Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts

Posted on 12/22/2005 6:28:05 AM PST by truthfinder9

Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts

CSC Senior Fellow David K. DeWolf has provided us this first, short analysis of yesterday's decision in the Dover School Board case. DeWolf is a professor of law at Gonzaga University and the author of a briefing book for public school administrators, Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Curriculum.

In his opinion in the Kitzmiller case, Judge Jones accepted virtually every argument made by the ACLU.

To be fair, the ACLU did present testimony supporting the plaintiffs' claim that the school board had acted for religious motives in adopting the policy requiring that a four-paragraph statement be read.

If Jones had stopped there, few would have quarreled with his decision. However, he went on to address the question of whether intelligent design is science. He did so based on his belief that:

"no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."

Relying almost exclusively on the evidence presented by the ACLU's witnesses, Jones held that ID is not science. He claimed that the witnesses established that ID relies on "supernatural" explanations, that it was untestable, and that it had produced no peer-reviewed literature. Each of these claims was carefully rebutted by the briefs submitted by amici, including the Discovery Institute and a large group of scientists who urged the court not to try to settle the question of the definition of science and the scientific status of intelligent design.

Judge Jones also reviewed the conflicting views of irreducible complexity presented by Michael Behe and Ken Miller. Whereas the Cambridge University Press thought the issue sufficiently provocative that it recently published a volume entitled "Debating Design," in which both scientists presented their views, Judge Jones took it upon himself to declare a winner in the debate.

Perhaps most startling and ironic about the case was Judge Jones' adoption of the testimony of John Haught, a theologian who testified for the ACLU. Haught gave his opinion that ID is religion, not science, but he quickly assured the court that there is no incompatibility between evolution and religion. Judge Jones picked up on this assurance and at the end of his opinion stated:

"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."

This is like a judge assuring us that it is "utterly false" that Judaism is inconsistent with eating pork. "After all," a judge might say, "A distinguished rabbi testified that true Judaism no longer emphasizes dietary laws, but focuses on the ethical duties we owe to one another." Alarm bells should go off when a judge believes that he can resolve hotly contested issues about what someone's religion does or does not permit. But then again, after having taken upon himself the task of deciding what constitutes good science, Judge Jones' willingness to decide theological questions should come as no surprise.

Nonetheless, Judge Jones' pronouncements are not likely to be reviewed by an appellate court, because the newly elected Dover school board campaigned on their opposition to the contested policy, and an appeal is unlikely. But by everyone's reckoning the debate is far from over. Recently a federal judge's rejection of a textbook in Cobb County, Georgia was sharply questioned by a federal appeals court panel when the case was argued, and a federal judge in California denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a pro-Darwin website.

Across the country, legislatures and state boards of education are taking up the question of whether and how to "teach the controversy," and they not likely to find Judge Jones' analysis persuasive. As policies emerge that are more in keeping with the American spirit of open inquiry, the Kitzmiller case will recede as an interesting and ironic footnote to the history of this scientific and cultural debate.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: aclu; creation; darwinfundies; design; dover; evofundies; evolution; moralabsolutes; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2005 6:28:07 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

A lot of scientists are coming to the realization that there is a Higher Power at work in creating all that there is. This judge and the "scientists" he quotes are looking like the flat-earthers of old.


2 posted on 12/22/2005 6:30:54 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

What is so obnoxious about this case, is that this guy is a Bush nominee. One of the big cries to the base over the past twenty years is that we had to win elections so we could take control of the judiciary so this is frustrating.


3 posted on 12/22/2005 6:33:57 AM PST by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

I think MOST scientists already know there is a higher power at work. The problem is that science teaches the "how". Religion teaches the "why" That is why the two should be kept separate. Unfortunately, the creationists don't see any difference between the two questions.


4 posted on 12/22/2005 6:34:45 AM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

Agreed.

I am a Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian, and I don't want gooberment-sponsored religious indoctrination of your kids in public schools either.

MY kids will be going to private Christian schools or will be homeschooled in any case, for for me the point is nearly moot.

However, gooberment-sponsored religious indoctrination of kids is what theocracies like the Taliban do; It will happen in America over my dead body.


5 posted on 12/22/2005 6:41:04 AM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
A lot of scientists are coming to the realization that there is a Higher Power at work in creating all that there is

PROVE it. If you cannot, then it does not belong in Science class.

6 posted on 12/22/2005 6:42:20 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
So what happens when the "how" turns out to be God? That's what design shows. I know, according to Darwinian Fundies, we can't detect design and there's no science, but anyone who actually reads the design materials finds out otherwise. The Darwinian Fundies have no qualms about using evolution to "disprove" God, but then turn around and say science can't be used to "prove" God.

The Two Faces of Darwinists

7 posted on 12/22/2005 6:42:34 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
What is so obnoxious about this case, is that this guy is a Bush nominee. One of the big cries to the base over the past twenty years is that we had to win elections so we could take control of the judiciary so this is frustrating.

