|
« November 2005 |
Main
| January 2006 »
Prof. Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe University has written a wonderfully insightful essay on the Cobb County evolution textbook disclaimer case for the American Enterprise Online. At the end of the essay, Knippenberg concludes:
One begins to wonder whether liberal toleration is a sham, offered only to the most docile, and whether liberalism isn’t itself the very sort of orthodoxy it claims to eschew.
You can read the essay here.
Note: This is the fourth part of a multi-part series. You can read the first three installments here and here and here.
Some in the newsmedia have been attempting to portray Judge Jones as a conservative Republican who is devoutly religious. Frankly, I don't care whether Judge Jones is either conservative or religious. My concern is whether he is fair and accurate as a judge. But I do object to the media's attempt to reinvent Judge Jones in order to insulate his decision from criticism. The media are cultivating the impression that Judge Jones must have been fair and impartial (his sloppy and biased opinion notwithstanding) because he is a deeply-religious conservative who should have been initially sympathetic to the school board and intelligent design.
In reality, there is very little evidence to suggest that Jones is particularly conservative.
According to news reports, Judge Jones has described his political mentor as Tom Ridge, a fairly liberal "pro-choice" Republican. Moreover, according to information Judge Jones supplied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings in 2002, after graduating from college he never became a member of any conservative group, unless one counts the Boy Scouts. He did, however, join the trial lawyers association. He also was a 20+ year member of a country club. Thus, it might be appropriate to call him a "country club Republican."
In addition, Judge Jones does not seem in sync with most conservatives' attitudes toward crime and punishment. During his confirmation hearings, he spoke with pride about defending a murderer of a twelve-year old boy and how he was able to get the murderer spared from the death penalty:
I served for 10 years, Madam Chairwoman, as an assistant public defender in Schuylkill County, and so very frequently I found myself enmeshed in unpopular areas representing unpopular people. In particular, in 1989, I represented an individual who was alleged to have murdered a 12-year-old boy. It was, as you can imagine, coming from a small town, a highly charged atmosphere. We had a week-long trial. I represented him throughout in a most difficult circumstance, with the community at large very much against him. He was convicted. I was able to keep him from suffering the death penalty in that case... I was very proud to do that as an assistant public defender consistent with my obligations as an attorney.
(Note: You can verify for yourself the above information about Judge Jones' memberships and his comments at his confirmation hearing by going to the U.S. Government Printing Office and downloading the pdf version of S. HRG. 107–584, PT. 4, Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003, Serial No. J–107–23. See especially pp. 73 and 191-192.)
In the area of religion, Judge Jones is a long-time member of a Lutheran church in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. But his views on religion seem to be of the decidedly liberal variety and rather inhospitable to the views of more traditional believers. In a graduation speech to the students of Dickinson College in 2006, for example, he praised America's Founders for supposedly believing that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."
This amazing statement is worthy of further analysis. First, it falsely suggests that people must choose between believing in religious authority (such as the Bible) and "free, rational inquiry." Second, the statement implies that those who believe in the Bible or the teachings of their church are somehow anti-American because they reject the ideals of America's Founders.
In reality, and contrary to Judge Jones, most of America's Founders did not believe that the teachings of the Bible or churches were in conflict with the teachings of "free, rational inquiry." Indeed, as I argue in my book, The Politics of Revelation and Reason, the Founders generally believed that revelation and reason converged on same truths, especially in the area of morality. The Founders' belief in the agreement of revelation and reason supplied the basis for all citizens to enter the public square on an equal basis, regardless of their religious beliefs. In the Founders' system, so long as religious believers could offer secular reasons for their public policy proposals in addition to whatever religious reasons they might have, they had the right to be heard.
However, by insisting that belief in religious authority and belief in (secular) "rational inquiry" are opposed to each other, Judge Jones sets the stage for depriving traditional religious believers of their equal rights as citizens. If public policies must be justified in terms of secular reason, and if religious traditionalists are by definition opposed to this sort of "free, rational inquiry," then anything religious traditionalists propose must be constitutionally suspect according to Judge Jones.
Hence, if certain intelligent design proponents happen to be traditional religious believers, their policy ideas must be disqualified no matter what the secular reasons they offer for them--because by definition those secular reasons cannot be genuine. This false dichotomy between faith and reason owes more to the French Enlightenment than the American Founding. And it explains far more about the inspiration behind Judge Jones' faulty ruling than the fact that he is a "church-going Republican."
[UPDATED ON OCTOBER 28, 2006]
Michael Medved interviewed Stephen Meyer, program director for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, for an hour on his national radio program recently. The audio recording is here.
Also, Granville Sewell, a mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, has a stimulating critique of Neo-Darwinism at The American Spectator. [Updated] Sewell's mathematics textbook was recently published by a major science publisher as part of a series titled "Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Wiley-Intersciences Series of Texts, Monographs, and Texts." The textbook reprints Sewell's essay "Can 'ANYTHING' Happen in an Open System?," which challenges the neo-Darwinian veiw that mutations and natural selection "can create order out of disorder, and even design human brains with human consciousness."
Note: This is the third part of a multi-part series. You can read the first two installments here and here.
In his decision in the Dover intelligent design case, Judge Jones places great weight on the early intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). According to Judge Jones, early drafts of this textbook supposedly show that intelligent design is merely repackaged creationism. However, Judge Jones seriously misrepresents the facts about Of Pandas and People, and he also misapplies the relevant legal standards.
Before addressing the merits of Judge Jones' assertions regarding Pandas, something needs to be said about the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones placing so much weight on this early textbook in his judicial opinion. Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book's publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.
Earlier this year when it became evident that the ACLU was trying to put Pandas on trial just as much as the Dover School Board, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics sought to intervene in the case so that it could defend itself. FTE wanted to cross-examine the ACLU's witnesses as well as present its own experts, evidence, and arguments during the trial. Yet Judge Jones rejected FTE's motion for intervention. FTE was eventually allowed to submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Jones, but such briefs do not have the same status as evidence and arguments presented at trial, and the brief was limited to no more than 5,000 words (including footnotes). That's right, Judge Jones allowed FTE a mere 5,000 words to rebut literally hundreds of pages of testimony and allegations made by the ACLU. How is that for fair and impartial justice? Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque.
Regarding the substance of Judge Jones' critique of Pandas, one would do well to read the amicus brief filed by FTE in the case. The FTE brief clearly demonstrates (1) that the published versions of Pandas do not promote creationism; (2) that the early drafts of Pandas did not promote "creationism" as it has been defined by the Supreme Court; and (3) that even if early drafts of Pandas did promote creationism in the eyes of Judge Jones, those drafts should be legally irrelevant. FTE's full brief (including footnotes and appendices with supporting documentation) can be downloaded here and here.
AMICUS BRIEF FILED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR THOUGHT AND ETHICS (excerpts)
I. INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AS DESCRIBED IN PANDAS, DIFFERS FROM CREATIONISM IN BOTH METHODOLOGY AND
PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT.
A. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Bases Its Claims On Empirical Evidence And Scientific Methods Rather Than Upon Faith, Doctrine, Or Scripture.
Creationism is identified by its reliance upon religious scripture and doctrine, rather than empirical evidence. By contrast, the theory of intelligent design, as developed in Pandas, relies upon scientific data and does not address religious or doctrinal questions. Pandas infers design using observations, uniform experience, and empirical experimental evidence: "If experience has shown that a certain class of phenomena results from intelligent causes and then we encounter something new but similar, we conclude its origin also to be from an intelligent cause." Pandas consistently takes this empirical approach and nowhere relies upon faith, doctrine, or religious scripture.
B. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Is Distinct From Creationism Because It Does Not Use Science To Postulate A “Supernatural Creator,” Nor Does It Attempt To Validate The Biblical Account In Genesis.
Plaintiffs contend that teaching intelligent design endorses religion. The endorsement test, as adopted by the Supreme Court, employs an objective component where a statement cannot be taken in isolation but must be read in its entire context: "The meaning of a statement to its audience depends both on the intention of the speaker and on the "objective" meaning of the statement in the community. Some listeners need not rely solely on the words themselves in discerning the speaker's intent: they can judge the intent by, for example, examining the context of the statement or asking questions of the speaker." Plaintiffs ignore the context in Pandas explaining how intelligent design cannot identify the designer as well as Pandas’ emphasis on empirical data.
1. Pandas Demonstrates That Intelligent Design Takes A Scientific Approach Which Cannot Identify The Designer.
In Edwards, the Supreme Court held that creation science entailed the “religious viewpoint” that “a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.” Plaintiffs try to force the square peg of design into the round hole carved by Edwards, falsely asserting that Pandas postulates a “supernatural entity.” Yet Pandas clearly states that the scientific theory of intelligent design cannot address questions about the ultimate nature of the intelligent cause: "But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy." "We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." Because it does not delve into questions surrounding the supernatural, Pandas does not violate methodological naturalism (as espoused by plaintiffs).
Moreover, the Pandas edition used in Dover explicitly disclaims endorsement of Christianity: "Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God." This context makes it clear that Pandas does not endorse any particular religious belief, including Christianity. All design implies is “life had an intelligent source.”
