Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Citations: 400 F. Supp. 2d 707; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33647; 2005 WL 3465563Docket: 04cv2688

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; December 20, 2005; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On October 18, 2004, the Dover Area School Board adopted a resolution by a 6-3 vote, mandating that students be informed of issues in Darwin's theory of evolution and introduced to alternative theories, including intelligent design, while stating that the origins of life would not be taught. Subsequently, on November 19, 2004, the school district announced that, starting January 2005, ninth-grade biology teachers would read a statement to students clarifying that Darwin's theory is a theory, not a fact, and that gaps exist in it. This statement encouraged students to keep an open mind about intelligent design, referencing the book "Of Pandas and People" for further exploration.

On December 14, 2004, plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against the school district, arguing that the resolution and press release (collectively termed the ID Policy) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution by effectively endorsing a religious viewpoint. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with nominal damages and attorneys' fees. The court asserted jurisdiction under various federal statutes and deemed the venue appropriate due to the residency of defendants and the location of events related to the claims. Ultimately, the court concluded that the ID Policy was unconstitutional under both the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Tammy Kitzmiller, a parent of two children in Dover High School, became aware of the biology curriculum controversy through local newspapers, having not attended Board meetings until November 2004. Bryan and Christy Rehm, parents of four children, including an eighth grader, learned about the controversy through Bryan's position as a science faculty member and discussions between the couple, attending Board meetings regularly in 2004. Deborah F. Fenimore and Joel A. Leib, parents of two children, first learned of the curriculum change from local newspapers. Steven Stough, a parent of an eighth grader, became aware through newspapers and attended his first Board meeting in December 2004. Beth A. Eveland and Cynthia Sneath, both parents of young children, discovered the issues through local news and attended their first Board meetings in June and October 2004, respectively. Julie Smith, a parent of a tenth grader, followed the controversy through newspapers without attending Board meetings. Aralene "Barrie" Callahan, a former Board member, and her husband Frederick B. Callahan learned of the controversy through Board meetings and discussions. The Defendants in this case are the Dover Area School District (DASD) and its Board of Directors, with DASD serving as a municipal corporation that oversees approximately 3,700 students, including about 1,000 at Dover High School.

The trial began on September 26, 2005, and concluded on November 4, 2005. The Court's Memorandum Opinion outlines its findings of fact and legal conclusions based on trial evidence, witness testimonies, the parties' proposed findings, supporting briefs, and relevant legal standards. Future orders and judgments will align with this opinion.

The federal legal context highlights the emergence of Fundamentalism in nineteenth-century America in response to societal changes and Darwinism. Religious groups successfully lobbied for laws against teaching evolution, exemplified by the 1925 Scopes trial. A significant shift occurred in 1968 when the Supreme Court's decision in Epperson v. Arkansas invalidated a law prohibiting evolution instruction. In response, advocates for evolution sought "balanced treatment" laws, mandating equal teaching time for creationism, which courts deemed unconstitutional.

Subsequent tactics from Fundamentalist groups attempted to introduce "creation science" as an alternative to evolution, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's 1987 ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that prohibited teaching creation science in public schools, reinforcing the Establishment Clause's national prohibition.

The analysis of the constitutionality of the Intelligent Design (ID) Policy is informed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties agree that the Lemon test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, is relevant for determining the ID Policy's constitutionality. This test evaluates the purpose and primary effect of legislation concerning religious establishment, referencing previous cases like Edwards and Epperson.

Defendants argue against the application of the endorsement test, contending it is limited to religious-display cases and certain Establishment Clause scenarios, such as facially religious displays, overtly religious groups using government facilities, and public funding for religious activities. The court, after reviewing relevant Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedents, concludes that both the endorsement test and the Lemon test should be utilized to evaluate the constitutionality of the ID Policy under the Establishment Clause. The endorsement test was established in County of Allegheny v. ACLU and has since been applied broadly, including in public school contexts, as exemplified in cases like Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, where the perception of state endorsement of religious activities was scrutinized. The court emphasizes that school sponsorship of religious messages marginalizes nonadherents while privileging adherents. Additional cases, including Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and Good News Club v. Milford Central School, further illustrate the endorsement test's application to various educational policies and programs. Although defendants reference earlier cases like Epperson and Edwards to support their position, the court counters that these cases predate the endorsement test's formulation and that the endorsement concept was indeed referenced in Edwards. The court asserts that if a law is found to endorse religion, further analysis under Lemon's criteria becomes unnecessary.

Edwards is classified as a "purpose" case, indicating that a comprehensive endorsement analysis by the Supreme Court was unnecessary, as the endorsement test primarily relates to Lemon's "effect" prong rather than its "purpose" prong. A review of relevant Supreme Court cases shows that none directly address a religious display; however, each considered whether government actions amounted to religious endorsement, particularly in public school or university settings. The application of the endorsement test is deemed relevant in this case, as supported by Third Circuit precedents. In *Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Stafford Township Sch. Dist.*, the Third Circuit applied the endorsement test to assess a school district's compliance with the Establishment Clause regarding access for religious groups. Similarly, in *ACLU v. Black Horse Pike Reg'l Bd. of Educ.*, the endorsement test was used to evaluate a school board's policy on prayer at graduation. The Third Circuit emphasized the need to determine if the challenged practice favored or disfavored religion based on the totality of circumstances.

The approach agreed upon involves treating the endorsement inquiry as a distinct test to be conducted before applying the Lemon test. Recent Third Circuit cases have utilized this method, conducting the endorsement analysis first and then evaluating the conduct against Lemon's "purpose" and "effect" standards. The endorsement test asserts that government actions showing religious favoritism violate the Establishment Clause. Justice O'Connor articulated that the endorsement test examines both the government's intent and the actual message conveyed by its actions, integrating the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test. The endorsement test has evolved to primarily focus on "effect," with purpose serving as a relevant context. The Supreme Court in *Allegheny* noted that the term "endorsement" requires interpretation through related concepts established in prior cases regarding the Establishment Clause.

The endorsement test prohibits government endorsement of religion, ensuring that governmental policies do not suggest favoritism towards any religion or belief. This test requires a court to assess the message conveyed by a governmental policy as perceived by a reasonable, objective observer who is familiar with the policy's language, origins, legislative history, and relevant community context. The objective observer is assumed to be knowledgeable and capable of understanding the broader social and historical implications of the policy, rather than merely focusing on the government's intent.

In evaluating whether the government has endorsed Christianity, both the intention behind the government's actions and the actual message conveyed must be considered. The purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test are relevant here to assess these aspects. The inquiry involves determining if the policy in question communicates an endorsement or disapproval of religion, as perceived by an informed audience. 

The process necessitates two inquiries: first, examining the message conveyed to the intended audience—specifically, the students of Dover Area High School. The critical question is whether an objective observer, such as a student, would interpret the government's actions as supportive of the religious activity involved. This assessment is framed by the implications of the disclaimer and the context in which the policy exists.

The Court evaluates the Defendants' actions using the perspective of a reasonable observer, informed by the mailing of a detailed newsletter on the ID Policy to every household and public discussions by Board members. An objective observer would recognize that the ID Policy aligns with creationist strategies derived from historical opposition to evolutionary theory, particularly rooted in Christian Fundamentalism's response to Darwinism. The legal context includes a history of anti-evolution sentiment leading to legislative actions in the 1920s through the early 1960s aimed at removing evolution from educational curricula. The landmark Supreme Court case Epperson (1968) invalidated such prohibitions, establishing that laws motivated by a desire to suppress evolution due to religious beliefs violated constitutional principles. Post-Epperson, attempts to introduce "balanced treatment" statutes were also deemed unconstitutional as they favored religious explanations over scientific ones. Consequently, religious proponents of creationism began to disguise their beliefs in scientific language, advocating for "creation science" to be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution.