Excuse me, but I thought we wanted judges who enforced the Constitution, not made new extra-Constitutional law. Judge Jones merely observed that the first amendment is still in effect. Sounds like just what we demanded.

8 posted on 12/22/2005 6:44:05 AM PST by Sarastro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Electromagnetic waves were "supernatural" until a physicist figured out how they worked.

Gravity is still somewhat "supernatural".

The human spirit is still "supernatural".


9 posted on 12/22/2005 6:44:08 AM PST by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clee1

The root cause of the problem is two fold.

1) The extremist position that even suggesting there is a higher power somehow translates to indoctrination. The original situation was not to teach ID only, it was to inform children that evolution is a *theory* with holes in it, that there are alternative theories, and ID is one of them.

2) The government takeover of the education of our children. By taking our money forcefully through taxation and then applying it to education of the masses, the government has essentially taken away the ability for people to choose where their kids go. VOUCHERS.


10 posted on 12/22/2005 6:47:48 AM PST by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

You miss the point entirely. Design supporters don't say origins is "supernatural" and they can figure it out. They are saying the evidence of an intelligent designer is as obvious as looking at a car and knowing it was designed. Detection of design is fundamental to forensics, archaeology, cryptology, etc, but Darwin Evangelists will turn around and say design isn't scientific. Which is it then? Depends what day it is for them.


11 posted on 12/22/2005 6:49:17 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

You miss the point entirely. Design supporters don't say origins is "supernatural" and they can't figure it out. They are saying the evidence of an intelligent designer is as obvious as looking at a car and knowing it was designed. Detection of design is fundamental to forensics, archaeology, cryptology, etc, but Darwin Evangelists will turn around and say design isn't scientific. Which is it then? Depends what day it is for them.


12 posted on 12/22/2005 6:51:24 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sarastro

Apparently the judges were supposed to support the "base's" religious ideas. If they don't, they're de facto "activistjudges".


13 posted on 12/22/2005 6:54:34 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Does this judge have a biology degree?


14 posted on 12/22/2005 6:55:26 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarastro; SmoothTalker
Excuse me, but I thought we wanted judges who enforced the Constitution, not made new extra-Constitutional law. Judge Jones merely observed that the first amendment is still in effect. Sounds like just what we demanded.

Exactly.

You've hit the nail on the head, but some people care more about scoring points for their political agenda than they do the Constitution. So they'll decry him as an "activist judge" when he's nothing of the sort.

PC is garbage, no matter what. The school board was attempting to insert their own PC into the schools, and they were wrong to do it.

No wonder that the Discovery Institute didn't want to be involved in this case - it was a loser from the start, and they were afraid of the fallout on their agenda. They were right to be scared.

15 posted on 12/22/2005 6:55:41 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

Agreed.

I don't like evolution being presented as fact any more than I like public schools teaching creationism.

If I had my way, there would be no gooberment educational system.


16 posted on 12/22/2005 6:56:44 AM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
that there are alternative theories, and ID is one of them.

Sounds good, but is patently false. ID is not a scientific theory unless you're willing to redefine the word.

17 posted on 12/22/2005 6:56:52 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
The root cause of the problem is that ID is being promoted by the Discovery Institute, which is on record stating ID is a foot in the door towards destroying empiricism as the basis for science.

It doesn't help their case that their textbook "Pandas and People" was distributed in early drafts with "Creationism" where it now says Intelligent Design.

It doesn't help that Michael Behe testified under oath that there is no research supporting the specific claims of irreducible complexity.

It doesn't help that the Discovery Institute says ID is not ready to be taught as science in schools.

All this is openly available from sources that are not biased against the Discovery Institute.

A side issue not raised at the trial is why the school board wanted ID taught anyway. ID is not Biblical, and most of the major ID advocates with scientific credentials are on record saying they accept common descent and a 4.5 billion year earth. The places where ID diverges from natural selection are pretty technical and obscure -- not something that can be taught at the high school level.
18 posted on 12/22/2005 7:03:11 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: js1138
A side issue not raised at the trial is why the school board wanted ID taught anyway.

Probably hepped up on goofballs

19 posted on 12/22/2005 7:13:39 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about - J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
"So what happens when the 'how' turns out to be God? That's what design shows."

Something designed is no prove of god. Only prove of a design process.

"I know, according to Darwinian Fundies, we can't detect design and there's no science, but anyone who actually reads the design materials finds out otherwise."

Other fundies know how to detect design or intelligence behind em-waves. The ID guess lack of a proper idea how to detect design. The construct Irreducible complexity failed for that purpose on logical errors.

"The Darwinian Fundies have no qualms about using evolution to 'disprove' God, but then turn around ..."

You have problems to differ a scientist saying "we don't need god to explain that" from Friedrich Nietzsche's "Gott ist tot."

"...and say science can't be used to "prove" God.

Natural science can't be used to 'prove' anything like that.
20 posted on 12/22/2005 7:27:55 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson