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.
Hi. Just wanted to jump in with a question. I think that what you're saying in this thread is that with respect to the ID/creationism vs. evolution controversy, the flames are being stoked by libertarians and progressives (like Soros et al). Please correct me if my summary of your position is inaccurate.
What I'm curious about is what you think of the original Dover school board and other school boards (like in Kansas for instance). Do you believe that they are being manipulated by libertarians and progressives into enacting the controversial curriculum changes that prompt lawsuits and media coverage? Or are their actions just happy coincidence?
Good to know you're just as callous as any atheist.
And 78645 measures of Dread may also be added.
As I said, I once for a brief time considered myself a 'tarian. I lost them quick for several reasons--they seem to have a Loser Wish, they're hung up on the single issue of drug leg, and they have a pathological distaste for the religious. I don't want to lose-- I'm a practical person, and do not expect to get a whole loaf when negotiating. Libertarians, when denied the whole loaf, won't even take a good half, and especially when a Baptist gets a slice, too. They just shrug and walk off. Libertarians are the cultural familiars of urban liberals, with the same environment and tastes in entertainment.
I'd categorize 'tarians as politically ineffective, and the conservative religious as hugely effective. Therefore, the religious get a seat at the political table, and it would behoove the 'tarians not to squawk and squeal.
There are your evo True Believers here. And there are those who are being used for a different agenda--to rile up both sides and hurt the effectiveness of conservative religious. I'm particularly concerned about all the hints I perceive about Santorum.
There are your evo True Believers here. And there are those who are being used for a different agenda--to rile up both sides and hurt the effectiveness of conservative religious.
Ok, I guess what I don't get is who do you think it is that is motivating the ID/creationist side? I mean, if you don't have a party like the Dover school board enacting an ID-inspired curriculum change, then there really isn't anything to get riled about. I'm using Dover and Kansas as examples, because they've gotten the most recent press coverage. Do you think that the Dover and Kansas state school board just patsies being manipulated in order to generate controversy?
gah...there should be an "are" between the words "board" and "just" in that last sentence.
And, you know what? Not a one of those squawkers I knew voted GOP--ever. They were too shiftless to vote, or a few of the resentful nuts went off and voted for some frail libertarian candidate. Look at the 15k who voted libertarian in Florida during that long, miserable time in the first W election.
Well, I think the relgious conservatives are hugely valuable to the GOP, unless some pol gets panicky at the outcry from ersatz "scientists" and tries to run off his best constituency--which is exactly what I think is going on here. Acivists donning the Holy Robes of Science to tell us just how terrible is an excellent and reliable constituency. I know marching orders and talking points when I hear them.
Then your "authority figure" is going to be a guy named George Soros.
After.
Arius - Presbyter in the Alexandrian church. Held that Jesus was the begotten son of father, and thus had a beginning.
Athanasius - served as a deacon at the Council of Nicaea. Opposed this view -- claiming that it made Jesus a lesser deity. Athanasius held that Jesus was the unbegotten son (whatever that means) and was, in fact, the substance of God in corporal form.
At Nicaea 325CE, the believers of both views where roughly equal. Constantine settled the dispute by siding with Athanasius and exiling Arius.
After Constantine died, Constantius II recalled Arius and Athanasius (now bishop of Alexandria) was declared anathema.
After more infighting, the Council of Constantinople 360CE reaffirmed the that Jesus was like the Father (Athanasian view).
In 381 the Second Ecumenical Council met at Constantinople. The Athanasian doctrine (the Athanasian Creed) was declared an article of faith and Arianism was heresy.
Listen to the condescension, the tone of dogma--and stop and consider that evolution takes evidence that reaches backwards and then surmises forward. It goes in two logical directions at once--how much potential for doubt is there in that? And why can't people at least ask?
Because asking threatens the franchise. There's a lot of prestige and money at stake here. At least, the suspicion is raised when you take a close look at how the religious are treated, and start wondering--"What kind of priesthood is this?"
Thanks, now I get it.
It's all about that Trinitarian business, huh? Quite sticky that is.
That'd explain lots of things
That would include Michael Behe.
A deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist. - Diderot
I love this one
After all, the writers of Penthouse Forum MUST be telling their truths, right?
Yeah, sure. Why, I used to get invited by three blondes to a menage a quatre almost every time I went to the gas station.
Well, I coulda had 'em. But creationist women -- although they're attracted to me -- are just too repulsive.
Where?
I will lose the weight. I promised my daughter we'd go back to martial arts... soon.
Nope
See Less Prayer in Foxholes, and Why
The old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes does not appear to apply as much as it used to. It turns out that the active duty troops in the American armed forces are somewhat less religious than the population as a whole.
Americans over all are 78 percent Christian, 1.3 percent Jewish, .5 percent Moslem, .4 percent Hindu, 13 percent unknown or none and the rest various other sects and faiths. But the troops are 55 percent Christian, .3 percent Moslem, .27 percent Jewish, .04 percent Hindu, .24 percent Buddhist and 34 percent unknown or no preference. Part of this may be a generational thing, as the troops are younger than the population as a whole. People become more religious as they get older. Another factor is probably education, as the high education standards for recruits means those in uniform have several years more formal education than their civilian peers. More literate too, as people in uniform read at a level a full year ahead of civilians. As people become more educated, they tend to be less religious.
While most religions are underrepresented in the military, there are some exceptions. The Mormons (Latter Day Saints), represent 1.3 percent of the American population, and 1.1 percent of the troops. Catholics, which are 25 percent of the population, are 22 percent of the troops.....
Plus considering scientist are more likely to be Athiest, who do you think is making all the wonderful weapons we have?
Atheists cause enormous damage.
To who? By almost any measure Athiest are more moral than Christians
As young people become atheists, it encourages them to engage in promiscuous sex, drug use, and anti-family behavior.
From 1991 to 2001, The Number of the non-religious doubled in number while at the same time the number calling themselves Christians declined by 10% this decline in Christianity is especially seen in young people.
Yet the even though the younger generations are the least religious and most unchristian violent crime rate has declined through this period, as well as the abortion rate dropped by about 25 percent for both married and unmarried women through the 1990s , The teen Pregnancy Rate Reached a Record Low, More Teenagers are saying no to sex and Drug use by teenagers continues to decline.
If Atheism leads to poor morals as the country becomes less Christian wouldn't the trends be going the other way
They come to believe that no one is watching and no one cares. Without positive spiritual forces in their lives, they become spiritually ill.
Then explain why
Atheist/Agnostic are ~15% of the population as a whole yet make up just 0.2% of the prison population, while Christians are 74% of the population as a whole yet 80% of the prision population
They cannot form proper families, which puts the nation's future at risk. Many of our worst problems--family breakdown,
Wrong again, Christian are behind Atheist in that regard too
Born Again Christians are more likely to divorce than Non-Christians
Born Again Adults - 27%
All other adults - 24%
Non-denominational Protestant - 34%
Jews - 30%
Baptist - 29%
Mormons - 24%
Catholics - 21%
Lutherans - 21%
Atheists/Agnostics 21%
government corruption, metastazing government--I believe are caused, or at least aggravated by, atheists.
Last I checked, Not one of the 43 presidents or any supreme court justice has ever been an Atheist. And 99.9% of all Senators, Congressmen, Governors, etc have been Christians. So whose responsible for the "government corruption/ metastazing government" again?
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.