Creation science, promoted by fundamentalist organizations as a scientifically valid explanation for the origins of life, was deemed unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The district court in McLean found that such organizations were fundamentally religious and that their concept of creation science relied on a false dichotomy between biblical creationism and evolution, with the former presented as the only alternative to the latter. The court determined that creation science was not true science, as it relied on supernatural explanations that could not be empirically tested, thereby violating the First Amendment by advancing religion without a valid secular purpose.

Five years later, the Supreme Court in Edwards reaffirmed this position by striking down Louisiana's balanced-treatment law, which similarly aimed to include creation science in the public school curriculum. The Court criticized the law for failing to promote genuine academic freedom, as it mandated the teaching of a religious viewpoint while permitting the exclusion of evolution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court established that requiring schools to present creation science alongside evolution constituted an endorsement of a religious doctrine, thereby extending the prohibition against teaching creation science in public schools. The emergence of intelligent design (ID) post-Edwards is noted, with the assertion that its religious nature would be obvious to any observer.

John Haught, a theologian and expert witness for the Plaintiffs, testified that the argument for Intelligent Design (ID) is not a novel scientific claim but rather an ancient religious argument for the existence of God, tracing its roots to Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Aquinas formulated this argument as a syllogism: the presence of complex design implies a designer, nature exhibits complexity, and therefore, nature must have an intelligent designer, understood to be God. Haught noted that this reasoning aligns with arguments presented by defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich, who refer to a "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Haught also highlighted that Reverend Paley in the early 19th century advanced a similar argument, which Behe and Minnich acknowledged as consistent with their views on ID. While the official stance of ID does not explicitly identify the designer as God, Haught argued that anyone familiar with Western religious thought would naturally infer that the unnamed designer is God, especially given the description of the designer as a "master intellect" in the text "Of Pandas and People." 

Both Behe and Minnich personally view the designer as God and noted that many advocates of ID share this belief. Although some proponents of ID occasionally propose alternative designers, such as space aliens, no serious alternative has been offered. Haught pointed out that "Pandas" suggests that the nature of the designer cannot be answered by science and must be left to religion and philosophy, reinforcing the view that ID is fundamentally a religious argument.

Dr. Barbara Forrest, another expert witness for the Plaintiffs, provided evidence showing that leading ID proponents consider the designer to be the Christian God. Phillip Johnson, a key figure in the IDM, has articulated that concepts like "theistic realism" are central to ID, asserting that God’s existence is evident in biological evidence and that Darwinian evolution contradicts the entirety of the Bible.

The excerpt examines the relationship between Intelligent Design (ID) and religion, emphasizing that ID contradicts the concept of a purposeful creation by a deity. Key proponents of ID, such as Johnson, Dembski, and Thaxton, connect their ideas to Christian scripture, particularly the Book of John, suggesting that ID serves to align scientific discourse with Christian beliefs. Dembski describes ID as a means to facilitate the acceptance of Christianity within scientific contexts, while asserting that Christian doctrine is integral to understanding ID, rather than supplementary to it.

Professor Behe, a leading expert for the defense, claims ID is solely a scientific endeavor; however, evidence presented refutes this assertion. Behe's argument hinges on the belief in God, implying that ID's legitimacy is contingent upon such belief, which distinguishes it from other scientific theories. This connection to religious belief suggests that ID is fundamentally a religious rather than a scientific proposition.

The "Wedge Document," produced by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, outlines the goals of the ID movement (IDM), aiming to supplant conventional science with a theistic framework and to combat scientific materialism. The document explicitly states objectives that favor Christian apologetics and a theistic interpretation of nature, further indicating the religious motivations underlying ID.

The excerpt concludes that the supernatural aspect of ID, particularly the notion of a designer, renders it a religious argument rather than a scientific one, corroborated by judicial findings in cases like Edwards and McLean that identified similar traits in creationism. Prominent ID advocates acknowledge the supernatural nature of the designer, reinforcing the position that ID is intrinsically linked to religious beliefs.

Professor Behe defines Intelligent Design (ID) as not resulting from natural laws, asserting it is unlikely that the designer is a natural entity. Professor Minnich argues that ID can only be considered science if the definition of science is expanded to include supernatural influences. Professor Fuller supports this view, claiming that ID aims to redefine scientific principles to accommodate supernatural explanations. Proponents like Johnson emphasize the need to reshape science to allow religious perspectives on evolution. Dembski concurs that the prevailing scientific rule of methodological naturalism must be overturned for ID to succeed.

The book "Pandas," used in Dover's ninth-grade biology class, distinguishes between natural and intelligent causes, suggesting that intelligent causes are non-natural. Professor Haught, the sole theologian to testify, notes that non-natural causes are typically linked to ultimate religious explanations. Robert Pennock, a philosophy of science expert, agrees with Haught, asserting that ID fundamentally posits that natural features arise from a transcendent, non-natural being, classifying it as a religious proposition regardless of explicit religious labels.

No defense expert could clarify how ID's implications could be seen as anything other than religious. An objective observer, familiar with the relevant history and context, would recognize ID as a variation of creationism. The evidence indicates that ID is a derivative of creationism, with significant support coming from the historical context of "Pandas," published by a Christian, religious organization. The authors of "Pandas," known creationists, produced drafts that closely mirrored the definitions of ID prior to and after the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards, which prohibits teaching creationism as science. These drafts reveal striking similarities between the definitions of creation science and ID, underscoring ID's creationist roots.

Approximately 150 instances of the term "creation" were replaced with "ID" in a document following the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards, which deemed creation science as religious and unsuitable for public school science education. This substitution indicates a deliberate alteration of terminology without changing the underlying content, undermining FTE’s claim that omitting "creation" and "creationism" signifies a rejection of these concepts. Early drafts of Pandas defined "creation" in a manner consistent with the definition of "ID" in later versions, suggesting a continuity of ideas that aligns with the concept of "special creation," which is inherently religious. Key witnesses, including defense experts, recognized this definition as a religious notion. Professor Behe's assertion that the referenced passage merely describes fossil appearances contradicts substantial evidence indicating it reflects a conclusion about life's origins based on fossil interpretations. The systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" around 1987, post-Edwards, supports the argument that ID is simply a new label for creationism. An objective observer would likely infer that the "intelligent designer" implied in Pandas is God. Additionally, ID employs similar arguments to those used in creationism, despite purging explicit references to God, creationism, and Genesis, replacing them with an ambiguous "designer." Dr. Forrest provided evidence of six shared arguments between ID and creationism, including critiques of naturalism, cultural threats from evolution, and the notion of "abrupt appearance," paralleling the claims made by proponents of both ideologies.

The IDM embraces creationism within its framework, encouraging adherents to set aside biblical debates about topics such as the earth's age. Expert testimony indicates that Intelligent Design (ID) is a contemporary interpretation of creationism, despite defense experts Behe and Minnich asserting the contrary without substantial evidence to refute the historical connection between ID and creationism. The defense's sole differentiation between the two was the claim that "creationism" pertains only to Genesis-based narratives, overlooking the broader spectrum of creationist views, as illustrated by evidence presented to the Board Curriculum Committee.

The document shifts focus to whether an objective ninth-grade student would perceive a disclaimer as an endorsement of religion. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it emphasizes the need for public schools to avoid promoting religious beliefs that conflict with students' private values. The concept of a "reasonable, objective student" is introduced, representing a hypothetical student equipped with contextual historical knowledge, who interprets school conduct with an age-appropriate level of sophistication. Courts have acknowledged that while students are impressionable and may struggle to discern unofficial religious conduct, they are typically regarded similarly to adults in determining whether a public school's actions imply unconstitutional religious endorsement.

The referenced legal excerpt addresses the implications of a disclaimer about evolution in the educational context, specifically focusing on how such disclaimers may convey a message of religious endorsement to students. It cites the case of Selman, where it was determined that a textbook sticker labeling evolution as a theory could endorse a religious viewpoint, particularly to impressionable school students. The concept of the "objective student standard" is highlighted as a necessary safeguard to protect children from perceived religious endorsements. 

