Posted on 01/10/2006 4:51:17 AM PST by tpeters
Welcome to Science Court
The ruling in the Dover evolution trial shows what the legal and scientific processes have in common--intellectual rigor
Chris Mooney; January 9, 2006
Legally speaking, Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District--Pennsylvania's much-discussed lawsuit over the teaching of "intelligent design"--can only be called conservative. The decision draws upon and reinforces a series of prior court precedents, all of which barred creationist encroachment upon the teaching of science in public schools.
In another sense, though, Jones' ruling is revolutionary. We live in a time when the findings of science themselves increasingly seem to be politically determined--when Democrat "science" is pitted against Republican "science" on issues ranging from evolution to global warming. By contrast, Jones' opinion strikes a blow for the proposition that when it comes to matters of science, there aren't necessarily two sides to every story.
Over the course of a lengthy trial, Jones looked closely at the scientific merits of "intelligent design"--the contention that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the biological complexity of living organisms, and that instead some form of intelligence must have created them. And in the end, the judge found ID utterly vacuous. "[ID] cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory," Jones wrote, "as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community."
ID critics have been making these same observations for years; so have leading American scientific societies. Meanwhile, investigative reporters and scholars studying the ID movement have demonstrated that it is, indeed, simply creationism reincarnated--all religion and no science. On the intellectual merits, ID was dead a long time ago. But before Judge Jones came along, it's astonishing how hard it was to get that acknowledged, unequivocally, in public discussion of the issue.
Up until the Dover trial, well-funded ID proponents based at Seattle's Discovery Institute had waged a successful media campaign to sow public doubts about evolution, and to convince Americans that a true scientific "controversy" existed over Darwin's theory. And thanks in part to the conventions of television news, editorial pages, and political reporting--all of which require that "equal time" be allotted to different views in an ongoing political controversy--they were succeeding.
For example, a national survey conducted this spring by Ohio State University professor Matthew Nisbet in collaboration with the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University found serious public confusion about the scientific basis for “intelligent design.” A slight majority of adult Americans (56.3 percent) agreed that evolution is supported by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, but a very sizeable proportion (44.2 percent) incorrectly thought the same of ID.
Ritualistically "balanced" news media coverage may not be the sole cause of such confusion, but it’s can hardly have helped. Consider just one of many examples of how journalists, in their quest for "objectivity," have lent undue credibility to ID. The York Dispatch, one of two papers covering the evolution battle in Dover, Pennyslvania, repeatedly summarized the two sides of the "debate" thusly: “Intelligent design theory attributes the origin of life to an intelligent being. It counters the theory of evolution, which says that people evolved from less complex beings.” Here we witness the reductio ad absurdum of journalistic "balance." Despite staggering scientific consensus in favor of evolution--and ample documentation of the religious inspiration behind the "intelligent design" movement--evolution and ID were paired together by the Dispatch as two competing "theories."
Judge Jones took a thoroughly different approach, actually bothering to weigh the merits of competing arguments. He inquired whether an explanation that inherently appeals to the supernatural--as "intelligent design" does--can be scientific, and found that it cannot. He searched for published evidence in scientific journals supporting the contentions of the ID movement--and couldn't find it. And in his final opinion, he was anything but "balanced."
We have seen this pattern before. During the early 1980s, the evolution trial McLean v. Arkansas pitted defenders of evolutionary science against so-called “scientific creationists”--the precursors of today's ID proponents. Today, few take the claims of "scientific creationism,” such as the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, very seriously. At the time, however, proponents of “creation science” were treated very seriously by members of the national media covering the trial. According to a later analysis of the coverage by media scholars, reporters generally tried to create a “balance” between the scientific-sounding claims of the “scientific” creationists and the arguments of evolutionary scientists.
But in the McLean decision, judge William Overton did no such thing. Rather, the judge carefully investigated whether "creation science" fit the norms of science at all--and found that it did not. Overton therefore concluded that the attempt by the state of Arkansas to include "creation science" in science classes was a transparent attempt to advance a sectarian religious perspective, as barred by the First Amendment. Now, Judge Jones is following in Overton's footsteps very closely. In his decision, Jones cites the McLean case repeatedly.
If there's an underlying moral to be derived from Judge Jones' decision, then, it may be this. It's very easy to attack well-established science through a propaganda campaign aimed at the media and the public. That's precisely what "intelligent design" proponents have done--and they're hardly alone in this. However, it's much more difficult for a PR attack on established science to survive the scrutiny of a serious, independent judge.
That hardly means that courts are more qualified than scientists to determine the validity of evolutionary theory, or other scientific findings. But in their investigative rigor, their commitment to evidence, and their unhesitating willingness to decide arguments on their merits, courts certainly have much more in common with the scientific process than many of today's major media journalists do. The fact that today Judge Jones has become America's leading arbiter of what counts as science certainly underscores his own intellectual seriousness. But it also exposes the failure of other gatekeepers.
I'm what you (sneeringly?) refer to as an "evo." I don't advocate showing this propaganda in schools any more than I support the Dover school board's decision to endorse their steath creationist propaganda in schools. Neither version of PC has any place in an educational environment.
As to your opinions on the elections, if inserting PC into schools is the only way the GOP can win elections, it doesn't deserve to be elected.
Christians want lower taxes, just the same as non-Christians do.