2. Plaintiffs Mistakenly Contrast Natural Causes With Supernatural Causes, Rather Than With Intelligent Causes.
In an attempt to attack the scientific basis of the theory of intelligent design, plaintiffs claim that the only alternative to explanation by natural causes is an appeal to supernatural causes. Pandas offers two distinct categories of scientific explanation: natural and intelligent. Pandas carefully distinguishes between “supernatural” causes and “intelligent” causes, for intelligent causes are amenable to scientific investigation, whereas it is impossible to detect whether a cause is “supernatural.” The distinction between intelligent and supernatural causes is a critical one, and it was adopted by FTE before the decision in Edwards, as reflected in early drafts of Pandas. If plaintiffs were correct, Pandas should not explain design using examples of intelligent, yet non-supernatural causes. But Pandas offers many such examples, including human writers, artists, skywriters, car manufacturers, carpenters, tribespeople, and engineers. In short, the intelligent aspect of a cause is detectable, while supernatural identity is not: if an intelligent cause is indeed supernatural, its identity as such cannot be determined via science. Pandas explains that we have everyday experience with detecting intelligence; thus, intelligent design is not an untestable supernatural concept.
3. Statements About A “Master Intellect” Do Not Endorse Religion.
Plaintiffs argue that appealing to a “master intellect” entails a deity. Yet the appropriate dictionary definition of “master” has no religious overtones: "being a master of some occupation, art, etc.; eminently skilled a master diplomat; a master pianist." Pandas refers to the “master intellect” in terms of the designer’s ability to design sophisticated biological molecules. An early draft of Pandas observes: "Some master intellect is the creator of life. But such observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer."
The claim that the complex information in biological organisms is best explained by an intelligent source is no more “ultimate” in its reach than the claim of Neo-Darwinism that all life results from random mutation and natural selection. What matters is not the degree of “ultimacy” but whether the claim is one that science can address. “Thus the so-called ‘Big Bang’ theory, an astronomical interpretation of the creation of the universe, may be said to answer an ‘ultimate’ question, but it is not, by itself, a ‘religious’ idea.” Similarly, intelligent design interprets biological data as sharing the same informational content found in human language and machines. Like Big Bang cosmology or Neo-Darwinism, the theory of intelligent design in biology is not religious because it lacks “comprehensiveness” and is “generally confined to one question.”
4. Pandas Does Not Advocate “Creation Ex Nihilo” And Advocates A View Of The Fossil Record Consistent With That Of Paleontologists.
The phrase “creation ex nihilo” exists nowhere in Pandas. Nonetheless, plaintiffs complain that Pandas advocates “abrupt appearance,” which they claim is equivalent to “creation ex nihilo.” Pandas states that “[i]ntelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency….,” but this language is a comment on the fossil record, not a theological assertion. It is also a commonplace observation among paleontologists. For example, Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change . . . transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” [emphasis added]. True, creationism also defined itself in terms of abrupt appearance, but simply because Pandas shared this view with creationists no more renders it a form of creationism than does Stephen Jay Gould’s observation render him a creationist. Moreover, in Edwards, the Supreme Court declared creationism religion because it required the “supernatural”; “abrupt appearance” had no influence upon the majority’s constitutional analysis, no doubt because of the number of mainstream paleontologists who hold similar views.
5. Pandas Does Not Promote A View Parallel To Genesis.
While Edwards took a broad view of creationism, the Court cited extensively to McLean, which found that “the parallels between [creationism] and Genesis are quite specific." These parallels include: "(1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." Two concurring Justices in Edwards observed that McLean recognized that creationist organizations require commitment to specific religious tenets, including the view that all life was created “by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis” and “accept[ance] of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.” Pandas promotes nothing even approximating these viewpoints.
Pandas makes no reference to a flood or worldwide geological catastrophe. Pandas never takes the viewpoint that life or the earth were created recently, and at various points incorporates a conventional geological time scale. Pandas makes no references to Genesis or Christian religious doctrines. It does not claim that life was created “out of nothing” and does not even explore questions about the origin of the universe. While the textbook does question, on scientific grounds, the ability of mutation and selection to account for the complexity of life and at other points questions common ancestry of all living organisms, these views in themselves do not constitute a religious viewpoint and indeed are advocated by a number of scientists in mainstream scientific literature.
III. REJECTION OF THE LANGUAGE OF EARLY DRAFTS OF PANDAS CLEARLY DISTINGUISH INTELLIGENT DESIGN FROM CREATIONISM.
Plaintiffs allege that unpublished draft versions of Pandas provide evidence that the “real” purpose of the published book is to promote “creationism” and “creation science.” But this claim rests on faulty logic and a misrepresentation of the content of these draft versions.
A. Early, Unpublished Drafts Of Pandas Have No Bearing Upon What Students Learn In Schools Today.
It is puzzling, to say the least, that Plaintiffs should rely upon early drafts of Pandas, in light of the burden on Plaintiffs to show that either of the first two prongs of the Lemon test have been violated. Unless either the school board, the teachers or the students were aware of the early drafts of Pandas, it is hard to see how their content could be in any way relevant to the question of whether the school board’s actions had a secular purpose, or had a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Perhaps plaintiffs recognized that what is presented in the book actually adopted by the school board does not support their claim of unconstitutionality—and so they shift attention to an earlier unused version. But the earlier version was never adopted by the school board and will never be seen by students. Amicus thus urges that only the published version of Pandas is germane, and that previous drafts be ignored.
B. The Removal Of “Creationist” Terminology From The Published Version Of Should Be Interpreted As A Rejection Of Creationism, Not As Hidden Support For Creationism.
Assuming, ad arguendo, that the Court looks to previous drafts of Pandas to interpret its meaning, however, Amicus urges the Court to draw precisely the opposite conclusions from those advanced by Plaintiffs. Admittedly there are no canons of “textbook interpretation”; however, using canons of construction employed in interpreting statutes, language removed from an earlier draft of statute is usually understood as a rejection of that language. For example, “where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Similarly, in comparing a previous version of legislation that was vetoed to the bill that was ultimately enacted into law, the Supreme Court interpreted the removal of language about retroactivity to mean that Congress intended not to make the law retroactive. Finally, this same form of reasoning is normative among scholars of constitutional law, who refer to language rejected from drafts of constitutional amendments in order to determine what was not the intent of the Framers. If the Court were to apply this canon of construction to Pandas, then the fact that published versions of Pandas removed mention of “creationism” should indicate that textbook authors did not intend to promote creationism.
C. A Similar Rule Applied to Plaintiffs’ Own Expert’s Publication Would Disqualify Dr. Kenneth Miller’s Textbook.
Plaintiffs claim that references to “creation” and “creationists” deleted from pre-publication drafts of Pandas establish the equivalence of intelligent design and creationism. Yet the first two editions of a biology textbook actually published by plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kenneth Miller explicitly affirmed the anti-religious claim that Darwinian theory “required” belief in philosophical materialism: "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts... Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."
Dr. Miller was quick to point out that later versions of his textbooks removed such anti-religious statements. But if unpublished drafts—never seen by the school board or students—evidence the “real meaning” of Pandas, what should be the significance of language that Dr. Miller actually published? Plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on pre-publication drafts of Pandas not only ignores the context in which the constitutional issues in this case arise, but threatens to open a floodgate to lawsuits challenging the “hidden agenda” of textbooks widely used by students today.
D. Early Drafts Of Pandas Did Not In Fact Advocate Creationism As It Has Been Defined By The Supreme Court.
While certain early drafts of Pandas and other writings may have used the terms “creation” and “creationists,” it is clear that these terms were defined to mean something quite different from “creationism” as later defined by the Supreme Court. As noted earlier, from the beginning Pandas specifically rejected the view that science could detect whether the intelligent cause identified was supernatural. Although the process by which an intelligent agent produces a designed object can loosely be called a “creation” (as in stating that this brief was the “creation” of several lawyers), the authors of Pandas clearly understood that this was a “placeholder” for a more sophisticated expression of this concept. A pre-Edwards draft from early 1987 emphatically stated that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.” The same early draft rejected the eighteenth century design argument from William Paley because it illegitimately tried “to extrapolate to the supernatural” from the empirical data of science. Paley was wrong because “there is no basis in uniform experience for going from nature to the supernatural, for inferring an unobserved supernatural cause from an observed effect.” Similarly, another early draft (also from when the manuscript was still titled “Biology and Origins”) stated: "[T]here are two things about which we cannot learn through uniform sensory experience. One is the supernatural, and so to teach it in science classes would be out of place . . . [S]cience can identify an intellect, but is powerless to tell us if that intellect is within the universe or beyond it." By unequivocally affirming that the empirical evidence of science “cannot tell us if the intellect behind [the information in life] was natural or supernatural” it should be clear that the early drafts of Pandas meant something very different by “creation” than did the Supreme Court in Edwards. The decision to use the term “intelligent design” in the final draft to express the emerging theory of origins was not an attempt to evade a court decision, as Plaintiffs have alleged, but rather to furnish a more precise description of the emerging scientific theory.
IV. THE PRESENT THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOES NOT RELY UPON PANDAS AS AN AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE.
If this case were being argued in 1989, Pandas might be more dispositive as an authoritative guide to the theory of intelligent design. But there is now more than 15 years of scholarship by scientists and philosophers of science who think there are empirical means to detect design in nature. Pandas predates most of the major works of the contemporary design movement in science, including monographs by Cambridge University Press, and technical articles in peer-reviewed science and philosophy of science journals. The primary guide to the beliefs and views of intelligent design scholars today should be this record of scholarly and scientific and technical articles, not a supplementary high school textbook written more than a decade-and-a-half ago.
Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can read the first installment here.
It's becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of "facts" in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion that are unambiguously factually wrong--even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn't even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with.
Here are some of the more egregious examples.
1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.
