c. 2005 Religion News Service

HARRISBURG, Pa. _ Days after the six-week intelligent design trial ended last month, U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III, relaxing in his chambers, promised to weigh the evidence and “rule as I see fit.”

Jones would not comment on whether he would limit his ruling to the Dover Area School District’s policy or broaden his decision to take on the issue of whether intelligent design is science or a religious proposition.

But he hinted where he was headed when he said he “welcomed the opportunity” to make a ruling in “one of the most important trials on the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.”

In a sweeping 139-page opinion handed down Tuesday (Dec. 20), Jones saw fit to eviscerate the intelligent design movement and give evolutionary science the legal respect and status that leading scientists said it deserves. It was the nation’s first trial on intelligent design and the ruling, though not binding nationwide, is expected to have an impact far beyond Dover.

“I think any school district around the country contemplating something like this would be well advised to carefully read the decision,” said Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that promotes and defends the teaching of evolution in public schools.

“He could have sunk the (Dover) policy without going into scientific issues. The fact that he did take the time to evaluate the scientific testimony speaks very highly of his sense of responsibility as a judge.”

In his ruling, Jones said former members of the Dover school board were religiously motivated and lied about their intentions when they adopted a policy requiring that ninth-grade students hear a statement that evolution is “not a fact” and intelligent design is an alternative theory.

He said the statement was religiously motivated and violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bars government from forming a religion or favoring one religion over another.

That alone would not have been enough to give the ruling far-reaching implications. But by taking on intelligent design _ the proposition that aspects of life and the universe are so complex that they must be the work of an intelligent designer _ Jones made certain that the impact of the Dover case would extend beyond his jurisdiction of central and northeastern Pennsylvania.

“After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the court, and as scrutinized over a six-week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community,” Jones said in his ruling.

Intelligent design “is grounded in theology, not science,” and is “an old religious argument for the existence of God,” he wrote.

Science, on the other hand, is “a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth.”

Nationally, some religious conservatives took exception to that analysis.

“This is an appalling ruling by a judge showing unbelievable arrogance,” evangelist Pat Robertson said on his “700 Club” TV show.

In Pennsylvania, religious reaction was mixed.

“I’m ecstatic about it,” said the Rev. Russell Sullivan at Harrisburg’s Pine Street Presbyterian Church. “I think it’s a victory for truth.”

But Bishop Paul Nisly of the Mennonite District of Harrisburg was concerned.

“I don’t think the Bible is a scientific textbook, but I think the way evolution has often been taught is to suggest there is not a designer,” said Nisly. Jones’ ruling “seems to cut off conversation,” he said.

The Rev. David Martin at the Evangelical Free Church of Hershey sounded a similar theme.

“It does sadden me that Dover’s was the case that made it to federal court,” he said. “I think it was a weak case and presented in a way that was quite open to legal attack.”

He would like to see “the serious questions surrounding a materialistic evolutionary theory” aired in some high school classrooms, even if not science class, Martin said. “Unfortunately, for most public school students, that debate won’t happen in any class.”

The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based conservative think tank that supports intelligent design and advocates the criticism of evolution in science classrooms, called Jones an “activist judge” whose ruling has “no legal effect” beyond his district.

Eric Rothschild, a lawyer who represented parents opposed to the Dover policy, agreed that Jones’ ruling is “not legally binding” outside Jones’ district, but warned that lawyers and school district officials who ignore the ruling do so at their peril.

“It is influential and persuasive” beyond the middle district, Rothschild said. “Another judge could rely on his findings, and the attorneys and judges in other cases know where the evidence is” with regard to intelligent design, he said.

“This can and will be used in other cases,” he said.

Related battles over intelligent design and evolution are under way or pending in school boards, courtrooms and legislative bodies in Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio and New Mexico.

Jones “has handed any lawyers who have to defend science a tremendous advantage,” said Barbara Forrest, a Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor who testified in the trial.

Forrest, whose book “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design,” was a focal point in the trial, said Jones “cut through to the basic issues of this case.”

“He has given future attorneys wonderful ammunition to use,” Forrest said. “I think Judge Jones’ ruling will have a very powerful effect on a lot of people.”

The fact that Jones is a church-going Republican appointed to the bench by President Bush, who has advocated the teaching of intelligent design, gives more weight to the ruling, Forrest said.

“That is hugely important,” she said. “It shows that despite the fact he was appointed by a very conservative president who supports intelligent design, the judge looked at the Constitution and the evidence. The judge has spoken for himself loudly and clearly, and what he has said is that the undermining of the Constitution and public education has gone far enough and has to stop.”

MO/JL END RNS

(Bill Sulon writes for The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. Mary Warner of The Patriot-News contributed to this story.)