Christians want a strong nation and strong military, just as non-Christians do.
Christians want integrity in their politicians, just as non-Christians do.
If some Christians also need their own religious beliefs (and only their religious beliefs) endorsed by the government, then they've gone too far. No special treatment for some groups.
Evolution is apolitical. There is no rule that conservatives cannot accept evolution as the best explanation for biodiversity.
There are some people being used, and some people doing the using. The issue of ID/evo has become a political tool--If you pay attention to who uses these tools, you may begin to see what is really going down, and it doesn't have much to do with science, or even --Science--! There's a lot of "we're so much smarter than them, how can we be voting the same as they do?" I call this the politics of "ickypoo"....ickypoo, we don't like you. If it works on the playground, it's not surprising that it'd work with libertarians.
With this "documentary" being filmed just in time for some elections, at least some who want to see the GOP stay in power will know what shilling to look out for. If the evo-leftists succeed in chipping off even a little of the religious vote in these close elections, you can watch your taxes go up.
A Cosmic Conundrum by Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner A new incarnation of Einstein's cosmological constant may point the way beyond general relativity
I should also point out that Einstein was a proponent of new theories and ideas and that my statement that he "dismissed" was probably not the best choice of words allthough he was unenthusiastic to QM and never warmed up to it and because of that research in the field was minimal.
According to that article, there is a stark irony to this because much of Einsteins previuosly unexplainable or untestable theories are being supported by modern QM research.
Look lady, your paranoia about FR evo's is frankly insulting.
I became a conservative because of LOGIC, not because of religion. How dare you imply that conservatism has no place for logic, reason and science.
It has *everything* to do with science.
A handful of religious nuts are trying to dumb down science education to protect their dogma. That's a problem.
If some conservatives are willing to let them dumb down science education because they believe that the GOP can't win elections without them, that's also a problem.
PC for political gain is bad news, no matter who's pushing it.
You can call it what you like. And I'll call them how I see them. FR's ought to know what's going on behind their keyboards.
LOL!
That was good. I had that one coming. Maybe there's a pill for it.
The trouble is, the only alternative to the Pubbies is the Dems.
And they aren't a realistic alternative.
> they're still pale little pencilnecks...
That really is the best you have, isn't it.
Sad.
Too bad you don't have a forum that is restricted to Christians that you can visit.
So which side are you on?
ID is a loser idea. The entire school board in Dover lost their elections.
The worst thing that could happen to the republican party is for it to adopt a pro-Fundamentalist-Christian litmus test. It would immediately lose the neo-cons and non-religious conservatives like myself. And with things so close politically, that's a death warrant for the Republican party.
So again, which side are you on? Pushing religion into politics is guaranteed to lose. Fundamentalists can make their points on issues such as abortion, that is opposed by believers in many different religions, including me, an atheist. And perhaps they can work on home schooling issues, etc. But anti-evolution is out-of-bounds. It is settled science, and creationism is only believed by a small faction of Christians.
This country was founded by Christians of many differing denominations. And they came to the conclusion that if they were going to keep the union together, they had to remove religion from government. When Fundamentalists attempt to re-insert it via anti-evolution, they're out of bounds.
I guess I could find one. But I'd still be here, as well--?
Gosh-all-golly!! Are we in danger of that? I think you ought to rush that line to Teddy Kennedy. He might be able to use it in the Alito hearings! LOL!
That sounds like a scare-tactic coming from the fevered mind of a leftist. As for sides, I am definitely on the right. And I am happy to have the votes of the Christian right for my party, and hope to keep them--and I think we will. There's not enough strength in your side to alienate them. But we'll be keeping an eye on Santorum, since the evos have indicated that they'd like to replace him with a Dem.
Thanks. I'm not suprised.
I quit reading Sci Am several years ago because their editorials took a significant left turn. And because some of the articles look like stuff I wrote when I had to pull an all-nighter in college because I was too lazy to do the work.
The truth of the matter is that not much research could be done in QM for many years because it was so new and technology hadn't reached a point where interesting things good be done. Lasers for example, don't appear until 1960 or so.
Einstein had accepted QM in it's modern form by the mid 1930's with reservations. But he is one of the founders. It's a micharacterization to say he dismissed it because he was actively engaged in it through the 1920's and 1930's through the matrix and wave approaches.
Heisenberg's opinion was more damning. He wrote to Pauli that,
"The more I think of the physical part of the Schrödinger theory, the more detestable I find it. What Schrödinger writes about visualization makes scarcely any sense, in other words I think it is sh##. The greatest result of his theory is the calculation of matrix elements. "
You mean the Santorum who was "troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the (ID) policy"? That Santorum?
You're the only one trying to pry off votes by claiming evos aren't real conservatives.
Doesn't matter to a Dem what Santorum said--the point I've been attempting to make is that the evo agenda does not come before the Dem agenda--the Dems are not going to let Santorum off the hook because he said something unfavorable about ID. They'll paint him anyway they can--"triangulate"--it is politics, not logic. Santorum is going to get it both ways--the Dems will still sic the evos on him. Watch and see.
Were you stood up by a nerd when you were younger? Your paranoid fantasies have driven you to snipe at the appearance of those you oppose?
But since Santorum no longer favors special rights for certain Christian PC groups, shouldn't you be working to unseat him?
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.