Judge Jones writes that "a final indicator of how ID has failed is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." (p. 87, emphasis added) Again, he claims that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." (p. 87, emphasis added) In a footnote, he glancingly mentions one peer-reviewed article in the journal Protein Science by Michael Behe, but complains that this article does not explicitly reference ID. (footnote 17, p. 88).
Judge Jones shows no awareness of several other peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications explicitly supporting both intelligent design and Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, even though a list of these publications was submitted as part of the record in the case. See appendix D of the amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) here. This appendix lists such articles as Stephen Meyer's peer-reviewed technical article on the Cambrian explosion and intelligent design in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and a more recent technical article on irreducible complexity and intelligent design in the scientific publication Dynamical Genetics. Judge Jones did not deny that these articles were peer-reviewed. He simply ignored them. He also ignored the peer-reviewed academic books like William Dembski's The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) and Campbell and Meyer's Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press). A number of the peer-reviewed articles supportive of design were referenced by biologist Scott Minnich during his testimony at trial. Was Judge Jones asleep during that part of Dr. Minnich's testimony?
2. Judge Jones wrongly treats theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas as the ultimate source of the argument to design.
Drawing on theologian John Haught, Judge Jones treats Thomas Aquinas as the originator of the ID of intelligent design, writing that "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He [Haught] traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century...." (p. 24) In fact, discussions about the design of nature date back to Plato and Aristotle and significantly predate medieval theology. Judge Jones would have known this fact had he read the Foundation for Thought and Ethics amicus brief, which pointed out (with documentation):
Ancient philosophers began formulating arguments about design long before they had exposure to the Bible, and indeed without basing their arguments on sacred scriptures of any kind.The Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, and Anaximander believed that life could originate without any intelligent guidance, while Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle advocated that mind was required.33 During the Roman era, Cicero cited the orderly operation of the stars as well as biological adaptations in animals as empirical evidence that nature was the product of “rational design.” [pp. 12-13]
Judge Jones either didn't read the brief, which is part of the official record of the case, or he again ignored the evidence simply because it didn't fit his predetermined conclusions.
3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)
Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does NOT "require supernatural creation." Indeed, Judge Jones seems to willfully misrepresent the claims of intelligent design scientists, who consistently have made clear from the very start that empirical evidence cannot tell one whether the intelligent causes detected through modern science are inside or outside of nature. For extensive documentation of this fact, see Appendix A to the Discovery Institute amicus brief submitted in the case, available here.
As a scientific theory, all ID claims is that there is empirical evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the products of an intelligent cause. Whether the intelligent cause involved is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical evidence alone. That larger question involves philosophy and metaphysics.
To justify his false claim that ID requires a supernatural cause, Judge Jones also completely misrepresents the content of the textbook Of Pandas and People. He claims at one point that "Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature." (p. 30) In fact, Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the opposite claim: Intelligent causes may be either inside or outside of nature, and empirical evidence alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not supernatural cause, but intelligent cause." (FTE Amicus Brief, Appendix B, Document B; emphasis added.) Also consider the following passages from the edition of Pandas actually used in Dover (both of these passages were highlighted for Judge Jones in Appendix A of the FTE amicus brief):
“If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist.”(Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 7; emphasis added)
“Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.” (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 126-127; emphasis added)
Again, the intelligent causes detected through empirical evidence may be either inside or outside of nature; and contrary to Judge Jones, this point is made in the very book he cites to justify his position. Incredibly, Judge Jones at another point in his opinion (p. 25) misinterprets the Pandas' quote on p. 7 as further proof that ID requires a belief in a supernatural cause, claiming:
In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this
question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.”
Contrary to Judge Jones, the above statement clearly does NOT concede that "the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science." Instead, it merely reaffirms that empirical science cannot determine whether the intelligent cause detected resides inside or outside of nature. That further determination requires more than empirical science. Far from being merely "rhetorical," this claim is central to the definition of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and it is reaffirmed and further explained in other passages in Pandas that the Judge ignores (such as the passage on pp. 126-127 cited above).
4. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design grew out of Christian fundamentalism.
According to Judge Jones, intelligent design is not just "religious," it is the outgrowth of twentieth-century American Christian "fundamentalism." He makes this claim notwithstanding the fact that the debate over design in nature reaches back to the ancient Greeks (as pointed out above), and that the debate remained an important dispute among scientists from Darwin onward. As explained in the FTE amicus brief:
Design was also an important part of the contemporary scientific debate at the time Darwin’s theory was developed. Indeed, the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was employed by Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller as early as 1897. Schiller wrote that “it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.” Schiller, like modern design theorist Michael Behe, argued for intelligent design without rejecting all forms of evolution or even common descent.
It's important to stress that Judge Jones can't point to even a single doctrine unique to Christian fundamentalism that is incorporated by ID. Indeed, he effectively concedes that ID proponents distinguish their theory from fundamentalism by pointing out that it does NOT involve arguments based on "the Book of Genesis", "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noaich flood." (p. 35) So where's the fundamentalism?
In wrongly trying to conflate ID with fundamentalism, Judge Jones simply ignored the testimony in his court of two of the most prominent ID scientists, biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Neither Minnich nor Behe were shown by the ACLU to be fundamentalists (they aren't), neither were shown to believe in a literal reading of Genesis (they don't), neither were shown to come to their beliefs in ID from fundamentalism (they didn't), and both reject neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds. Indeed, Behe has made clear that he had no problem with the modern theory of evolution until he discovered that what he was seeing in the lab did not fit with what he was being told in standard textbook accounts. Behe's skepticism of neo-Darwinism was not driven by a change in religion, but by scientific evidence. So again, where's the fundamentalism?
To conclude, Judge Jones' repeated mistatements of fact and his one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit the result he wants.
One of the things that has struck me this past week is just how bitter and angry many defenders of Darwin's theory have become. This should have been a joyous week for Darwinists. After all, a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued a ruling claiming that teaching intelligent design in science classes is unconstitutional. You would have thought this result would have put Darwinists in a festive mood. But instead, many of them seem (if possible) even more sour and surly than before. Consider some of the following extracts from various pieces of hate mail I've received from evolutionists this past week.
Someone named "Ken B" wrote:
It's obvious that you people are just dark ages throwbacks. You try (so desperately) to cloak your GARBAGE in pseudo-scientific jargon and obscurantism...It must suck to be considered a flat-earther in the 21st Century.
You can pack up your bags, pull down the sign and hitch a ride out of town now. Seattle is no place for backasswards hicks.
Then there was the following diatribe from someone who refused to sign his (or her) name:
Intellectually, Judge Jones dwarfs your ilk. Keep trying to validate your significance. Assuming you are literate, which is in great doubt due to your explicit inability to critically think, try reading: The English Dictionary. It defines words like activist, ignorant, bigot, and scientific. Resign, diseducator. The students of [the university where I teach] deserve better than an ignorant, manipulative, power-hungry politico.
Another evolutionist thanks God he never had me for a political science professor (I'm glad I've given him something to be thankful for this Christmas season):
You know, it's bad enough that we have the extreme, religious, "right-wing" in this country trying to shove religion down the throats of students attending public school; it's bad enough that we have "Trojan" organizations such as yours that mask your real motives and agendas; but now we have principals in your organizations, not only second-guessing court rulings, but also denigrating the judges who render those opinions. Shame on you and thank God I was not one of Mr. West's students when I got my degree in Political Science.
One of my e-mailers even lamented that Americans have "allowed" ID proponents to have free speech at all. Apparently such freedom of speech is making Europeans look down their noses at us:
You are all aware, I hope, that most Europeans think less of Americans for the freedom we've allowed to Creationists and ID proponents. They find such concepts as proof of a failed educational system mated with a mild form of insanity. They HOPE it is mild, as one of the faithful is CiC of the largest military force in the world right now.
And liberals find ministers like Jerry Falwell frightening? Last time I checked, Falwell never claimed that it was "insanity" for Americans to "allow" free speech for Democrats. Yet here a Darwinist is basically implying that America should abolish free speech for anyone who is skeptical of Darwinism--in order to impress Europeans!
On this Christmas Day, I hope some of these bitter and angry folk find the joy and peace they are so obviously missing. Here's a suggestion for them: Try watching "It's a Wonderful Life" or re-reading "A Christmas Carol."
For instance, the sidebar to Jill Lawrence’s “'ID' ruling traces idea's problems” stated, “Proponents of the idea usually say they don't know who or what that intelligent designer might be.” Such a characterization makes design theorists appear disingenious, suggesting as it does that we are trying to hide our religious convictions. But we have been quite clear about who we think the designer is.
For instance, Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet , has also written The Untamed God, a work of Christian theology delineating an orthodox view of the Biblical God's triune nature. And Michael Behe makes no secret of being a Roman Catholic. He also notes, quite logically, that scientific evidence doesn’t tell us the identity of the designer. The microscopic rotary engine called the bacterial flagellum possesses the clear hallmark of design, Behe argues, but there’s no signature on the bushing of the motor that reads, “Created by Jehovah.”
The sidebar misses this point, but the Judge’s error is greater. Setting himself up as an expert on science, Jones argues that the scientific arguments of design theorists must be ruled out of the Dover classroom because these scientists are also interested in the positive cultural effects of overthrowing Darwinism.
But such fallacious reasoning also disqualifies the scientific arguments of Darwin defenders like Daniel Dennett, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins, for all are passionately interested in the metaphysical implications that Darwinism has for their anti-religious agenda.