The excerpt examines a disclaimer used in a specific case involving Dover High School, asserting that an objective ninth-grade student would interpret the disclaimer as an official endorsement of religious concepts. The analysis emphasizes the importance of the disclaimer's wording and context, drawing parallels with Supreme Court precedents that consider legislative purpose and historical context when evaluating such disclaimers.

The first paragraph of the disclaimer states that Pennsylvania Academic Standards require teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution, suggesting an obligation that could be construed as reluctance. Testimonies from expert witnesses indicate that this paragraph communicates a negative connotation towards evolutionary theory, as it is uniquely mandated without similar disclaimers for other curricular subjects.

The second paragraph asserts that Darwin's Theory is merely a theory, highlighting gaps and a lack of conclusive evidence, further distinguishing evolution from other scientific concepts taught in the curriculum. This targeted critique of evolution raises concerns about its presentation to students, potentially reinforcing the perception of religious bias.

The excerpt critiques a disclaimer presented to students regarding evolutionary theory and its contrast with Intelligent Design (ID). It highlights that the disclaimer manipulates the common understanding of "theory" to suggest that evolution is merely a questionable opinion, thereby misleading students and fostering misconceptions about its scientific validity. Experts, including Dr. Alters and Professor Fuller, support the view that the disclaimer is misleading and detrimental to students' understanding of evolution. 

The disclaimer promotes ID as an alternative explanation to Darwin's theory without presenting any scientific evidence, thereby treating it more favorably than evolutionary theory. This approach exemplifies the "contrived dualism" criticized in previous court rulings, indicating that ID functions as a religious perspective rather than a legitimate scientific theory. 

The excerpt also references a prior court ruling in Freiler, which found that disclaimers juxtaposing scientific theories with religious alternatives imply school endorsement of religious principles. The final paragraph of the disclaimer encourages students to keep an open mind about origins, but it fails to provide any scientific alternative, instead promoting ID as the only option, echoing the unconstitutional elements of the disclaimer struck down in Freiler.

A reasonable student observing the District’s approach could conclude that it endorses a religious perspective on the "Origins of Life," thereby suggesting sponsorship of a specific religion. Directing students to their families for discussions on this topic mirrors the function of previous disclaimers, which conveyed that students could retain their familial beliefs regarding creationism, potentially undermining the critical thinking encouraged by evolutionary theory education. The disclaimer, delivered by school administrators due to teachers' refusal to present it out of legal and ethical concerns, reinforces its unique significance, as no similar disclaimers exist in other subjects. Additionally, the disclaimer’s stipulation that teachers will not engage in discussions about the topic creates the impression that the subject of Intelligent Design (ID) is treated as sensitive or taboo, further suggesting a religious agenda. The “opt out” provision for students and parents who object to the disclaimer adds to its perceived importance, emphasizing the religious connotation attached to it.

The excerpt outlines the implications of the Dover School Board's policy regarding the teaching of intelligent design (ID) in public schools. It argues that the choice between participating in state-sponsored religious instruction or leaving the classroom signals to nonadherent students that they are outsiders within the political community. The classroom presentation of a disclaimer, the prohibition on discussing or questioning ID, and the option to opt out all suggest a strong endorsement of religion. An objective student is expected to recognize that the Board advocated for the curriculum change in religious terms, which led to significant community debate about the introduction of religious concepts into science education. This student would also be aware of the historical opposition to evolution by certain religious groups, noting that the Board's ID Policy aligns with this tradition.

The excerpt references the Supreme Court's ruling in Santa Fe, which presumes that students understand the religious nature of school policies, and highlights the historical context that influenced the Court's decision in Edwards, where a law affecting evolution instruction was struck down due to its religious motivations. It asserts that the disclaimer unfairly targets evolution, misrepresents its scientific status, and promotes religious alternatives under the guise of scientific inquiry. Testimonies from Drs. Alters and Miller indicate that introducing ID creates a false dichotomy between belief in God and adherence to scientific principles, thus compelling students to choose between religion and science, a decision schools should not impose. Ultimately, the text concludes that a reasonable, objective student would perceive the disclaimer as a clear endorsement of a religious viewpoint.

An objective adult observer in the Dover community would likely perceive the Defendants' conduct as an endorsement of religion, particularly regarding the Intelligent Design (ID) Policy. The evidence shows that the disclaimer associated with ID was read in ninth-grade biology classes, but the Board's public discussions and decisions about the curriculum change positioned the entire community as the audience for its religious messaging. Courts typically assess the impact of government actions beyond their intended audience, considering how these actions might be interpreted by the broader community.

The Board actively engaged the public in debates about the inclusion of ID in the curriculum, allowing for public comments during school board meetings, where some members explicitly advocated for ID using religious language. This advocacy was widely reported in local media. Furthermore, key Board members defended the ID Policy in religious terms in media outlets. In February 2005, the Board mailed a newsletter to every household in Dover, which was crafted with assistance from a religious legal organization. This newsletter was perceived as a strong advocacy piece against evolution and for ID, suggesting that it undermined the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Overall, the actions and communications of the Board indicate a clear endorsement of religious views through their educational policy.

A minority of parents have expressed concerns regarding a recent curriculum change, alleging that the Board is imposing its religious beliefs on students. The curriculum's second "Frequently Asked Question" raises the issue of whether intelligent design (ID) is merely a disguised form of religion. The accompanying newsletter accuses scientists of using ambiguous definitions of evolution to mislead the public and claims that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, supported by a growing number of credible scientists, that contrasts with Darwin's view. The newsletter further undermines evolution, arguing that advancements in molecular biology since the 1950s show that living cells cannot be explained by random chance.

Additionally, the newsletter suggests that evolution promotes atheism, positing that before Darwin, belief in a benevolent God was prevalent, and that Darwinism allows for intellectual fulfillment without belief in God. Notably, it quotes Anthony Flew, a former atheist, endorsing the idea of intelligent design, thus implying that ID has religious underpinnings.

The February 2005 newsletter was distributed to all households in Dover, including those without children in the school system, effectively confronting the entire community with the District's endorsement of a religious viewpoint. Parents of ninth-grade biology students are required to respond to a letter regarding their children’s participation in classes that include a disclaimer about ID, thereby positioning parents as a key audience in determining whether the government's actions convey a message that favors religion. Relevant case law indicates that when parents must give permission for their children's participation in activities, they are considered the audience for assessing potential religious endorsement by the government.

An objective adult member of the Dover community would be presumed to recognize that the Intelligent Design (ID) Policy reflects religious strategies rooted in earlier creationist beliefs. The policy's disclaimer characterizing evolution as "a theory, not a fact" carries cultural implications that suggest an endorsement of religious views, as established in the Selman court's analysis. This framing is part of a broader anti-evolutionary strategy that seeks to undermine evolution education, aligning the school board with religious proponents while marginalizing supporters of evolution. The Dover School Board's repeated emphasis on evolution's perceived "gaps" and "problems" implies a specific criticism of evolution that resonates with historical opposition from certain religious groups, indicating a belief that evolution fails to acknowledge a creator. Additionally, the controversy surrounding the ID Policy significantly engaged the community, with local media coverage informing many residents, including plaintiffs, of the board's actions regarding the biology curriculum and textbook changes, often without their prior knowledge or attendance at board meetings.

Numerous letters to the editor and editorials published in the York Daily Record and York Dispatch followed news reports regarding a curriculum controversy in the Dover public school system. Despite Defendants' objections, the court will admit these materials as evidence, assessing them under the endorsement test and the Lemon effect prong. The letters and editorials are not submitted for their truth but to demonstrate the community's perception of the controversy, which centers on whether a religious view should be taught as science. The materials indicate a collective social judgment that the Board’s actions advance religion.

