Pennsylvania Evolution Debate Update -- The Voters Speak

The NYT [somewhat gleefully] reports:

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

...

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.

"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."

Read it here.

This doesn't mean that there won't be a judgment in the court case that brought so much publicity to the Dover district. Testimony there has concluded and we are awaiting the judge's ruling. But there is little liklihood of an appeal given the results of this election.

Once again the wisdom of the voters prevails over the silliness of the zealots, both secularists and religious. There is no reason why a discussion of the competing claims of religious and scientific authority should not be presented to students, but the subject need not be discussed in a science class. Ms. McIlvaine has got it just right.