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the Dover intelligent design trial yesterday, rightly characterizing the opinion of Judge John E. Jones III as aggressive judicial overreach. But Limbaugh also suggested that design theorists appeared disingenious in drawing a sharp distinction between creationism and intelligent design. Since newspapers routinely mangle our position on this matter, it's little wonder.
Traditional creationism begins with the Bible and moves from there to science. Intelligent design begins and ends with science. It has larger metaphysical implications, but so does Darwinism. The theory of intelligent design is a methodology for detecting design, and scholars from a variety of backgrounds employ it--Christian, Jew, Hindu, even a former atheist like Antony Flew, who still rejects the God of the Bible.
When comparing and contrasting intelligent design and creationism, the problem for any commentator is which definition of creationism to use. Kenneth Miller, a staunch Darwinist who believes that the Biblical God designed the Big Bang and fine-tuned the physical constants of nature, admitted at the Dover trial that he is a creationist in a broad sense of the term.
The legally relevant definition of creationism comes from Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987), the Supreme Court decision that declared creationism unconstitutional for public school science. There the Court found that Louisiana’s creationism act entailed the teaching of religion by virtue of a specific religious construction, comprised of particular teachings clearly paralleling the ‘Book of Genesis. Thus, it was a specific set of teachings or doctrines from a religious source that constituted religion. Whatever you want to label intelligent design, it isn't what the Court described in Edwards vs. Aguillard, and the fact that the leading design theorists believe in the Biblical God is beside the point. There's nothing in the Constitution that says a scientist's arguments should be ignored simply because of his religious beliefs.
Early design theorists like Charles Thaxton say that, as scientists, they were trying to develop a purely scientific methodology that came to grips with the evidence for design in nature. Others insist that these early design theorists boiled from their methodology any evidence based on Biblical authority simply to pass constitutional muster. The remarkable thing is this: from a legal standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference which scenario you accept.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the early design theorists entered a smoke-filled room, locked the door, rolled up their sleeves and said:
Let's develop a methodology that will pass muster with Edwards vs. Aguillard, a methodology that sticks strictly with scientific evidence, makes no appeals to Biblical authority, and doesn't try to defend a literal reading of Genesis but, instead, is general enough that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even non-religious philosophers like Antony Flew could all employ our methodology. Oh wait. We've already done that in The Mystery of Life's Origin (1984), which got positive responses from mainstream scientists and big wig philosophers like Darwinist and atheist Antony Flew. What else do we need to do? To distinguish it from the old creationist methodology, which moves back and forth between scientific evidence and Scripture, we'll give it a snappy name--intelligent design.
This, of course, is a fictional caricature right out of the Barbara Forrest playbook, but even if one swallows it whole, who cares, as long as the guys in the smoke-filled room really did remove the appeals to Biblical authority from their scientific writings?
As University of Chicago Law Professor Albert Alschuler comments concerning the Dover school board: "It seems odd to characterize the desire to go far as the law allows as an unlawful motive. People who try to stay within the law although they would prefer something else are good citizens."
To get around the substantive differences between intelligent design and biblical creationism, Judge Jones had to fixate on motive (both real and imagined); he had to assume that if he can identify one motive, he has magically ruled out the possibility of another motive playing a crucial role (in this case, the desire of ID scientists to follow the evidence wherever leads, even if it means upsetting a few Darwinists); and he had to mischaracterize ID as a religion-based theory when instead it's a theory based on scientific evidence that, like Darwinism, has larger metaphysical implications.
It's getting difficult to parody Darwinists, because their real statements are already so over-the-top. Take P.Z. Myers, the militant Darwinist biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris. A few days ago, Prof. Myers suggested that he regards the Biblical patriarch Abraham--revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims--as worse than Hitler:
I think that if I had a time machine, I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler before he caused all that trouble. I'd go all the way and pick up Abraham. I wouldn't kill him, oh no-since I've got a time machine, I'd just drop him off in the Permian while I was on my grand temporal tour.
That's right: According to Myers, taking out Hitler would be "trivial." What would really save humanity is getting rid of Abraham. It's hard to caricature the comments coming from Myers, because most of his comments already are a caricature.
A recent column in USA Today by Cal Thomas and Robert Beckel argued for a debate on intelligent design. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western in Cleveland wrote in to say that she and other Darwinists of her acquaintance would welcome a debate and announced it as January 3 in Cleveland. “Put up or shut up,”
was the genteel way she issued the invitation.
January 3 was then only a month away, with the holidays coming meanwhile. Further, it was unfortunately clear that Dr. Princehouse planned to establish the debate format and other conditions herself. Bill Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. But the Princehouse terms kept changing through yesterday (11 days before the proposed debate date), when Dembski advised Princehouse that any and all plans henceforth would have to be arranged mutually between Princehouse/Case Western and Bruce Chapman at Discovery Institute. (He has planned some debates in his time.) Dr. Princehouse wrote back, not to Chapman, but to Dembski to say that she suddenly is ready to adopt his plan in total. That left the matter in complete confusion.
What is going on here?
Discovery and its fellows are delighted to debate Dr. Princehouse and/or Kenneth Miller or whomever and want only to do so in a neutral forum with reasonable and MUTUAL agreements on topic, location, timing, and the other modalities associated with civilized debate. One side does not simply announce a place, and a time a few weeks’ hence, and demand that the opponent show up. Otherwise it looks like a publicity stunt.
But, we do gladly accept a debate in principle for later in the winter or early spring. We are coming up with ideas and venues and hope to see soon if Dr. Princehouse is still interested.
Meantime, don’t tell anybody, but it’s Christmas. We are filled with good cheer and good will for all. Yes, including the Darwinists at Case Western.
Over the next week or so, I plan to file several posts analyzing issues relating to Judge Jones' decision in the Dover case. I start today by revisiting the question of whether Judge Jones is an "activist" judge. Some Darwinists are livid that I've applied this label to the Judge. Although I've explained my reasons for regarding Jones as an activist in detail to many reporters, my full views haven't really been reported. So I thought I would explain them here.
I regard Judge Jones as an activist in this case not because I disagree with the outcome of his decision (although I do), but because I disagree with the injudicious and overreaching manner in which he framed his decision.
It is a standard principle in good constitutional jurisprudence that a judge should only go as far as necessary to answer the issue before him. So if a judge can decide a case on narrow grounds, that's what he ought to do. He shouldn't try to to use his opinion to answer all possible questions. In the present case, Judge Jones found that the Dover board did not act for a legitimate secular purpose. Instead, he determined that board members acted for clearly religious reasons. Having made this determination, the specific policy adopted by the Dover board was plainly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedents. End of story. There was no need for the Judge to launch an expansive discussion of whether intelligent design is science, whether there is scientific evidence for the concept, whether it is inherently religious, whether Darwinism has flaws, or whether Darwinian evolution is compatible with faith. A judge who actually adheres to the idea of judicial restraint would not have ventured into these other areas, because they were completely unnecessary for the disposition of the case.
Why, then, did Judge Jones venture so far afield from what was necessary to determine the case? From the comments he made to the newsmedia, it seems that he wanted his place in judicial history. He relished the idea that he could be the first judge to give a definitive pronouncement on ID, and he didn't want to let go of that oppportunity just because good judicial craftsmanship wouldn't allow it. Judge Jones also had no small estimate of his own importance in the scheme of things. Take the following remarkable passage from his opinion:
the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us. [p. 63] (emphasis added)
This passage exhibits the height of presumption, and it's why in my initial statement after the trial I referred to Judge Jones as having "delusions of grandeur." First, and contrary to the Judge's claim, a determination of whether ID is science was plainly NOT essential to the disposition of the case, as pointed out above. Even more troubling, however, is the Judge's suggestion that he wanted to determine whether ID is science so that no other judge need investigate the facts for himself. Judge Jones is a federal district court judge in one particular district court in Pennsylvania. But he's speaking as if he is more powerful than a majority on the United States Supreme Court! He is staking out the claim to have the right and duty to decide the question of whether inteligent design is science for all other judges in the entire United States in the future. Lower federal court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedents, but they certainly aren't bound by the rulings of other lower court judges at the same level. Although other federal judges certainly can refer to Judge Jones' decision (especially to his legal reasoning), every judge has a duty to reach an impartial and independent determination of the facts and law in the cases before him. Another federal district court judge can't simply say, "Well, Judge Jones has already decided the matter, so there is no need for me to do anything in this case before me." Nor can the judge tell the parties to a new case: "I've decided not to allow you to present any evidence, because Judge Jones already heard the evidence three years ago." Judge Jones, no matter what he thinks, is not the entire federal judiciary. Nor does he have the right to speak for the entire federal judiciary.
Another thing: Judges who truly believe in judicial restraint are careful not to try to use judicial power to decide divisive cultural controversies unless it is legally necessary to do so. In this case, as pointed out previously, Judge Jones had narrow grounds on which to base his decision. But he chose not to do so because he wanted to issue a definitive ruling on the disputed questions of whether intelligent design is science and whether it could ever be taught constitutionally in science classes. He wanted to decide the larger public controversy for all future legislators, school boards, and judges. That is judicial activism with a vengeance. It's the same type of activism that led the federal courts to try to decide the issue of slavery before the Civil War by judicial fiat in the case of Dred Scott. And it's the same type of judicial activism that led the federal courts to inject themselves into a host of social conflicts (such as abortion) during the past few decades. Far from resolving controversial issues, such activism betrays the democratic process and often leads to further polarization. By giving everyone a stake in the discussion, the democratic process tends to promote incremental solutions and compromise, which cools tensions over the long term. That's why judges who believe in judicial restraint are careful not to intervene on one side of a controversial debate unless absolutely necessary. It is the hallmark of activism for a judge to try to impose his view on a controversy when such a course of action is not absolutely necessary as a matter of law.
