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.
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.
Ok, this post may not be a completely coherent response, as the coffee hasn't quite kicked in yet...
It seems to me that you are making precisely the same point that Patrick Henry et al are making, only you're blaming proponents of evolution (whether sincere in your view or not) for the controversy instead of the religious right. However, I think what you are conveniently ignoring is that it isn't the side of science that keeps stirring the pot. Over and over again, it is the proponents of ID/creationism who fire the first shots in these little skirmishes.
You mention that you believe Dover was a fortunate circumstance, but what about Kansas? What about Georgia? What about the evidence that the Thomas More Law Center was shopping all over the country for clients to push this particular legal battle? What about the Discovery Institute?
In your follow-up post, you blame the advent of ID on the arrogance of evolutionary biology. I've seen this a lot on the crevo threads from the anti-evolution point of view; that is, the argument that evolutionary biologists' claiming to know more about evolutionary biology than the layman is somehow "elitism" and "arrogance." I find this point of view, especially from conservatives, to be flabbergasting every time I see it. The idea that a person or persons who have gone to the trouble of schooling and training themselves in a field and then spending years devoting themselves to further study are "arrogant" for claiming competence in that field smacks of liberal PC nonsense, and people are rightly put off by it.
And on that note...I'm not sure how "excellent" and "reliable" a constituency is that continually alienates the large part of the rest of the constituency by trying to push an anti-science agenda. I mean, assuming as you claim that the religious right consistently gets out the vote, which is fine and admirable, it doesn't do much good if that same voting bloc has managed to negate the net beneficial effect by alienating the rest of the party.
Although you have expressed disdain for the libertarians who might choose to stay home or vote libertarian as an alternative, those folks are perfectly within their rights as Americans to vote their opinion. And if their opinion of the GOP is negatively influenced due to the controversies over science that are started by the religious right, I don't see how you can blame Soros and his faction for taking advantage of the situation by hyping it. The liberal/progressive left isn't causing the controversy, but I do agree that they are certainly taking advantage of it. What I don't agree with is that they are the ones behind the controversy.
Evolutionists do not care if taxes go up, so long as their little TOE is protected. The evolutionists think they can wall out the Creator from their taxpayer funded ideology.
Evolutionists know very well they flourish under liberalism, as liberalism is what birthed them and their ideology.
They are ever so 'wise' in their own conceits, however, they overlook the very foundation that separates this nation from all others around this globe. Rights endowed by the Creator no man/government can take. Yet the very base of evolution is the denial of the Creator, and they wail, hiss and moan about creationists making this nation a third world nation.
Where is their willingness to account for the results of their untouchable supremely protected doctrine? We have a history of walling out the Creator in the public school system that can be observed and tested, the results are nothing to be cheering about.
I think it more likely that people vote GOP because the Dems are perceived as anti-Christian and anti-religious. Wouldn't it be great for the Dems if that perception could be altered enough to throw enough votes to he left...say...in Pennsylvania
Lots of devoted science voters out there? I sorta don't think so. Maybe they're all here, or are pretending to be.
Sweden as a nation is perceived to be rather moribund in general by many conservatives--and being slowly absorbed by Muslims (though Norway is ahead of Sweden in this)--
And I don't think Islamists care about Darwinism, at all.
It's not the lack of knowledge that is dangerous; it's the fear thereof.
The odds are High?
Where then is intelligent life besides Earth?
Where is life? You are going to have a baby. But you did not grow one out of the Earth. It is not evolving into another being altogether.
And where are all those missing links between what the dinos were and what they became. If they went extinct that mean they died off. SO how can they have evolved if they no longer existed?
Almost 80% of the US believe in God.
All over FR are physicians, for instance, who take little interest in the evo "problem"--they don't seem too alarmed at the unwashed taking over the Temple. They're concerned with science and politics in a very practical way. And most of them are able to at least listen to the religious. Do you see physicians leaving the GOP in droves because it is "anti-science?"
When the squawking is sincere (and everyday I find it less so, and more an imposture) it comes from a teacher whose prestige or bailiwick might be threatened. But, I think, is probably not.
The whole problem if there is one could have been solved with a simple and satisfactory compromise. Teach evo as a model. It is a model, and excellent and effective one. Stop telling people that "they come from" something. They're going to doubt you, as well they should. If evo was taught as a model (and what efffective theory of science is not a model?), the evos would have everything they claim to want in the way of classroom autonomy, and the evo-agnostics would be spared the affront to their faith and intellect.
So, put me down as not only doubting the claims of "where I come from" coming from the evo camp, but their indignation and alarm in general.
I'm convinced it is manufactured for effect. That conviction started when I looked at the obsessive nature of the posting histories--one issue, over months and months and months on FR.
I then took note of how other freepers were treated, which can be summarized as the "two minute gangup"--when the freepers thought they were being debated in good faith. That was highly offensive to me, since I detest and despise a bully, even a rhetorical bully. It also seemed to me that the timing of these gangups would not be supported by freepmail or normal surfing--so I think there's some IM going on. Why go to such measures?
Then I started picking up hints about Santorum.
"Yet most evolutionists believe in a Creator. Go figure. :)"
Ha, joke of the day. Where does the evolutionists hide his/her Creator, in his little TOE.
"Ha, joke of the day. Where does the evolutionists hide his/her Creator, in his little TOE."
No, most evolutionists believe in a Creator. That's a fact. Deal. :)
Yes I have seen the evolutionists Creator, that Spaghetti Monster.
If you are able describe your Creator.
re: Because they believe in science, I reckon. There really need be no larger agenda than that present. )))
You are Swedish? What an impressive command of US regional idiom you have!
But, as for Mooney, if the FRevos here take him as a leader, that tells us a lot we need to know.
"Yes I have seen the evolutionists Creator, that Spaghetti Monster."
No, most evolutionists (in the USA) are Christian.
"No, most evolutionists (in the USA) are Christian"
Really now, could you please provide the evidence that Christ evolved? Now there had to have been a whole lot of action by the Creator, to have selected Mary at an appointed time, to have been on the scene at that appointed time for Christ to have entered this flesh age to become that perfect sacrifice at that appointed time.
Now maybe we are not talking about the same Christ, cause we are told there are two.
"Now maybe we are not talking about the same Christ, cause we are told there are two."
Maybe you're the one not thinking of the correct one. :)
Fact remains; most evolutionists in the USA believe in a Creator and are Christian.
So are you Christian?
"Irrelevant. I am not representative of most American evolutionists. Nice changing of subject though. :)"
You like to put "Christian" clothing on many people, I thought maybe there was a reason, and perhaps that you were a Christian.
Apparently NOT.
Christ said there would be many coming in His Name, but He never knew them. It is not a new thing to put a Christian name on systems that teach against Christ, but there has always been a need to elevate the numbers.
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.