The Supreme Court's decision in Santa Fe emphasizes that a public school district's actions related to religion must be evaluated based on how a reasonable observer would perceive them. Thus, the inquiry focuses on community perceptions rather than individual opinions. The Plaintiffs have submitted a total of 225 letters and 62 editorials from the York newspapers published between June 1, 2004, and September 1, 2005. The York Daily Record published 139 letters, with 86 addressing religious issues, along with 43 editorials, 28 of which were religious in nature. The York Dispatch published 86 letters, 60 of which discussed the issue in religious terms, and 19 editorials, 17 of which were similarly religious. Overall, these documents reflect the active engagement of the community in expressing their views on the curriculum changes.

Community letters and editorials reveal a widespread perception among Dover residents that the Intelligent Design (ID) policy reflects a religious viewpoint. Many community members argued that the decision to include ID in the high school biology curriculum inherently involves religious concepts, thereby suggesting the Board was promoting a specific religious perspective. This perception is significant as it highlights the community's divided stance—supporters of the curriculum change cited religious grounds, while opponents argued for the separation of religion from public education.

The letters and editorials serve as critical evidence of the community's collective judgment regarding the ID policy, demonstrating that both supporters and detractors view it as endorsing religion. This assessment aligns with the Supreme Court's reasoning in *Epperson*, where public letters were used to illustrate the influence of fundamentalist beliefs on educational policy. 

The court concludes that an informed, objective adult in the Dover community would perceive the Board's actions as a strong endorsement of religion, consistent with the endorsement test. It acknowledges the complexity of the evidence regarding whether ID qualifies as science, asserting that the court is uniquely positioned to evaluate this controversial issue given the extensive trial and expert testimony it has considered.

ID (Intelligent Design) is deemed not to be science based on a thorough examination of the record and relevant case law. This determination is crucial for establishing an Establishment Clause violation and aims to prevent unnecessary judicial resources from being expended on future trials addressing this issue. ID fails to meet scientific standards for three primary reasons: 

1. It permits supernatural causation, violating the foundational principles of science.
2. The key concept of irreducible complexity in ID mirrors the flawed dualism that undermined creation science in the 1980s.
3. ID's criticisms of evolution have been effectively refuted by the scientific community.

Furthermore, ID lacks acceptance among scientists, has not produced peer-reviewed research, and has not been subjected to rigorous testing. Since the scientific revolution, science has focused on natural causes to explain phenomena, emphasizing empirical evidence over authority or revelation. This approach, termed methodological naturalism, restricts scientific inquiry to testable and observable explanations, a principle endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, which asserts that science is defined by empirical and verifiable data. Thus, while supernatural explanations may hold significance, they fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

Explanations without empirical evidence are excluded from scientific discourse, as emphasized by the definition and convention of science. Agreement exists with Dr. Miller, who states that attributing unresolved natural phenomena to supernatural causes halts scientific inquiry. Intelligent Design (ID) is rooted in supernatural causation, countering natural explanations for natural phenomena. The ID reference book "Pandas" explicitly asserts that life forms originated abruptly through an intelligent agency, rejecting evolutionary processes. Expert testimonies confirm that ID relies on supernatural explanations, with defense experts acknowledging the necessity of altering scientific principles to accommodate this view. Notably, Professor Fuller and Professor Behe admitted that ID's framework could extend to astrology, while Professor Minnich recognized that redefining science's boundaries is essential for ID's acceptance. Leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), such as William Dembski, advocate for the overturning of methodological naturalism to facilitate ID's integration into scientific discourse, suggesting a comprehensive reevaluation of various scientific fields, particularly in the human sciences.

The Discovery Institute, through its CRSC, aims to undermine scientific materialism and replace it with a theistic interpretation of nature, asserting that humans and nature are created by God. The Wedge Document outlines a strategic plan to supplant current scientific practices with "theistic and Christian science," indicating a desire for a significant shift in scientific paradigms where Intelligent Design (ID) replaces evolutionary theory. However, every major scientific organization has determined that ID does not qualify as science. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) specifically states that claims of ID cannot be tested scientifically and are based on authority rather than empirical evidence. Similarly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) highlights ID's lack of a scientific testing framework, deeming it inappropriate for science education. Throughout a six-week trial, no expert identified any reputable scientific organization endorsing ID as a valid scientific theory. Defense experts acknowledged ID's status as "fringe science," lacking acceptance in the scientific community. The court concludes that ID does not adhere to the fundamental criteria of science, which is defined by testable, natural explanations. Additionally, the court refutes ID's underlying argument of "contrived dualism," which posits that discrediting evolutionary theory inherently validates ID, a notion previously dismissed in earlier legal challenges.

Defendants attempting to support intelligent design (ID) rely on the same flawed reasoning as proponents of creation science, asserting that any evidence against evolutionary theory simultaneously supports creation science. This false dichotomy does not effectively justify ID. ID advocates primarily utilize negative arguments against evolution, particularly Professor Behe's claim that "irreducibly complex" systems cannot arise through Darwinian mechanisms. Expert testimony indicated that the inability of scientists to currently explain certain biological systems does not preclude future explanations; the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. Testimonies from Drs. Miller and Padian highlighted instances where earlier claims of no natural explanations were later disproven. It was emphasized that not all details of evolutionary theory must be fully understood for it to be valid, as no scientific theory is completely comprehensible. 

The concept of irreducible complexity, central to ID, is framed as a negative argument against evolution rather than evidence for design, a position acknowledged by defense expert Professor Minnich. Behe defines irreducible complexity as a system of interdependent parts that ceases to function if any single part is removed, claiming such systems cannot evolve gradually. However, Behe later recognized a flaw in his definition, as it fails to address the primary challenge for natural selection, which is the assembly of components into a new functional system, rather than merely the removal of parts from an existing one. Behe expressed a desire to address this defect in future work.

Professor Behe has not adequately addressed the phenomenon of natural selection, despite identifying his theory of irreducible complexity four years prior. Expert testimonies from Drs. Miller and Padian indicate that Behe's definition of irreducible complexity overlooks established evolutionary processes. Behe argues that a precursor missing a part is nonfunctional, yet he fails to consider that such precursors may have had alternative functions, such as serving as a secretory system rather than a rotary motor, as seen with the bacterial flagellum. The concept of exaptation, which describes how systems may evolve through changes in function, is a recognized counter to his argument and is illustrated by the evolution of mammalian middle ear bones from jawbones.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has critiqued Behe's claims, emphasizing that structures deemed "irreducibly" complex often are not, as complex systems can arise from simpler ones via natural selection. This process allows for the gradual development of complex molecular systems, demonstrating that intermediate structures can exist with selectable functions that could evolve into systems Behe considers irreducibly complex. While irreducible complexity serves as a negative argument against evolution, it remains testable through evidence of these intermediate structures, contrasting with the claims of Intelligent Design (ID), which are not testable. Behe's application of irreducible complexity has been limited to specific systems, notably the bacterial flagellum.

Dr. Miller presented evidence countering Professor Behe's claims of irreducible complexity in three biochemical systems: the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system. For the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller cited studies identifying the Type-III Secretory System as a functional precursor, while Professor Minnich acknowledged ongoing research regarding the evolutionary relationship between these systems, which does not involve Intelligent Design (ID). Regarding the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller referenced studies from 1969 and molecular testing in 1998, demonstrating that certain marine mammals can clot blood despite lacking components of the cascade, thus refuting claims of irreducible complexity. Cross-examination revealed that Behe's redefinition of the blood-clotting system appeared to be an attempt to sidestep contradicting evidence. For the immune system, Dr. Miller noted that studies from 1996 to 2002 provided evolutionary explanations for its development, contrary to Behe’s earlier assertions that natural explanations were impossible. Despite being presented with a substantial body of peer-reviewed literature on the immune system's evolution, Behe maintained that it was insufficient evidence. The document concludes that the ID argument relies on an unreasonably high burden of proof against evolutionary theory, illustrated by the proposed but unexecuted laboratory test for the bacterial flagellum by Behe and Minnich.