The main responses I've heard to the charge that Judge Jones is an activist are these: (1) he insists he's not an activist; and (2) he's a lifelong Republican.
Well, of course Judge Jones says he's not an activist. But methinks he protests too much. In his decision he goes out of his way to announce that his opinion will surely be attacked as an activist one. Far from indicating that he isn't an activist, I think that this self-serving disclaimer indicated that he plainly knew he was being an activist and wanted to cover himself.
Regarding the fact that he is a Republican appointed by a Republican President: So what? The most liberal activist member of the current United States Supreme Court (John Paul Stevens) was appointed not by Bill Clinton but by Republican President Gerald Ford. President Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, appointed a number of judges (at all levels) who turned out to be just as liberal as any Democratic appointees. Only someone with scant knowledge of judicial appointments over the past few decades would claim that the fact that a Republican president appointed a judge would mean that the judge could not be a judicial liberal or an activist.
Of course, the newsmedia are now fast spinning the tale that Judge Jones is not only a Republican, but he's supposed to be a conservative and devoutly religious Republican. As I will blog about soon, those claims seem to be about as mythical as the view that Judge Jones isn't an activist.
Intelligent Design critic Larry Arnhart has a thoughtful essay in Inside Higher Education encouraging students to learn about the controversy over Darwin by reading Darwin. Arnhart writes:
Why not introduce our students to this debate by having them read Darwin’s own writings in their biology classes? We could teach the controversy by teaching Darwin.
Arnhart seems to think that his idea won't be acceptable to either proponents or critics of intelligent design. Yet his proposal is something a number of ID proponents have advocated for some time.
I agree with Arnhart that reading Darwin is a fine way for students to engage the issues surrounding evolution. In fact, in my Social Darwinism course we spend the first several weeks reading Darwin's Descent of Man along with some modern proponents of neo-Darwinism. Reading Darwin is also something long advocated by John Angus Campbell, co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press).
Arnhart's proposal deserves serious reflection and discussion. Of course, there are some issues that need to be worked out. It's true that reading Darwin's writings such as The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man provides a great introduction to many issues surrounding the theory of evolution. But Darwin represents only one side of the debate. If one is serious about "teaching the controversy" one needs to let Darwin's critics speak in their own voices as well, and that means that readings from Darwin need to be paired with readings by his most thoughtful critics. Arnhart writes that he has done that in his own university courses. Well and good. But readings from Darwin's critics need to be a part of any serious proposal to "teach the controversy."
There is one part of Arnhart's essay that requires a clarification, because it doesn't get Discovery Institute's science education policy exactly right. Arnhart writes:
Proponents of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute...have adopted the rhetorical argument of “teaching the controversy.” They recommend teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection along with intelligent design theory, so that students are fully informed about all sides of this debate.
In fact, Discovery Institute recommends teaching evolution by natural selection but also scientific criticisms of the theory. It does not recommend that schools require intelligent design. This is the policy we have supported in Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and a number of other states. We do support the right of teachers to voluntarily discuss intelligent design, but we do not advocate this as a school board policy or state legislative policy. That is one reason we opposed the Dover School District policy from the start--well before there was any lawsuit. For a statement of our rationale on this point, see the letter we sent to the Pennsyvlania legislature opposing a bill on teaching intelligent design earlier this year.
Note: From now on, we will try to properly credit the University of Minnesota, Morris as the employer of Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers. In a press release earlier this month, we mistakenly stated that P.Z. Myers was a biology professor at the University of Minnesota. We soon received an e-mail from a public relations person at the University of Minnesota, Morris. She wanted to make clear that Dr. Myers was actually employed by the University of Minnesota, Morris.
The press release in question highlighted Myers' bigotry and intolerance, pointing out that he advocated "the public firing and humiliation of some teachers" because they are critical of Darwin, and quoting his complaint that Darwinists "aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough."
Apparently administrators at the University of Minnesota, Morris are proud of P. Z. Myers, and want to make sure that when we highlight his bigoted and intolerant comments that their institution gets appropriate credit for making such comments possible. OK, we'll try to comply. After all... we want to give full credit where credit is due.
“Judge Jones’ decision about teaching intelligent design is legally irrelevant for Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution model science curriculum,” says legal scholar and Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf, in response to calls from critics that the lesson plan should be repealed by the state board of education.
“The U.S. Supreme Court laid down the foundation for this body of law nearly 20 years ago when they wrote that “scientific critiques” of “prevailing scientific theories” may be taught in public schools,” said DeWolf, also a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Not only is Ohio outside of Judge Jones’ legal jurisdiction, but the Ohio State science education standards explicitly acknowledge that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design, so his determination that intelligent design is not science doesn't affect the actions of the Ohio Board of Education.”
Ohio’s “Critical Analysis of Evolution” model lesson plan was created to implement a benchmark in the Ohio state science standards which requires students to be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards also clearly state that they do not endorse teaching intelligent design.
The Ohio lesson plan does not discuss religion or alternative scientific theories such as intelligent design. Created with input from a science advisory committee that included teachers, science educators, and scientists from across Ohio, the lesson plan was defended by a number of scientists in public testimony before the state board of education adopted it in 2004.
Some Ohio critics of intelligent design are now talking about limiting the state’s teaching of scientific evidence which challenges Darwinian evolution.
“Unlike the ACLU, we want students to learn more about evolution, not less,” said Dr. John West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Students need to learn Darwinian evolution because it is the dominant theory of biological evolution. But, they also need to learn about some of the scientific evidence that challenges parts of the theory.”
“Judge Jones thought he could write the definitive opinion that would spare the rest of the country the need to think further about these issues ,” added DeWolf. “ But our governmental structure provides for a multiplicity of voices, including the United States Congress, state boards of education, and legislatures, whose views are quite different from Judge Jones' about the value of teaching the controversy. To borrow from Mark Twain, the reports of the death of the controversy have been greatly exaggerated."
University of Chicago law professor Albert Alschuler has written an excellent piece about the Dover intelligent design trial. He writes:
The court offers convincing evidence that some members of the Dover school board would have been delighted to promote their old time religion in the classroom. These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. Does that make any mention of intelligent design unconstitutional? It seems odd to characterize the desire to go as far as the law allows as an unlawful motive. People who try to stay within the law although they would prefer something else are good citizens.
The rest is here.
December 21, 2005
The opinion of the federal court judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board mischaracterized my role and actions on behalf of Discovery Institute in matters at issue in the case, making it necessary for me to set the record straight.
To be clear, prior to the filing of the lawsuit I never advised the members of the Dover Board in a privileged, attorney-client capacity. Further, I never advised members of the Dover Board to mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design or to adopt the ID policy at issue in the case. Rather, I strongly urged members of the Dover Board to either drop entirely the issue of alternatives to the teaching of evolution, or to only present scientific arguments both supporting and challenging the contemporary version of Darwin's theory and the chemical evolutionary theories for the origin of the first life. The Dover Board had their own legal counsel in their Solicitor and the public-interest law firm that they later hired. Members of the Dover Board who adopted the ID policy acted completely contrary to my strongest suggestions.
Page 100 of the PDF of Judge John Jones III's opinion for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refers to me by name. This page, along with a few other references throughout the opinion, gives the impression that I advised and supported Dover Board Member William Buckingham and/or other Board Members in pursuing the course of action that the Dover Board took and in promulgating the ID policy that the Dover Board later adopted. But that impression is a totally false one. Unfortunately, I was neither deposed for the case nor called as a witness to testify. I was never even invited to participate in discovery or the trial to relate events as they actually happened. It is disappointing to see my actions and suggestions so mischaracterized through a judicial opinion when I was not in any way involved in the discovery or trial process. The only source in the record upon which the Judge could base his misportrayal of my actions and stated position to Board Members was the deposition and trial testimony of Dover Board Members, much of which the Judge himself has found to be contradictory or discreditable.
Taking things from the top, between August of 2003 and August of 2005 I served Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture as a legal and public policy analyst. In keeping with Discovery Institute's long-held public policy position, I frequently reiterated to legislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students across the country that the legally and pedagogically appropriate way to treat the topic of evolution in public schools is to fully teach the scientific arguments for and against the contemporary version of Darwin's theory as well chemical evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the first life. Although I served at an institution supporting scientific research into the new theory of intelligent design and consider myself a proponent of the same, in all my time at Discovery Institute I consistently held to our public policy position that public schools should not mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design.
In the spring of 2004, through an e-mailed newspaper article, I became aware of the controversy in Dover Township, PA, concerning the teaching of evolution. Proceeding to call Dover Board Member William Buckingham, I told him that his Board would run afoul of the First Amendment of the Constitution should it choose to require students to learn about creationism or to censor the teaching of the contemporary version of Darwin's theory or chemical origin of life scenarios. I also made clear to Buckingham that Discovery Institute does not support the mandating of the theory of intelligent design. Although our phone conversations touched upon matters of legality, they also concerned matters of education policy and curriculum that I did not consider privileged. I clearly and unequivocally identified myself as a legal and policy analyst for the Discovery Institute.
