Two decades after Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, intelligent design is virtually extinct, but the debate about religion in schools is far from over. During a speaker event at Vanderbilt on Feb. 25, 2025, U.S. Federal Judge John Jones III reflected on the Kitzmiller case, what has changed, and what has not.
Kitzmiller v. Dover was a 2005 district court case that determined that teaching intelligent design in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Jones presided over this case during his time as a district court judge in Pennsylvania. Jones wrote a 139-page opinion on the case, diving deep into the science of evolution and the fact that intelligent design is inherently a religious theory.
This case hinged on the Establishment Clause: did the school board introduce intelligent design with the intent—or effect—of promoting religion in public schools? Jones found that their actions made that answer clear.
After the school board mandated the teaching of intelligent design, the Dover science teachers stepped up and refused to comply. To get around them, the school board required administrative staff to make a statement before biology class and offer an opt-out option for classes on evolution. Additionally, books on intelligent design, including a text called Of Pandas and People, were purchased for the school libraries using church-based donations.
Jones praised the scientific evidence presented by the plaintiff, calling it the lesson in evolution he wished he had gotten. Conversely, there was a lack of scientific evidence for intelligent design presented during the case. Many witnesses avoided testifying and Jones said it was clear they did not have the science to back the theory. Intelligent design as a theory requires there to be a designer. Jones said some of the defense witnesses candidly answered that the designer was “God.”
“When intelligent design is put to the test, it fails every test that we apply to determine what is good science,” said Jones. He explained that intelligent design is not testable, not widely accepted, and has not been thoroughly peer reviewed.
The moderator of the discussion, Associate Professor of Law Francesca Procaccini, discussed the rise in religion in schools at a local level and the Establishment cases that are currently making their way through the court system. She noted the trend of courts moving away from tests such as the Lemon Test or the Endorsement Test—traditionally used in Establishment Clause cases—and towards a historical practice test.
“I’m pretty sure the Lemon and Endorsement Tests are dead. I don’t even think they are on life support,” responded Jones.
Without these kinds of tests, Jones warned that we would see a diverse set of opinions from judges. A historical practice test, which asks if the use of religion follows the history and traditions of our nation, leaves much more flexibility for judges to insert their own perspectives. Jones acknowledges that it would have been more difficult to decide the Kitzmiller case under this historial practice test.
“Nowhere in the constitution can you find that there is a prohibition on stupidity,” said Jones. He emphasized that evolution is fundamental science. When discussing the length of his opinion, Jones felt that it was important to outline all the science so that it could be referenced by others. Jones was aware that this would spark criticism and preemptively called out these critics in his opinion.
This lecture is part of a series of events to mark the 100th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, where a high school science teacher was convicted for teaching human evolution. The series, hosted by Dialogue Vanderbilt, is designed to highlight those who stood up for science over the last century and explore the intersection between science, religion, and law.
“I want to live in a world where we can cure cancer, cure Alzheimer’s, and make advances we’ve made in science,” concluded Jones. “I don’t want to live in a world where we’re pushing bad science in the name of some agenda that has nothing to do with the research world.”
Even 20 years later, Kitzmiller remains a crucial defense against the erosion of science education. Jones’ ruling serves as a legal landmark and a strong defense of what he called the “fundamental science” of evolution.
