At the end of one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, US Federal Judge William Jones III declared in December 2005 that the teaching of so-called 'intelligent design' in schools was unconstitutional. Coming down heavily on the 'intelligent designers' in the Dover, Pensylvania School Board, the Judge found that Intelligent Design was creationism in disguise and said "Religious concepts like intelligent design and creationism have no place in taxpayer-funded public schools". He also wrote in his 139 page judgement "the students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources".

The Scopes Trial

Scopes was tried and convicted in 1925 for teaching evolution in biology class in Tennessee state. It was a curious and farcical trial, with the atheist lawyer Clarence Darrow appearing for Scopes and the prosecution lawyer declaring that it was a 'contest between evolution and Christianity ... a duel to the death'. Judge John Raulston who found Scopes guilty and fined Scopes $100, started the trial by reading the first 27 verses of Genesis and disallowed any expert witnesses from the defendants' side! The case was lost even before the trial began.

H.L. Mencken in his famous report of the trial praised Darrow as having performed a great public service but wrote of the trial "Tennessee ... now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill of Rights made a mock of by its sworn officers of the law. There are other States that had better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates". Bemused by the noise around the trial, Paris Soir satirised "On this side of the ocean it is difficult to understand precisely why (the Americans) should so stubbornly cling to the biblical version. It is said in Genesis the first man came from mud and mud is not anything very clean. In any case if the Darwinian hypothesis should irritate anyone it should only be the monkey. The monkey is an innocent animal - a vegetarian by birth. He has never placed God on a cross, knows nothing of the art of war, does not practice the lynch law and never dreams of assassinating his fellow beings'.

Not much has changed in the last 80 years, and in different states in the US the wars between the theory of biological evolution and the Christian Right have continued, notoriously in Kansas state and more recently in Pennsylvania.

Of Pandas and People

In October 2004 the School Board of the Dover Area School, Pennsylvania, passed a resolution as regards Darwin's theory of evolution, requiring that students be made aware of 'gaps/problems in Darwin's theories and of other theories of evolution, including, but not limited to, intelligent design. In November 2004 the Board issued a press release which reads 'commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments'.

Alarmed by this, in Dec. 2004 Tammy Kitzmiller and Christy Rehm, along with several other residents of Dover, Pennsylvania filed a suit challenging the constitutional validity of the actions of the Dover Area School, contending that the school's actions constitute an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A historic judgement was delivered in the case by Judge John E Jones III a United States District Judge and a president Bush appointee. President Bush himself is a votary of teaching Intelligent Design in schools and had announced "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

The Judgement

"We first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion.

"Second, the disclaimer read to students 'has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science.'

"Third, reading the disclaimer not only disavows endorsement of educational materials but also "juxtaposes that disavowal with an urging to contemplate alternative religious concepts implies School Board approval of religious principles." The effect of Defendants' actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

"Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' actions in enacting the ID Policy violate their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, specifically Art. I,/3.23 Article I,/3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states the following:

"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. Pa. Const. Art. I,/3 (2005).

Conclusion

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests (see box) to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I,/3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions.

"Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C./1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights".

Babu Gogineni

The Lemon Test

In 1971, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Warren Burger held in 1971 in Alton J. Lemon et al. v. David H. Kurtzman gave the conditions for a law to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse non-public schools (most of which were Catholic) for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials, violated the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

The Court (which also had Justice Hugo Black concurring) then established the "Lemon test" which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It stipulates three requirements:

• The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

If any of these three is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.