In the hopes of persuading Buckingham away from leading the Dover Board on any unconstitutional and unwise course of action concerning the teaching of evolution, I sent Buckingham a DVD titled Icons of Evolution, along with a companion study guide. Those materials do not include arguments for the theory of intelligent design, but instead contain critiques of textbook treatments of the contemporary version of Darwin's theory and the chemical origin of the first life. The content of the materials is in keeping with the U.S. Supreme Court's pronouncement in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that public school students may be taught prevailing scientific theories along with "scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories." Even so, I never advocated that the material in Icons be given a preferred position in the curriculum or that it even be given "equal time."
It was simply my intent to provide Buckingham and his colleagues with a concrete option for teaching evolution in a full and fair manner--so as to involve the scientific arguments for the contemporary version of Darwin's theory and the chemical origin of life--along with some of the scientific criticisms that have been raised against those theories. I sought to provide him and the Board with a way of handling the topic of evolution without mandating the teaching of the theory of intelligent design or reading aloud any disclaimer mentioning it. Buckingham received the materials and later told me that the materials I sent him were the solution for their situation. Our correspondence thus ended, as I was led to believe that the Dover Board would not be requiring instruction in creationism or in the theory of intelligent design.
However, several weeks later I learned through news accounts that the Dover Board had obtained several copies of the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas & People (2d ed.) and planned on including them as part of the District's mandated curriculum. Subsequently, the Dover Board adopted the ID policy that was the subject of the ACLU's lawsuit. All through this time I reiterated to the Dover Board Members I came into contact with that the ID policy should be drastically revised, if not rescinded altogether. My comments in an Oct. 6 press release reiterate Discovery Institute’s policy position favoring the responsible teaching of scientific strengths and weaknesses of the contemporary version of Darwin’s theory and of chemical origin of life scenarios, but not the mandating of the theory of intelligent design. An August 25, 2005 USA Today article by Jill Lawrence provides a largely correct account of one instance in which I attempted to dissuade the Dover Board from the course it had taken:
"Attorney Seth Cooper advised the Dover school board not to adopt its policy and even offered guidelines for change. ‘We do believe a lawsuit is certain in your situation,’ Cooper told Alan Bonsell, the school board curriculum chairman, in a Dec. 10, 2004, e-mail. ‘We strongly recommend some corrective action be taken.’"
That e-mail did not constitute attorney advice, but it did convey my urgent recommendations for policy withdrawal or revision. The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on Dec. 14, 2004--the very same day Discovery Institute issued a press release calling for the withdrawal of the Dover Board’s ID policy.
Additional passages of Judge Jones' opinion bolster a misguided interpretation of my role in this matter on behalf of Discovery Institute. Page 122 of Judge Jones' opinion states that Discovery Institute was one of only two outside organizations that the Board consulted prior to its October 18, 2004 curriculum change vote, and that the purpose of such contacts was to obtain only legal advice. Also, on page 134, Judge Jones writes that the Dover Board "relied" upon legal advice by the Discovery Institute and another organization.
I take strong exception to the Judge's characterization of Discovery Institute--a secular public-policy think-tank and emphatically not a party to the lawsuit--as a culturally religious organization. Also, these references by the Judge leave open the impression that Discovery Institute somehow advised the Dover Board to adopt its ID policy. But that is completely false. The strong suggestions I gave to Buckingham prior to that vote touched upon legal matters, but my recommendations were disharmonious and completely at odds with the ID policy that the Board eventually adopted. Neither I nor anyone at Discovery Institute had any knowledge or role whatsoever in the drafting of the ID policy that the Dover Board adopted.
It should also be noted that, contrary to deposition testimony provided by Dover Board Members, neither myself nor Discovery Institute attorney Mark Ryland ever offered to represent the Dover Board. Subsequent to the ACLU's filing the lawsuit and Discovery Institute's own press release urging the ID policy's withdrawal, I met with three members of the Dover Board. I implored the Board Members in direct terms to withdraw or significantly alter their ID policy. A number of days thereafter, attorney Mark Ryland and I again met with those same three Board Members, urging them to withdraw the policy or to substantially revise it and hire as counsel local Pennsylvania attorneys that we had recommended to them. Consistent with the Dover Board's previous actions at every stage of its local evolution controversy, the Dover Board chose to completely disregard our legal and policy recommendations. As noted above, the Dover Board had its own legal counsel and ultimately chose its own course of action.
Seth L. Cooper
Former Discovery Institute Attorney
{PDF}
CSC Senior Fellow David K. DeWolf has provided us this first, short analysis of yesterday's decision in the Dover School Board case. DeWolf is a professor of law at Gonzaga University and the author of a briefing book for public school administrators, Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Curriculum.
In his opinion in the Kitzmiller case, Judge Jones accepted virtually every argument made by the ACLU.
To be fair, the ACLU did present testimony supporting the plaintiffs' claim that the school board had acted for religious motives in adopting the policy requiring that a four-paragraph statement be read.
If Jones had stopped there, few would have quarreled with his decision. However, he went on to address the question of whether intelligent design is science. He did so based on his belief that: "no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."
Relying almost exclusively on the evidence presented by the ACLU's witnesses, Jones held that ID is not science. He claimed that the witnesses established that ID relies on "supernatural" explanations, that it was untestable, and that it had produced no peer-reviewed literature. Each of these claims was carefully rebutted by the briefs submitted by amici, including the Discovery Institute and a large group of scientists who urged the court not to try to settle the question of the definition of science and the scientific status of intelligent design.
Judge Jones also reviewed the conflicting views of irreducible complexity presented by Michael Behe and Ken Miller. Whereas the Cambridge University Press thought the issue sufficiently provocative that it recently published a volume entitled "Debating Design," in which both scientists presented their views, Judge Jones took it upon himself to declare a winner in the debate.
Perhaps most startling and ironic about the case was Judge Jones' adoption of the testimony of John Haught, a theologian who testified for the ACLU. Haught gave his opinion that ID is religion, not science, but he quickly assured the court that there is no incompatibility between evolution and religion. Judge Jones picked up on this assurance and at the end of his opinion stated: "Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
This is like a judge assuring us that it is "utterly false" that Judaism is inconsistent with eating pork. "After all," a judge might say, "A distinguished rabbi testified that true Judaism no longer emphasizes dietary laws, but focuses on the ethical duties we owe to one another." Alarm bells should go off when a judge believes that he can resolve hotly contested issues about what someone's religion does or does not permit. But then again, after having taken upon himself the task of deciding what constitutes good science, Judge Jones' willingness to decide theological questions should come as no surprise.
Nonetheless, Judge Jones' pronouncements are not likely to be reviewed by an appellate court, because the newly elected Dover school board campaigned on their opposition to the contested policy, and an appeal is unlikely. But by everyone's reckoning the debate is far from over. Recently a federal judge's rejection of a textbook in Cobb County, Georgia was sharply questioned by a federal appeals court panel when the case was argued, and a federal judge in California denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a pro-Darwin website.
Across the country, legislatures and state boards of education are taking up the question of whether and how to "teach the controversy," and they not likely to find Judge Jones' analysis persuasive. As policies emerge that are more in keeping with the American spirit of open inquiry, the Kitzmiller case will recede as an interesting and ironic footnote to the history of this scientific and cultural debate.
David Klinghoffer begins:
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
The full essay is here.
You know you're fighting a media war when you jump for joy simply because a news article accurately characterizes your theory. Well, I'm jumping for joy right now because an AP article by Martha Raffaele in the Philadelphia Inquirer has an excellent definition of intelligent design:
"U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to rule Tuesday on whether the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause."
("School district awaits judge's decision on 'intelligent design'" by Martha Raffaele, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec 20, 2005)
By using the term "intelligent cause," this article accurately characterizes how ID proponents promote their theory, rather than a straw version which says that intelligent design refers to a "supernatural creator" (the "ACLU Darwinist" definition) a "supreme being" (the Scientology definition)) or a "higher power" (the "Alcoholics Anonymous" definition).
Design proponents simply refer to an "intelligent cause" because the available information from the empirical data don't allow design theorists to scientifically infer any more than "mere intelligence" as a cause. Even Eugenie Scott concedes that “[t]he intelligent behavior of material creatures is therefore natural, and an appropriate subject for scientific investigation.” (Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism, pg. 123 (Greenwood Press 2004)) Intelligent causes are valid objects of scientific study, and make valid explanatory causes. "Higher powers," "Supreme Beings," or "Supernatural Creators" would be beyond the reach of study through the scientific method, and thus cannot be referenced as a scientific explanation.
It's a safe bet that any reporter who uses any of those three definitions of ID either (1) is uninformed and not read anything written by an intelligent design proponent, (2) has only talked to Darwinists from the NCSE who constantly misrepresent the theory, or (3) is an informed Darwinist who is purposefully misconstruing the theory so as to engender public opposition. Often it's some combination of all three. Regardless, I find this issue incredible: where else does the publicly attacked viewpoint rarely get properly defined by the media? Oh yeah, it's just like everything else that people oppose using political tactics.
Here are my very brief, quick and dirty Top 10 problems with the Kitzmiller decision. Some of these will be elaborated more in future posts by various Evolution News & Views posters.
10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn't (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents.
9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).**
8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).**
7) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is a solid theory (pg. 41) and that irreducible complexity has been refuted (pg. 64).**
6) It sadly threatens the teaching of evolution by making religious motivations of public proponents a relevant factor in deciding whether or not a theory can be taught.
5) It wrongly approves of the “it’s wrong to single out evolution” argument which was validated in Selman. (pg. 39-40) and wrongly claims “evolution is theory ... not fact” language is unconstitutional based upon Selman (which may be overruled on that point anyway).
