Font ResizeOn Dec. 20, Jones ruled against the school board's 2004 decision to include intelligent design in science class. Other school districts in the country could take the ruling into consideration before trying to incorporate intelligent design into a curriculum, but Jones' decision is not legally binding outside U.S. Middle District Court.
Considering they generated a large record, which would be great for an appeal, Eugenie Scott, executive director of National Center for Science Education, said she was disappointed the board won't appeal. But she doesn't fault the board.
"It would be irresponsible for the board to pursue this because it would encounter more expense and clearly the responsible thing is to try to save the district some money," she said. "On the other hand, from the national perspective, it's sad that this case won't go to a higher court because with the court record and the excellence of Judge Jones' decision this certainly would have been a very strong record to set precedent in a wider area."
Richard Thompson, defendants' attorney, said he was
Eight of the nine board members ran on a platform that included a stand against intelligent design in science class. Board member Heather Geesey is the only current board member who was in office in 2004 and voted in favor of the curriculum change.
Since that curriculum change, eight members who supported the curriculum change were voted out of office. The new board wanted to move on and followed the judge's order by rescinding the 2004 policy change on Tuesday.
Witold Walczak, an ACLU attorney for the plaintiffs, said the case wasn't specifically prepared for an appeal.
"The most important thing is to make a complete record in the trial court, and that was our goal: to cover any conceivable issue for a decision," Walczak said. "And if you've done that, you have all the ammunition for an appeal."
Despite the board's decision, Walczak said, the ruling is still going to have an effect across the country, much like the 1982 McLean vs. Arkansas case.
But Walczak said he wasn't under the delusion that intelligent design was dead.
Thompson said he's been talking to a couple science teachers in Gull Lake School District in Michigan who want to teach intelligent design.
The teachers and the district's superintendent could not be reached for comment.
Thompson believed "the judge's decision cried out for an appeal." He interpreted the judge's decision to say that the only accepted theory was evolution and said Jones made a mistake by implying that religious comments made by a few board members characterized everyone.
He also said a reasonable person wouldn't expect the board to know the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy, which was described in court testimony as a plan to incorporate Christian convictions into schools, and to know that drafts of the pro-intelligent-design "Of Pandas and People" had creationists roots.
Mainstream scientists have maintained that evolution is the prevailing scientific theory, so Jones' ruling is accurate.
Marshall Berman, retired manager of Sandia National Labs Manager who served on the New Mexico State Board of Education for four years, said he didn't interpret Jones' ruling as saying other scientific theories couldn't challenge evolution as long as they were scientific and testable.
He also said if the board members would have listened to experts rather than pushing their own ideas, they wouldn't have approved the "Pandas" book or the statement including intelligent design, so they are responsible.
Though Berman believes Jones' ruling would have been upheld, he was pleased with the board's decision.
"My personal preference is that it not be appealed, that this nation should realize that science should be taught by scientists in school, not in the courts," Berman said.
Reach Michelle Starr at 771-2045 or mstarr@ydr.com
LAWYER DISPUTES HARKINS' CLAIM
Tuesday night, former Dover school board member Sheila Harkins said during public comment that she had talked to the district's attorney, Stephen Russell, about the legality of mentioning intelligent design. She said he had in turn talked to the American Civil Liberties Union and returned to her saying there was no constitutional issue.
Tuesday evening, Russell remained quiet. Wednesday, he said he didn't respond because he was in shock and he didn't want to get into an argument.
"Sheila Harkins would not have talked to me because I would have billed her for talking to me, and she would not have wanted to pay me," Russell said.
He said he didn't talk to anyone from the ACLU about intelligent design, so he couldn't have relayed an opinion from them to her.
Court testimony indicated he advised the district it had potential liability.