Professor Behe acknowledged that the proposed test for irreducible complexity does not reflect real-world conditions and, even if it did, it would merely test evolution, not intelligent design (ID). His claim for irreducible complexity has been widely discredited by peer-reviewed research and the scientific community. Furthermore, even if the concept of irreducible complexity were accepted, it would still not support ID as it only serves as a measure of evolution.

The argument for design presented by Professors Behe and Minnich relies on the notion of a "purposeful arrangement of parts," positing that increased complexity and interaction among parts strengthens the inference of design. Behe claims that the overwhelming appearance of design in biology rationally justifies the conclusion that biological systems are intentionally designed, a position reminiscent of Reverend William Paley's arguments, albeit without specifying the designer's identity.

Expert testimony established that this inductive reasoning is not scientific and cannot be conclusively ruled out. Behe’s analogy between human-designed artifacts and biological systems falters because human artifacts are non-replicable, do not undergo genetic changes, and lack the evolutionary processes present in biology. Unlike human design, which is grounded in empirical evidence of the designer's identity and capabilities, proponents of ID do not identify the designer or propose a mechanism, which undermines the analogy. Behe conceded that while the analogy may hold in fiction, it fails under scrutiny, revealing that the only shared characteristic between biological systems and human artifacts is their complex appearance.

The inference of design based on a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is inherently subjective, varying according to individual perspectives on complexity. Professors Behe and Minnich acknowledged during cross-examination that there are no quantitative criteria to establish complexity indicative of design versus natural processes. Plaintiffs argue that the sole evidence from Defendants regarding the strength of the Intelligent Design (ID) inference is that it is less plausible for those questioning God's existence. ID fails to meet scientific standards as it relies on non-testable forces outside the natural world, which cannot be examined through scientific methods. While acknowledging the existence of gaps in scientific knowledge, ID proponents misrepresent established scientific facts to support their claims against evolution. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts evolution, as testified by Dr. Miller, a recognized expert. Evolution is regarded as the dominant scientific theory of origin, contrary to claims by ID proponents that it lacks empirical support. Experts Drs. Miller and Padian highlighted how ID arguments, particularly those in the book "Pandas," misrepresent scientific knowledge regarding evolution. Padian, the only expert with paleontological expertise, provided unrebutted testimony challenging the arguments against evolutionary theory presented in "Pandas."

Dr. Padian's slides, based on peer-reviewed literature, demonstrate that the book "Pandas" misrepresents key evolutionary concepts. Notably, it distorts the tree of life and cladistics, misdefines homology—central to comparative biology—and neglects the concept of exaptation, which explains how structures can change function over time. Padian asserts that proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) ignore exaptation to support their view of sudden organism appearance. Furthermore, Padian's testimony reveals that "Pandas" inaccurately depicts fossil records regarding pre-Cambrian fossils, the evolution from fish to amphibians, the transition from small carnivorous dinosaurs to birds, the development of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals. Dr. Miller corroborated Padian's findings, stating that "Pandas" presents discredited science, inaccurately explains biochemical similarities, and misrepresents basic molecular biology to promote design theory. He also refuted the claim that evolution cannot generate new genetic information, citing over thirty peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate otherwise. Overall, Miller concluded that "Pandas" misrepresents molecular biology and genetics, undermining the credibility of common descent and natural selection. This textbook contains outdated and flawed scientific concepts, as acknowledged by defense experts. Moreover, ID lacks peer-reviewed publications, which are crucial for scientific validation, highlighting its failure to establish scientific credibility.

Defense expert Professor Behe acknowledged the significance of the peer review process in science, stating that it ensures research is scientifically accurate and relevant. Peer review involves the submission of manuscripts to scientific journals, where editors seek critical evaluations from experts to verify adherence to research standards and methodologies. However, evidence presented in this case indicates that Intelligent Design (ID) lacks any support from peer-reviewed research, data, or publications. Testimonies from Drs. Padian and Forrest confirmed that recent literature searches found no studies backing the biological concept of ID. Behe admitted there are no peer-reviewed articles advocating for ID that provide substantial experimental evidence or rigorous explanations of how intelligent design occurs in biological systems. He also conceded the absence of peer-reviewed support for his claims regarding the intelligent design of complex molecular structures, such as the bacterial flagellum and the immune system, as well as the notion of "irreducible complexity." 

Furthermore, ID has not produced any scientific research or testing, leading to the conclusion that it cannot be considered a valid scientific theory. ID is rooted in theology rather than science, and while its proponents argue for critical thinking in education, it has no place in a science curriculum. Attempts by ID advocates to teach the controversy surrounding evolution, rather than ID itself, are viewed as disingenuous. The aim of the Intelligent Design Movement is perceived as an effort to replace evolutionary theory with ID, rather than to promote genuine critical thought. Ultimately, while the court does not opine on the theological aspects of ID, it asserts that ID is not a scientific alternative to evolution and concludes that a reasonable observer would recognize it as a theological argument rather than a scientific one.

The excerpt applies the Lemon test to evaluate the ID Policy's compliance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court notes that the Defendants' actions suggest an endorsement of specific religious views, thus necessitating a separate assessment under the Lemon test, which assesses government-sponsored messages based on three criteria: secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive entanglement with religion.

The inquiry begins by determining whether the District demonstrated favoritism toward religion or specific religious beliefs, emphasizing that the First Amendment requires governmental neutrality between religions and between religion and non-religion. A governmental action that promotes religion violates this principle of neutrality. The excerpt highlights that evidence of the ID Policy's purpose must consider its language, context, legislative history, and the broader historical context of efforts to promote creationism while undermining evolution.

The court cites precedent indicating that the purpose analysis requires examining the legislative intent behind the ID Policy, with a focus on the historical context, procedural anomalies, and statements from legislative sponsors. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that the Defendants deliberately altered the biology curriculum in Dover to promote religion.

Evidence indicates that the District aimed to promote creationism, a religious view, by presenting it as "Intelligent Design" (ID) while undermining the scientific theory of evolution, thereby positioning creationism as the sole alternative. A chronological overview of events leading to the ID Policy's enactment reveals key details about the Board's composition in 2004, which included nine members: Alan Bonsell (President), William Buckingham (Curriculum Committee Chair), Sheila Harkins, Jane Cleaver, Heather Geesey, Angie Yingling, Noel Wenrich, Jeff Brown, and Casey Brown. Several members resigned in late 2004, with Bonsell actively seeking to integrate religious concepts into the school system.

Starting in January 2002, Bonsell expressed a strong interest in incorporating religion into the curriculum, prioritizing "creationism" and "school prayer." His proposals were documented during Board retreats, notably on January 9, 2002, and March 26, 2003, where he insisted that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in biology classes. Despite Bonsell's claims of not recalling these discussions, the overwhelming evidence, including testimonies from other Board members and notes from Superintendent Nilsen, corroborates that he indeed advocated for equal representation of creationism and evolution in the educational curriculum. A memo from Trudy Peterman, then principal of Dover High School, further confirmed that a Board member desired a 50/50 split between evolution and creationism in biology classes, aligning with the testimonies presented.

Spahr confirmed a conversation with Baksa regarding Bonsell's desire to have creationism taught alongside evolution, as noted in the Peterman memo. Baksa initially stated he did not recall Bonsell specifically naming "creationism" until April 1, 2003, but the testimony is deemed not credible, leading to the conclusion that Bonsell is the unnamed Board member advocating for equal teaching of creationism and evolution. Bonsell had previously expressed disbelief in evolution and a wish to reinstate prayer and Bible reading in schools during his 2001 Board campaign. He sought to join the Board Curriculum Committee to influence the teaching of evolution. Nilsen highlighted that Bonsell prioritized creationism over other Board agendas. Despite denying interest in creationism during his testimony, Bonsell's counsel acknowledged this interest. Bonsell aimed to incorporate religious content into social studies, referencing a book on the Founding Fathers. In discussions with Baksa, Bonsell raised concerns about evolution's portrayal in textbooks, believing it was presented as fact rather than theory. Baksa facilitated a meeting between Bonsell and science teachers to address these concerns, with teacher Jennifer Miller representing their views.