4) It sadly threatens the teaching of evolution by using the endorsement test to determine if a scientific theory of biological origins would endorse (or presumably "dis-endorse") the teaching of a controversial idea in the eyes of the average citizen.
3) It asserts the factually false claim that ID proponents haven’t published peer reviewed papers (pg. 64).
2) It completely ignores ALL of the statements in Pandas making it clear that ID is NOT a supernatural explanation--the Judge doesn't even mention with these statements, much less explain why the Court disagrees with them.
1) Incredibly, this trial court decision describes itself as the final answer for all courts, behaving and talking like it was handed down from the Supreme Court, as precedent for all. (pg. 63-64).
** Even if these points are true, which some people may believe they are, courts have no business ruling on such matters. These are not issues for courts to rule on.
Several newspapers covering today's Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling against intelligent design are highlighting Judge John Jones' spurious determination that intelligent design is creationism in disguise. They're accurately reporting the judge's opinion here, for his decision reads like a condensation of atheist-activist Barbara Forrest's mythological history of intelligent design.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that the judge decided that "'Intelligent design' is just another name for creationism--and therefore teaching it in public schools violates the constitutional principle of church-state separation." The story in The New York Times begins, "A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances 'a particular version of Christianity.'"
Instead, design theorists argue that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain things in nature. This is compatible with many different worldviews (Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, the deism of a former atheist like Antony Flew). It's only incompatible with those worldviews that insist there can't be any physical evidence for design in nature (some forms of atheism and, surprisingly, a form of Christianity). It follows that Judge Jones is privileging these latter worldviews (one of them an undeniably religious worldview) at the expense of the other worldviews, some but not all of them religious.
How did Judge Jones arrive at such a pernicious understanding of what religious and intellectual freedom in America means? He followed the thinking of expert witness Barbara Forrest to a t.
What follows builds on an earlier essay of mine, with additions from myself, a couple of CSC fellows, and The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the foundation responsible for Of Pandas and People, the supplemental textbook mentioned in the Dover policy. The judge, following Forrest, ruled that intelligent design is simply creationism under a different name, and that it began after the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. The judge arrived at this bogus conclusion (1) by substituting his own description of creationism for the Court’s description of it in Edwards, (2) by mischaracterizing the history and content of intelligent design, and (3) by committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Forrest testified that intelligent design and creationism are one and the same. However, she also testified that young earth creationism is the oldest form of creationism. That comment suggests that she understands that the design arguments that Socrates and Plato made more than 2300 years ago (from evidence in nature rather than from religious authority)1 were not creationist arguments and, therefore, that design arguments are not necessarily creationism.
The fact is, philosophers and scientists have been formulating design arguments free of religious assumptions and Scriptural narrative apparatus for centuries. Even the term “intelligent design” is more than 100 years old. Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller employed it in an 1897 essay, writing that “it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.”2 Notice here that Schiller, like design theorist Michael Behe, is arguing for intelligent design without rejecting all forms of evolution or even common descent. But Forrest asserted that a telltale sign of creationism was a rejection of specifically Darwinian evolution. Since proponents of intelligent design reject Darwin’s theory of common descent by blind evolution, they too are creationists, she appears to argue. But structuralists reject modern Darwinism, and they are neither creationists nor design theorists.
Even the co-promulgator of “Darwinian evolution,” Alfred Russel Wallace, made a design argument against Darwinism from evidence in nature. He argued that the human brain was unnecessarily large on purely Darwinian grounds, that it had many abilities that were not useful until ages after our ancestors had become fully human. Apart from whether one accepts Wallace’s design argument, one can employ the fallacy of the undistributed middle to assert that Wallace was a creationist:
Major Premise: Creationists critique Darwinism and are open to intelligent causes in nature.
Minor Premise: The co-founder of Darwinism critiqued Darwinism and was open to intelligent causes in nature;
Conclusion: The co-founder of Darwinism was a creationist.
The argument is simultaneously invalid and beside the point. Wallace’s argument should be judged not according to some spurious label attached to it but on its own merits.
The Origin of the Contemporary Theory of Intelligent Design in Biology
More rigorous design arguments would follow in the second half of the 20th century. In By Design, a history of the current design controversy, journalist Larry Witham traces the immediate roots of the intelligent design movement in biology to the 1950s and ’60s, and the movement itself to the 1970s.3 What fueled the emergence of intelligent design? Biochemists were unraveling the secret of DNA and discovering that it was part of an elaborate information processing system that included nanotechnology of unparalleled sophistication. One of the first intellectuals to describe the significance of these discoveries was respected chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, who in a 1967 article in the science journal Chemical Engineering News argued that “machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and that “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.”4
Biochemist Michael Behe would later develop Polanyi’s insights with his concept of irreducible complexity. And mathematician William Dembski would find Polanyi’s work so influential that he would name Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center after him.
Polanyi’s work also influenced the seminal 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines). Thaxton and his co-authors argued that matter and energy can accomplish only so much by themselves, and that some things can only “be accomplished through what Michael Polanyi has called ‘a profoundly informative intervention.’”5
As the book neared completion, Thaxton and approached origin-of-life researcher Dean Kenyon, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and author of a leading monograph in the field, Biochemical Predestination. Since Mystery critiqued the purely materialistic origin-of-life scenario laid out in Biochemical Predestination, they feared that Kenyon would reject their argument that an intelligent cause was the best explanation for the origin of life. Instead, Kenyon found the book “an extraordinary new analysis of an age-old question” and volunteered to write the Foreword.
FTE placed Mystery with The Philosophical Library of New York, publisher of more than two dozen Nobel laureates, and it soon became the best-selling book on chemical evolution on an advanced college level. The work received favorable reviews in numerous places, including in the prestigious Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine and the Journal of College Science Teaching (publication of the National Science Teacher’s Assoc.), and many others. In 1988, it received special kudos from Prof. Klaus Dose in his major review article of origin of life studies, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” (Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988.). And Yale University Professor Harold Morowitz, esteemed as a leading authority on thermodynamics and the origin of life, declared that Mystery “has a considerable scientific thrust.”
Kenyon explained that he was attracted to Mystery (1984) for the cautious and rigorous way it moved from observation to conclusions without drifting into unwarranted assertions about the identity of the first organism’s designer. A key passage from the book’s epilogue illustrates nicely this quality of the work:
We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?6
The epistemological restraint and the studious effort to ground the argument in observation and uniformitarian thinking is typical of the book as a whole, evidenced by the fact that Forrest felt compelled to go to a footnote in the epilogue when trying to discredit the book in her testimony, a footnote, moreover, that merely quotes a science book on evolutionary biology from 1973, Biogenesis, Evolution, Homeostasis. There P. Fong comments that the Johannine Prologue anticipates the contemporary notion that “the ultimate source of information has a separate, independent existence.”7
Forrest also incorrectly asserted in her testimony that Mystery claims to make a scientific inference for the existence of a Creator beyond the cosmos. In the epilogue, the three authors do consider several scenarios for the origin of life, including an intelligence from within the cosmos (here they describe a scenario suggested by Nobel Laureate Francis Crick) and an intelligence from outside the cosmos. The entire discussion in this section grapples with evidence in nature, and the authors conclude that while design can be detected in biology, science cannot determine from this evidence whether the design was from a creator outside the cosmos.8 The same point is made at greater length in Pandas, where the authors—under the guidance of the book’s editor, Thaxton—raise the issue of a creative intelligence outside the cosmos as they make the following point:
[T]he place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.9
Dean Kenyon agreed to co-author Pandas and, before this, agreed to write the foreword to Mystery in part because he shared with its three authors a commitment to investigating the possibility of design in nature without bringing in religious assumptions or making inferences about the identity of the designer unwarranted from the scientific evidence.
Forrest’s Selective Portrait of Dean Kenyon
Now when asked by the plaintiffs’ attorney, “What do you know about Dean Kenyon?” Forrest omitted the fact that Kenyon co-authored a leading origin-of-life monograph in the late 1960s, Biochemical Predestination. The omission is typical of Forrest’s highly selective and misleading form of historical analysis.
We see this as well in Forrest’s discussion of Kenyon’s testimony in Edwards vs. Aguillard. There Kenyon described a science open to intelligent causes but one free of religious presuppositions or assertions about the identity of the designer. He described how he did origins science, how a science open to intelligent causes ought to be done. Forrest presented his testimony as a smoking gun, supposed proof that Kenyon was just the sort of creationist the Supreme Court had ruled against in 1987.
But the Supreme Court concluded that the alternative to modern evolutionary theory advocated by Louisiana involved a good deal more than the empirically-based and methodologically minimal approach to design arguments that Kenyon practiced and described. In Edwards, the Court found Louisiana’s act entailed the teaching of religion by virtue of a specific religious construction, comprised of particular teachings clearly paralleling the ‘Book of Genesis. Thus, it was a specific set of teachings or doctrines from a religious source that constituted religion.
