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.
But something else might...
Not what I would like to say. You show great restraint.
And the grapes are probably sour too.
Please document or disavow this claim.
Oh, on the contrary. I do want them to understand.
I want people to understand that a religious tail is trying to wag the Republican dog;
-- for nothing more important than their own smug self-righteousness.
That's really a weird image.
And one likely to annoy the Viking Kitties
Which one! LOL!
Evo: Hi!
Creo: There are no transitional fossils.
E: Uh ... you come here often?
C: Noah's Ark is real.
E: Okay. Can I buy you a drink?
C: My granddaddy was no ape.
E: I can see that.
C: Regularity proves design, irregularity proves design.
E: Are you feeling okay?
C: Hitler, Stalin, Hillary!
E: Well ... perhaps some other time.
C: Get your own dirt!
LMAO!
What we really need to know is which side was supported by Soros gold. Dish.
FSM BUMP
Is Chris Mooney a good bud of yours?
So when Ike said 'hate the war but love the soldier', he was a weasle?
What "extreme views of the religious right"? Like opposing abortion, or gay marriage, or too much government interference in our lives? These are extreme?
"Not so Protestant is number 1 follwed by Catholic, followed by No-Preference (does not mean atheist) then Jewish "
What percentage of the population is atheist? What percentage of the military population is atheist? Which percentage is higher?
"As to US.. if we evolved then why can't the scientists answer where modern man came from as they found him existing at the same time and competing with Neanderthal?
I'm not sure what the link between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens is in this context, but what possible restriction could there be on two species co-existing, even sharing the same environment? Both Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens evolved from Homo erectus. They were our cousins. You have cousins don't you? Or did they all kindly remove themselves from the Earth when you were born?
"Just another theory of evolution that has changed.
Would you prefer scientists claim their first theory to be perfect and inerrant? Or should they increase the accuracy of the theory when new data becomes available?
"And where did the first cell come from? If we know what we are made of and we know what the conditions were.
Aside from the fact that abiogenesis is separate from the Theory of Evolution, we do not know the initial conditions, nor the initial molecules. We have a very good idea that the first molecule was not what we would consider life. We do know that it took a lot longer for nature to develop life than we have been trying to do so.
" You could prove to me evolution by...
"Growing a human being.
I've already done that. In fact the human my wife and I teamed up to make made a little human of her own.
"Nature is not perfect yet Earth is not too far away from the sun and not too close. A million miles either way and we do not exist. Odds against it are huge.
Actually the odds for 'a' planet with those conditions to exist somewhere in the universe is quite high... astronomical you might say.
ROTFLOL!
Perhaps that chaplain didn't visit foxholes.
Facts Are Stubborn Things Indeed.
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.