Miller indicated that Bonsell was concerned about teachers providing information that conflicted with parental views, potentially leaving students feeling misled. Miller clarified that evolution is taught in terms of changes over time, focusing on the origin of species rather than the origin of life, which aligned with Bonsell's belief that the topic of "origins of life" was not covered, satisfying his religious views about creation and the earth's age. Prior to late 2003, no Dover administrator or Board member had engaged with biology teachers regarding their teaching of evolution or biology. Following a significant meeting in fall 2003, biology teachers altered their teaching methods. Teacher Robert Linker stopped mentioning creationism and ceased using Discovery Channel videos about evolution, prompted by the awareness of controversy raised in the meeting. Senior biology teacher Jen Miller also modified her practice of having students create an evolutionary timeline. Despite claims by the Defendants that the Intelligent Design (ID) Policy aimed to foster critical thinking and enhance science education, the reality was that teachers began to exclude evolution-related content prior to the ID Policy's adoption. Additionally, prior to June 2004, Buckingham had communications with the Discovery Institute regarding the legality of teaching ID and criticisms of Darwin's theory. Buckingham received materials from the Discovery Institute to distribute to science teachers, including a video titled "Icons of Evolution," and two lawyers from the Institute later presented to the Board.

In June 2003, the Board allocated funds for new science textbooks, including the 2002 edition of "Biology" by Kenneth Miller, but did not approve its purchase despite recommendations from faculty and administration. As of June 2004, Board member William Buckingham testified that the delay was due to the book's approach to evolution and its omission of alternative theories. Evidence presented by the Plaintiffs indicated that during Board meetings on June 7 and June 14, 2004, members openly supported teaching creationism and criticized evolution on religious grounds. Notably, Buckingham described the textbook as "laced with Darwinism" and advocated for a book that offered a balance of creationism and evolution. Other Board members, including Bonsell, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that teaching both theories as possibilities would not pose issues for the District. Superintendent Nilsen remarked that the District sought a textbook that presented "all options and theories," while Buckingham previously stated his belief that the separation of church and state is a myth. Overall, the testimonies presented were largely deemed credible, with Buckingham's statements highlighting a clear preference for including creationism in the curriculum.

Buckingham asserted that the founding principles of the country are rooted in Christianity, opposing teachings of evolution in schools. At the June 14, 2004 Board meeting, public comments, including a speech by Charlotte Buckingham, criticized evolution as false, citing biblical scripture and advocating for the teaching of creationism. Buckingham opposed the 2002 biology textbook, claiming it lacked balance regarding evolution. Board members, including Buckingham and Geesey, expressed agreement with the idea that creationism should be included in the curriculum. Buckingham made several religious statements, including a challenge to trace human ancestry to apes and lamented the perceived erosion of Christian values by judicial actions. Despite Buckingham and other defense witnesses denying media reports about the meeting, the evidence suggests inconsistencies in their testimonies, calling their credibility into question. Additionally, Buckingham's concerns about the biology textbook were focused on its references to evolution, particularly the mention of Darwin's finch.

The document details concerns raised during a meeting about the teaching of "origins of life," specifically distinguishing between the origin of species and common ancestry. Jen Miller clarified that teachers did not cover origins of life, only origin of species. Baksa presented documents, including a survey of biology textbooks from private religious schools and a profile of a textbook used at Bob Jones University, alongside a document titled "Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate," which outlines various perspectives on creationism and evolution. It notes that the Board Curriculum Committee recognized in June 2004 that Intelligent Design (ID) was largely viewed as a form of creationism and appeared to seek its inclusion in the Dover science curriculum.

During the meeting, despite prior objections, teachers agreed to re-evaluate the video "Icons of Evolution" to appease Buckingham, who had already expressed a desire to exclude any references to evolution, including a mural that was destroyed and burned by Larry Reeser, with Buckingham admitting he "gleefully watched it burn." Buckingham insisted that teachers promise not to display any future evolution murals in exchange for his support in purchasing a needed biology textbook.

Baksa testified that while "intelligent design" was mentioned at the meeting, it seemed merely a rebranding of creationism. This supports the argument that, by June 2004, Board members began to interchangeably use ID and creationism. Additionally, Buckingham reached out to the Thomas More Law Center for further information on ID prior to late July 2004.

Legal advice was sought from Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the TMLC, regarding the Board’s textbook decisions. The TMLC offered to represent the Board, which was accepted by Buckingham. The Board became aware of the creationist textbook *Pandas* before late July 2004. In July 2004, after discovering a new edition of the *Biology* textbook, the Board decided to postpone purchasing a new textbook until it could review this edition. Subsequently, key Board members met to compare the 2004 and 2002 editions and documented their findings.

During an August 2, 2004 meeting, the Board considered approving the 2004 edition of *Biology*. Prior to this meeting, Buckingham recommended purchasing *Pandas* as a supplemental text. Ultimately, Buckingham opposed the purchase of *Biology* unless *Pandas* was also approved. The initial vote on *Pandas* resulted in a tie, but after Buckingham indicated he could sway votes in favor of *Biology* if *Pandas* was approved, Yingling changed her vote, enabling the approval of both texts.

On August 26, 2004, Board Solicitor Stephen Russell emailed Nilsen after speaking with Thompson. Russell expressed concerns regarding potential litigation tied to the use of *Pandas*, referencing discussions Thompson had with other school boards. He noted that the voluntary nature of using the textbook could complicate legal defenses, citing Supreme Court cases where practices, although voluntary, faced scrutiny due to their religious origins.

The court's decision in Alabama regarding silent meditation statutes was influenced by evidence of their religious motivations. Concerns were raised about the implications for Dover, where discussions and media focus on reintroducing religion into schools could strengthen legal challenges against such practices. On August 30, 2004, the Board Curriculum Committee, including Nilsen, Baksa, and Buckingham, discussed the use of the textbook "Pandas" in classrooms. Despite teacher opposition and concerns that the textbook promoted Intelligent Design (ID) equated with creationism, Buckingham advocated for its use alongside standard biology texts. Teachers, feeling pressured and fatigued from ongoing disputes over evolution instruction, reluctantly agreed to allow "Pandas" as a reference text. Baksa acknowledged that teachers did not support its use, highlighting their wariness of potential backlash. He also researched "Pandas" and recognized its alignment with creationist views, although his contradictory statements about his familiarity with the source negatively impacted his credibility. Additionally, on October 4, 2004, Nilsen accepted a donation of 60 copies of "Pandas," with no prior disclosure of the donation's source, despite inquiries from a former Board member. Testimony revealed attempts by Buckingham and Bonsell to conceal this information, indicating efforts to provide students with a creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution.

On January 3, 2005, depositions were conducted to aid Plaintiffs in determining whether to seek a temporary restraining order. During these depositions, Buckingham and Bonsell failed to disclose details regarding Buckingham's solicitation of donations for Pandas at his church, despite repeated questioning. Evidence revealed that Buckingham solicited donations totaling $850 at Harmony Grove Community Church, which was later confirmed by a check drawn on Buckingham's joint account with his wife, payable to Donald Bonsell, with "Of Pandas and People" noted on it. Alan Bonsell received this money from his father to purchase books related to the donations.

Upon receiving the books, Spahr found a catalogue listing Pandas under "Creation Science." When questioned, Bonsell claimed that his father acted as a conduit for the funds due to concerns raised at Board meetings regarding fund usage. Both Bonsell and Buckingham are accused of lying during the depositions about their knowledge of the donation's source, which may have influenced the Plaintiffs' decision against seeking a temporary restraining order based on incomplete facts. This dishonesty is portrayed as a deliberate effort to obscure the religious motivation behind the Intelligent Design (ID) Policy.

