges the constitutionality of Intelligent Design Theory. Prior to the legal challenge in Dover Pennsylvania, religious fundamentalist were attempting to incorporate the pseudoscientific concept of Intelligent Design Theory into public school science classes at the local level hoping to circumvent Constitutional restrictions. With the lawsuit in Pennsylvania the constitutional and scientific status of Intelligent Design Theory was put on trial. The U.S. District Court case in Dover and the U.S. District Court case of McLean v. Arkansas have striking similarities. McLean v. Arkansas entailed a comparable pseudoscientific concept known as Creation Science. (6) The underlying concept for both cases is one of religious dogma camouflaged in scientific sounding language in order to be incorporated into public science classes. Establishment Clause Assessments In his judgment of Kitzmiller Judge Jones used the existing First Amendment tests previously established by the Supreme Court. (7) These principles have been repeatedly used by the courts in decisions relating to infringements issues of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. …
Referência(s)