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.
That reminds me of a an old joke I once read in a magazine.
A programmer was talking about topology and taking a rather heavyhanded viewpoint. A colleague said, "Wait a minute, there are two sides to everything," to which he replied, "Moebius, maybe no."
That's good.
I'm not Roman catholic, but since you mentioned the Pope, you should be definitive about which of the "theories of evolution" he would accept and which of them he would reject ---- if your intent is not to mislead people, right? So in light of full disclosure, here you are:
First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29."
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
The salient excerpts:
"...And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology. ...
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.
St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.
All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.
The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. ...."
There is a chasm between the Idea of science and the scientist himself. He's just like anyone else, prey to the same flawed ego. One of the problems of the South Korean vet was that people were not reproducing his results--
I cannot take seriously your implication that evos here are truly alarmed, frightened, offended by unclean hands touching the Shrine of Science with their dreadful ideas about ID--or whatever the next heresy is that presents itself. Methinks there's another issue behind the scenes, being manipulated. It wouldn't take many votes to turn the Senate Dem.
I smell a political agenda. I listen to the evos, and I am convinced a number are making use of the libertarian's disdain for the religious to go after some specific GOP pols.
Welcome to the "Festival of Obsessive Paranoids"
Get real. I'm here because I'm a thinking conservative.
That I'm not religious is irrelevant.
This country is made up of lots of different kinds of religious believers. If you attempt to shove any one religious interpretation into government, then you will be opposed vehemently by those who believe differently.
The founders came up with the original solution. Separate government from faith, and the problem goes away. It's worked well, and today's religious fundamentalists of all stripes need to keep that in mind.
This is one reason I opposed ID so hard. It is validating one religious viewpoint to the exclusion of others. It was untenable from the beginning, and conservatives like myself understood the dangers of pushing such a divisive agenda.
The Theory of Evolution takes no position on the origin of spirit, so it's fine.
Really? Methinks you read way too much into evo posts. Indeed, the above paragraph borders on paranoia. And, as for original sin, it has yet to be empirically verified. I'm sorry, but I consider "original sin" to be just like the pool hall in "The Music Man" -- it's a created problem for which the man will sell you a cure. In other words, it's a con game.
There is a chasm between the Idea of science and the scientist himself. He's just like anyone else, prey to the same flawed ego. One of the problems of the South Korean vet was that people were not reproducing his results--
So basically you're saying the scientific method works in that it is self-correcting (catches the bad calls and hoaxes). Would that religion had a similar checking-and-balancing system.
I cannot take seriously your implication that evos here are truly alarmed, frightened, offended by unclean hands touching the Shrine of Science with their dreadful ideas about ID--or whatever the next heresy is that presents itself. Methinks there's another issue behind the scenes, being manipulated. It wouldn't take many votes to turn the Senate Dem.
I implied no such thing (c.f. my comments on "paranoia"). ID presented itself as a science, which it most blantantly was not by any definition of the word. That it was caught out in public has more to do with its proponents forcing the issue than with its opponents. Indeed, DI has probably taken the former Dover schoolboard off its Christmas list because they managed to shoot the Institute's Golden Goose.
I smell a political agenda. I listen to the evos, and I am convinced a number are making use of the libertarian's disdain for the religious to go after some specific GOP pols.
The only political agenda is that of the creationists trying to force their beliefs on children through the public school system. They know that if they can cloud enough young minds early on, the collection-basket revenue will continue to roll in.
There's always Darwin Central.
Those on FR do not have a clue yet about how much the Soros 527 have to spend, or all the leisure time weighing on those who lost in 2004-- Millions and millions of dollars, and thousands upon thousands of idle activists. It's worth their while to hire some losers to sow some discord--especially if Santorum looks weak.
Mooney's making a movie--it's going to attack Republicans. What do you think about that? Spurlock's last movie, "Supersize Me" has been shown to MY children in school. The movie was a lawyer's wetdream to ready the field for suing McD's class action style. The Mooney movie will be to paint conservatives as ignorant rubes who soil the Science Temple with dirty hands. Which side'll YOU be on? Because it's going to be about sides.
In short, evo-ID is a sidebar. Or--a crowbar--a tool for prying away some votes. And it's not the libertarian votes they're trying to pry away--it's the religious. Provoke the pols into snubbing the religious voters, and watch that pol lose.
And that makes you and your ilk different how?
Typical elitism, equating your particular philosophy with the morally superior position.
Atheism does not equal freedom of thought any more than theism does. The exercise of thought to choose atheism or theism equals freedom of thought.
However, it has been my experience that a fair amount of pride and arrogance generally goes hand in hand with atheism.
Einsteins first famous contribution to science was to quantum mechanics. He said the energy of the electromagnetic field was contain in a particle he called the photon. He went on to make significant contributions in statistical mechanics including Bose-Einstein statistics of particles with integer spin. Einsein's contribution was to include any paritcle, or bound particle system to Bose's photon statistics. Why would he call his own work junk science?
Although some individual scientists have chips on their shoulders and play politics, new hypotheses are generally welcome if they look promising. Cold fusion was hailed, even though it was later found to be bunk (at least in those tests -- work does continue).
The basic question is whether a hypothesis is mainstream science enough, and has survived the test of time and scientific attacks, to be taught in schools. I doubt you want every crackpot hypothesis taught to the kids. As it is, ID falls into that category. It may be true in the end, but they have a LOT of work to do before they move into respected science worthy of being taught in a school.
The same crowd that provided us with this header article also produces similar pubs under the "freethinker" moniker. "Skeptical Thinker" and "Freethinker"-- but they're still pale little pencilnecks...
This case was forced into the courts by a short-sighted schoolboard which has since been voted out -- so much for representing the local mood, huh? The judge weighed the evidence impartially and sent the defendents packing. George Soros had nothing to do with it. There were millions of dollars and thousands of idle activists decamping for Dover.
The only ones who make conservatives look like rubes are the folks who ignore real science because it contradicts a particular reading of Scripture (holding onto untenable beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the very definition of insanity). Dressing up your rants in conspiracy-theory innuendo does nothing to obviate that observation in the least.
If the conservative movement loses votes because it has been made to look like a home for rubes, it will owe more to the creationist zealots forcing their views to the fore rather than through any efforts by the opposition. You forever forget that none of these battles need have been fought if it hadn't been for the actions of anti-evos in the first place.
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.