Additionally, in September 2004, Baksa was instructed by the Board to draft changes to the biology curriculum that would challenge Darwin's theory without inviting science teachers to participate in the discussion. The lack of evidence suggests that the Board did not pursue these curriculum changes to enhance science education. The Curriculum Committee met on October 7, 2004, and quickly adopted Bonsell's proposal for the curriculum change, which raised concerns about the motivations behind the alterations.

Students will learn about gaps in Darwin's theory and other evolutionary theories, including intelligent design, as part of a revised biology curriculum. The Board of Education approved this curriculum change on October 18, 2004, with a 6-3 vote, incorporating "Pandas" as a reference text. This change deviated from standard procedures, which typically require a year of advance planning and multiple meetings for curriculum changes. Instead, the biology curriculum alteration was introduced during an action meeting without prior discussion in a planning session, violating established practices. The District Curriculum Committee's recommendations were ignored, and teacher input was excluded from the drafting process. Evidence presented at trial highlighted the irregularities in the Board's actions, suggesting a rushed decision due to the impending departure of two Board members involved in the discussions.

No public Board meetings were held regarding Intelligent Design (ID), but discussions on creationism occurred within six months prior. Buckingham sought a Board vote on a resolution related to ID on October 18, 2004, believing he had enough support following a prior Curriculum Committee meeting on October 7, 2004. At the October 18 meeting, science teachers Spahr and Miller, along with public members, opposed the curriculum change. Spahr highlighted that teachers had made compromises regarding the curriculum after a prolonged process and asserted that the changes were being pushed through without teacher or District Curriculum Committee input, a claim that went unchallenged by the Board or administration.

Spahr warned the Board that ID constituted creationism and was illegal to teach. Baksa corroborated that teachers did not support the Pandas reference text, which was a compromise to ensure the adoption of a standard biology textbook. He rejected any notion of teacher endorsement for the curriculum changes, emphasizing that teachers made unnecessary sacrifices to accommodate Board members advocating for religious content in education. 

The Board approved the curriculum change by a 6-3 vote without discussing ID, its educational value, or justifying the decision. Board members admitted their lack of scientific knowledge to evaluate ID and acknowledged not understanding the curriculum change they voted for. Geesey, a Board member, explicitly stated her confusion yet voted in favor, deferring to other members for guidance. The overall impression from the testimony was that many Board members were uninformed about ID, highlighting a significant gap in understanding among those making key educational decisions.

Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee, acknowledged his lack of knowledge regarding the scientific validity of Intelligent Design (ID) at the time he voted for a curriculum change to include it, just months after the ID Policy's approval. Cleaver also supported the change despite teachers' objections, relying on assurances from Bonsell and demonstrating ignorance about ID, even misnaming it as "intelligence design." Superintendent Nilsen's understanding of ID was limited to the notion that "evolution has a design." Despite this lack of comprehension among six Board members, they decided to implement the change without consulting any scientific experts, disregarding consistent opposition from the District's science teachers. The only external consultations were with the Discovery Institute and TMLC for legal advice, not educational guidance. The Board failed to reach out to reputable organizations such as NAS or AAAS for information on ID or science education. Dr. Alters' testimony highlighted that these organizations provide resources opposing the teaching of ID. Notably, both Nilsen and Assistant Superintendent Baksa opposed the curriculum change, with Baksa expressing regret over it. The dissent among Board members culminated in the resignation of Casey and Jeff Brown, who cited a growing marginalization of dissenting opinions within the Board and criticized the disrespectful treatment of their contributions.

An individual's religious beliefs should not affect their capability to serve as a school board director, nor should these beliefs be used to evaluate their service value. However, the board has increasingly prioritized specific religious beliefs in its decision-making process. Board member Wenrich, who opposed a rushed vote on October 18, 2004, advocated for a community discussion and later resigned, citing accusations of being unpatriotic and questioning of his religious beliefs despite his extensive public service. Evidence indicates that board members who supported the curriculum changes uncritically accepted recommendations from ID Policy architects Bonsell and Buckingham, ignoring objections from science teachers and administration.

Following the curriculum change, Baksa was tasked with preparing a statement to introduce the evolution unit in biology. Significant evidence from the trial shows that the final statement deviated markedly from Baksa’s initial draft. The original draft described Darwin's theory as the "dominant scientific theory," but this language was omitted in the final version. Additionally, while the draft noted that "there are gaps in Darwin's theory for which there is yet no evidence," the final statement altered it to "there are gaps in Darwin's theory for which there is no evidence." Furthermore, a suggestion to include that there is a "significant amount of evidence" supporting Darwin's theory was removed, as Baksa anticipated disapproval from the Board.

The finalized statement presented to ninth-grade biology students mandated by the Board asserts that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory subject to ongoing testing, emphasizes that it is not a fact, and acknowledges gaps in the theory. It also introduces Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation and references the book "Of Pandas and People" for students interested in learning about it, encouraging an open mind towards all theories.

The school district allows students and families to independently explore the Origins of Life, emphasizing its commitment to Standards-driven education aimed at preparing students for Standards-based assessments. On January 6, 2005, teachers requested to be exempt from reading a mandated statement regarding Intelligent Design (ID), asserting that doing so would misrepresent ID as a valid scientific theory, which they deemed incompatible with their professional responsibilities and ethical obligations. Consequently, school administrators read the statement to ninth graders in January and again in June 2005, although modifications were made to reference other unnamed books on ID, with "Of Pandas and People" remaining the only specifically mentioned text. The Board, in conjunction with the Traditional Values Coalition (TMLC), disseminated a newsletter to the Dover community in February 2005, and in April, lead defense expert Professor Behe presented on ID at the Board's invitation. Plaintiffs testified that the Board's ID policy harmed their families and children, viewing ID as a religious concept and claiming its inclusion in the curriculum infringed on their rights to teach their children about religion. They reported that the policy created conflicts within families and the community and posed challenges to their children's religious beliefs. The testimony of local resident Joel Leib exemplified the adverse effects experienced by plaintiffs due to the Board's actions regarding the ID policy.

Fear among individuals regarding open communication has intensified due to division over a curriculum change. Board members and teachers opposing the change have faced direct confrontations, such as Casey Brown being labeled an atheist and threatened with hell by Board members after her opposition. Angie Yingling reported being coerced into supporting the curriculum change under accusations of atheism. Other individuals, including Bryan Rehm and Fred Callahan, experienced similar hostility.

The defendants failed to present convincing evidence that their motivations for the biology curriculum change were based on valid secular purposes. Despite claims that the change aimed to enhance science education and critical thinking, the evidence contradicts this assertion. The Supreme Court mandates that any stated secular purpose must be sincere. The Board did not engage with scientific materials, experts, or consider input from science teachers, instead relying on advice from organizations with religious agendas. The Board members admitted a lack of understanding regarding the concept of Intelligent Design (ID), further undermining their claimed secular intent.

The pattern of untruthful testimony and attempts to distance themselves from their actions suggests improper motivations, indicating a goal to incorporate creationism into science classes rather than genuinely improving science education. This behavior aligns with the criteria outlined in the Lemon test, which requires courts to distinguish between genuine secular purposes and sham ones.

The court emphasizes the necessity for a sincere secular purpose behind state actions, noting that defendants' prior falsehoods undermine any purported secular justifications for the Intelligent Design (ID) Policy. Such insincerity suggests that the Board's actual intention was to promote religion in public schools, violating the Establishment Clause. The court briefly analyzes the "effect" prong of the Lemon test, which assesses whether a government action primarily advances or inhibits religion. It reiterates that government must not favor any religious belief or compel nonadherents to support religious practices. The court finds that the ID Policy's impact is the advancement of religion, as ID is not recognized as scientific, and the accompanying disclaimer undermines the credibility of evolution, implying endorsement of religious concepts. Consequently, the actions taken by the defendants impose a religious perspective on biological origins, breaching the Establishment Clause. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that these actions violate their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees the right to worship freely without compulsion to support any religious institution or ministry against one’s will. It asserts that human authority cannot interfere with individual conscience rights, and that no religious preference shall be established by law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as aligning with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, indicating it does not extend beyond federal protections.

In a specific case regarding the Board's Intelligent Design (ID) Policy, the court determined that this policy violates both the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the rights protected under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court applied the endorsement and Lemon tests, concluding that ID is not science and is intrinsically linked to religious beliefs. It highlighted that the assumption held by proponents of ID—that evolutionary theory opposes belief in a divine creator—is fundamentally incorrect. Testimonies from scientific experts established that evolution is widely accepted and does not conflict with religious beliefs.

The court criticized the Board members for misleading the public about the intentions behind the ID Policy, asserting that it was inappropriate to present ID as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools. While acknowledging that ID merits academic discussion, the court found it unconstitutional to teach ID in a science classroom as a substitute for established scientific theories.

Critics of the court's ruling may label it as the work of an activist judge; however, the court asserts that the real activism stems from a misinformed faction within a school board, supported by a national public interest law firm, which led to the adoption of an unconstitutional policy regarding intelligent design (ID). The decision made by the Dover Area School District's Board is described as remarkably misguided, particularly when viewed in light of the trial's factual developments. The court emphasizes that the students, parents, and teachers involved deserve better than to endure the legal turmoil and resource wastage caused by this case.

To uphold the separation of church and state, as required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Pennsylvania's Constitution, the court issues an order permanently prohibiting the school board from enforcing the ID Policy. The court also mandates that teachers cannot be required to criticize the scientific theory of evolution or promote ID. Additionally, a declaratory judgment is granted, recognizing that the defendants violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, exposing them to liability for injunctive and declaratory relief, nominal damages, and reimbursement of legal fees.

The court orders a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming that the ID Policy contravenes the Establishment Clause. Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining this policy in any Dover Area School District school. The plaintiffs are instructed to file a claim for damages and legal fees, with the defendants retaining the right to contest these claims based on applicable laws and rules.

The court also addresses the defendants' claims regarding the standing of certain plaintiffs, notably Eveland and Sneath, who were previously determined to have standing despite the defendants' arguments about ripeness based on their children's ages. The court maintains its prior ruling and finds it premature to dismiss other plaintiffs based on mootness, indicating it will reconsider the matter as the record develops further.

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment raised the issue of standing, which they later reiterated in their posttrial submissions. The court found the cases cited by Defendants factually distinguishable and concluded that the Establishment Clause claim was framed too narrowly by the Defendants. It emphasized that the standing to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause in public schools is not limited to students directly affected by the ID Policy; rather, the adoption of any policy that violates the Establishment Clause constitutes a constitutional injury. Therefore, all Plaintiffs were determined to have standing to pursue their claims.

The court noted the ages of the Plaintiffs' children as of December 2004, when the lawsuit was filed. It acknowledged receipt of various letters, amicus briefs, and other correspondence, yet only considered documents that were officially part of the record, specifically mentioning several briefs from various amici curiae that supported the Defendants. The court granted the motions for leave to file these amicus briefs.

Additionally, the court recognized the evolving case law regarding the applicable tests for Establishment Clause analysis and noted the necessity of using multiple tests, despite the complexity it introduces. Defendants argued that the court should disregard evidence related to the ID's lineage and religious character based on the Board members' lack of personal knowledge of certain individuals and documents. The court rejected this argument, asserting that such evidence is relevant and was similarly considered in the McLean case, which examined the nature of creation science as either a scientific view or a religious one, independent of the Board's familiarity with the evidence.

In Edwards, the Supreme Court fully endorsed McLean's analysis regarding creation science, highlighting a significant lack of discussion on the school board's knowledge of its specifics. The McLean ruling criticized the teaching of creation science and evolution as a two-model approach, rooted in fundamentalist beliefs that force a dichotomy between a creator's work and a godless evolutionary framework. This approach is deemed scientifically unfounded and lacking educational legitimacy, as it reduces explanations of life's origins to only these two options. 

During the trial, defendants contended that reading a disclaimer about intelligent design (ID) was merely about awareness, not teaching. However, testimonies from educators—including Dr. Alters and teachers Christy Rehm and Steven Stough—contradicted this, asserting that such readings constitute teaching, regardless of quality. Dr. Alters characterized the disclaimer as a misleading "mini-lecture," while Superintendent Nilsen acknowledged that students learn from it. 

Even if the defendants' claim that reading the statement is not "teaching" were accepted, it would not absolve them from constitutional violations. The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions that endorse or advance religion, as illustrated by cases like Epperson, which condemned the prohibition of teaching evolution for religious reasons, and Santa Fe and Selman, which involved school-sponsored prayer and religious disclaimers in educational materials, respectively.

The "opt out" procedure for students involves requiring a signed form from parents that must be returned before a disclaimer is read in class. This process, while intended to allow students to avoid hearing the disclaimer, still necessitates some discussion between parent and child, which diminishes the disclaimer's intended impact. The Third Circuit’s decision in *Tenafly Eruv Ass'n v. Borough of Tenafly* is cited to illustrate the endorsement test applied to a case where Orthodox Jewish markers on utility poles were assessed for their constitutional implications. The court evaluated the situation from the perspective of a reasonable observer in the community, emphasizing that although the markers were meant for Orthodox Jews, they were visible to the general public, which necessitated consideration of the government's relationship to the markers. 

Furthermore, testimony from Stough reveals his regular reading of local newspapers to stay informed on the biology curriculum changes. Summarized charts reflecting letters to the editor from the York Daily Record and York Dispatch were admitted as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. The Supreme Court recognized these letters as indicative of community sentiment against evolutionary theory due to perceived religious implications, influencing the Arkansas legislature's actions. However, in *Modrovich*, the Third Circuit dismissed letters from citizens as irrelevant to the purpose inquiry, a departure from the precedent set in *Epperson*. Unlike in *Modrovich*, the plaintiffs do not present these letters as evidence of religious purpose; instead, they are offered under the endorsement test and Lemon's effects prong. Lastly, the Wedge Strategy is mentioned, outlining its three phases: scientific research and publicity, opinion-making, and cultural confrontation and renewal.

The "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" outlines the detrimental social effects of materialism and advocates for the promotion of intelligent design (ID) theory as a scientific alternative. The plan consists of three phases: Phase I aims to address "scientific revolutions" related to ID; Phase II focuses on building support among Christians through apologetics seminars, presenting scientific evidence that aligns with Christian beliefs; and Phase III involves seeking legal assistance to integrate design theory into public school science curricula. The document highlights a lack of paleontological expertise among ID proponents and discrepancies between Professor Behe's views on ID and its presentation in the "Pandas" text. Behe's referenced article does not support ID or irreducible complexity and acknowledges that the research could favor evolutionary mechanisms under certain conditions. The court recognizes the applicability of the Lemon test, with Plaintiffs arguing that the ID policy violates its purpose and effect prongs. The court disagrees with the Defendants' argument that the Board's purpose should only be derived from the policy's text, asserting that individual Board members' statements and the policy's legislative history must also be considered to accurately interpret the term ID.

Defendants argue for the exclusion of individual Board members' statements from the legislative history, claiming they do not represent official Board positions. However, the Supreme Court has established that legislative history is relevant for understanding legislative intent under the Lemon test, and statements from sponsors and proponents of legislation are significant indicators of that intent. The excerpt cites McCreary, which affirms the use of public statements to discern legislative purpose, and Edwards, which supports reliance on textual and public commentary for understanding state law objectives. Specific examples include Casey Brown's testimony about Bonsell's intentions regarding prayer and the Bible in schools, and an email from Baksa reflecting on Board members' perspectives on educational content. Plaintiffs' complaint cites constitutional violations under Articles I and III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, but post-trial submissions focus solely on Article I, Section 3, which will be the basis for assessing any rights violations.