Kenyon, it’s clear, strove to define the term “creation science” rather than letting the term get defined by the activities of the Louisiana state legislature. Kenyon sought not only to open up public school science class rooms to the possibility of intelligent causation in biology, but also to encourage others open to design to employ the methodology he had developed over decades as a leading origin-of-life researcher. “My approach has always been to look at this question from entirely within a scientific framework,” Kenyon said. “After all, I came to be a dissenter to scientific materialism by looking at the origin of life experiments, including experiments of mine. My transition was from the empirical sciences, through an analysis of the empirical data in origins science, including the paleontological evidence. I grew increasingly uncomfortable presenting conclusions to my students that weren’t backed up by the empirical data.”10
Words have histories, and the 1980s saw a struggle over what was to be the dominant meaning of the term “creation science.” Kenyon’s description of it—despite his being a leading origin-of-life researcher—lost out. The Supreme Court looked not at how Kenyon practiced origins science but at the content of the Louisiana legislature’s Act and defined the term “creation science” as an approach that mingled religious premises with scientific evidence. If Kenyon had held out hope for the term “creation science,” that hope ended with Edwards. However, neither Kenyon nor the authors of Mystery needed to change their methodology. What they now needed more than ever was a consistently distinct vocabulary for a methodology that was already distinct in substance from the biblical creationism found in the Louisiana act.
The Language and Substance of Intelligent Design
The language of design theory had already grown more distinct by 1984, and would continue to do so as the scholars developing the theory sharpened both its vocabulary and methodology. In the year following Mystery, we find more language typical of contemporary design theory in molecular biologist Michael Denton’s 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: “The inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”11
Denton does not characterize himself as a design theorist, but the quotation goes to the heart of the difference between creationism and the theory of intelligent design. The essential difference isn’t whether the writer speaks of the “creation of DNA” versus the “intelligent design of DNA.” The difference is more substantive than stylistic. Creationism defends a particular reading of the Genesis account, usually including reference to a global flood and the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design isn’t based on religious presuppositions or a biblical narrative framework but rather argues that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world. Unlike the creationism on trial in Edwards vs. Aguillard, the theory of intelligent design does not go beyond the scientific evidence to identify the designer nor does it defend the Genesis account (or that of any other sacred text for that matter). This is why a former atheist like British philosopher Antony Flew, who rejects the Judeo-Christian God, could nevertheless embrace the intelligent design argument for the origin of life.12
The Origin of Pandas
Late in 1982, the manuscript of Mystery was ready to be shopped to the publishers. It was at that same time that work began on Pandas. Mystery was written as an upper-level college text and Pandas as a supplemental textbook for high schoolers, but perusal of the two works makes clear that the methodology of the two books is of a piece: both make arguments strictly from empirical evidence, and both take care not to extend design inferences to defend unwarranted conclusions about the designer. As Pandas explains in “A Note to Teachers”:
Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had and intelligent source.13
Even in very early drafts of Pandas, the term intelligent cause and its cognates were employed repeatedly. The term “creation” was also used, but throughout the drafting process, the book’s arguments remained free of religious presuppositions, and never pretended that the bare evidence of design revealed the identity of the designer.
Forrest and now Judge Jones have pointed to the word “creation” in early drafts as supposed evidence that intelligent design is merely disguised creationism. The argument is both cynical and misleading. At the time the authors began work on Pandas, there was no commonly accepted way to describe the position being advocated therein, namely that nature provides clear indicators of design. It was only in that very generic sense that the book used the notion of “creation”—that is, that signs of plan, purpose, and intelligence in nature point to an intelligent cause.
But the term “creation” also had a very specific and quite different meaning, namely those who start with a religious premise (that their particular literal interpretation of the Bible is true) and then read nature in light of their interpretation of Scripture. It was this approach that was held by the Supreme Court to be problematic from an Establishment Clause perspective.
As noted above, the Court’s decision, in essence, highlighted a particular meaning of “creation science.” Once that term had been enshrined in by the Court, it’s understandable and perfectly appropriate that people trying to use the term in a very different way (reasoning from scientific evidence to design) would be all the more interested in finding a term that more precisely fit what they were actually doing. Without changing the substance of the argument (from evidence in nature to intelligence), the authors searched for a more generic term, one more apt and less likely to be misunderstood.
As the academic editor for FTE, Thaxton was then serving as the editor for Pandas, and as it neared completion, Thaxton continued to cast around for a term to describe a science open to evidence for intelligent causation and free of religious assumptions, a term without the religious baggage associated with “creation” but one less ponderous than “intelligent cause,” and, at the same time, more general, a term that could refer to the design theory in toto.
He found it in a phrase he picked up from a NASA scientist—intelligent desgin. “That’s just what I need,” Thaxton recalls thinking. “It’s a good engineering term…. After I first saw it, it seemed to jibe. When I would go to meetings, I noticed it was a phrase that would come up from time to time. And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally.” Soon the term “intelligent design” was incorporated into the language of the book.
Engineering, Information Theory, and the Theory of Intelligent Design
The term intelligent design was already a functioning term in science, and it was just a matter of extending the term to the process of design detection in natural structures. “I knew from Polanyi that the laws of chemistry and physics were not responsible for the sequencing of the nucleotides,” Thaxton said, “but I didn’t know how to link that to intelligence till I read Hubert Yockey’s paper in 1981 that there is a structural identity between the nucleotide sequences in DNA and the alphabetical letter sequences in a book.”14
Yockey wrote, “It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”15 Yockey is not a proponent of intelligent design, but the passage marked a turning point for Thaxton: “As soon as I made the connection that it wasn’t just analogy but the treatment of these was mathematically identical, I said, ‘Well, if the treatments are mathematically identical and I know that intelligence is responsible for the alphabetical letter sequence, then I’m on safe ground when I say that intelligence is responsible for the sequencing of the nucleotides.’” 16
The theory of intelligent design in biology emerged from these attempts to grapple with the biological information revolution of the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s. In his 1985 critique of modern evolutionary theory, biologist Michael Denton commented, “It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that [philosopher David] Hume’s criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing.”17
The Genetic Fallacy
Instead of fully and adequately addressing this and other lines of evidence for intelligent design, the judge, following Forrest and plaintiffs, knock down straw men arguments and then fixate on motive. The fact that apparently escapes the judge is that no party to this debate is religiously neutral. Indeed, for every citation Forrest gives in which ID proponents obtain religious mileage from intelligent design, it is possible to cite evolutionists who obtain equally religious (or anti-religious) mileage from evolution. Forrest’s expert witness report never makes clear the distinction between the religious motivations of some ID proponents, the religious implications of ID, and ID as such (i.e., as a scientific program).
Forrest also attempted to de-legitimize Pandas by stating that the co-authors, Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, have given aid and comfort to traditional creationists, a point that apparently resonanted with the judge. She noted that Davis even co-authored a book in the mold of traditional creation science, The Case for Creation, never mind that Pandas is a very different kind of book. What Forrest was careful to obscure in her testimony are the scientific credentials of these two men.
First, Kenyon and Davis were highly regarded scientists. Kenyon was the coauthor of McGraw-Hill’s best selling book ever on an advanced college level on chemical evolution, Biochemical Predestination (1969). He was Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University, a participant in the prestigious Festschrift of Sidney Fox (the most frequently cited origin of life scientist in high school biology textbooks) and widely regarded as one of the world’s top four or five authorities on the origin of life. And Davis, together with his co-authors, Claude Villee and Eldra Soloman, was co-author of World of Biology, the most widely used university-level biology majors’ major textbook in the world, (1985, W.B. Saunders), and of Human Anatomy and Physiology (1985, W.B. Saunders). Should these books be deemed impermissible as well because Kenyon and Davis were key contributors? Of course not.
Even if Davis walked around in a t-shirt that read, “Card-carrying creationist” we would need to look at both Pandas and Human Anatomy and Physiology independently of this fact. Did Davis employ the methodology of biblical creationism in either book? No. In Human Anatomy and Physiology the methodology of experimental biology is employed, and in Pandas, the methodologically restricted and rigorous methodology of intelligent design is employed, a methodology free of religious presuppositions and biblical narrative framework.
Most philosophy programs at the college level offer a course in critical thinking. Although Barbara Forrest is a professional philosopher, much of her argument (repeated by Judge Jones) consists in committing what such courses refer to as the genetic fallacy. According to one standard text on critical thinking,
[The genetic fallacy is] a type of argument in which an attempt is made to prove a conclusion false by condemning its source or genesis. Such arguments are fallacious because how an idea originated is irrelevant to its viability. 18
Every variant of the genetic fallacy that Forrest and Judge Jones employ against intelligent design—including guilt by association—can be employed against Darwinism. One could make a parallel argument against the National Center for Science Education (the premier watchdog group for defending Darwinism against the theory of intelligent design). For many Americans, Hugh Hefner does not exemplify moral probity. Yet Hugh Hefner has lent his name to support the NCSE: for her work with the NCSE, Eugenie Scott received the Playboy Foundation’s 1999 Hugh H. Hefner First Amendment Award.19 Should those opposed to Hugh Hefner’s moral views for that reason reject the work of the NCSE? Of course not. The work of the center must be judged on its own merits.
In following Barbara Forrest's fallacious reasoning and mythological history of intelligent design, Judge Jones has erred badly.
Notes:
1. See Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, Book I, chapter 4; Plato, The Laws, Book X.
2. F.C. S. Schiller, “Darwinism and Design Argument,” in Schiller, Humanism: Philosophical Essays (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1903), 141. This particular essay was first published in the Contemporary Review in June 1897.
3. Larry Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003).
4. Michael Polanyi, “Life transcending physics and chemistry,”Chemical and Engineering News, 45(35), 21 August 1967, pp. 54-66.
5. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley, 1984), 185.
6. The Mystery of Life’s Origins, 211.
7. P. Fong, Biogenesis, Evolution, Homeostasis, Ed. A. Locker. (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1973), 93. Qtd. The Mystery of Life’s Origin (footnote 75, epilogue). ??
8. Mystery of Life’s Origin, 211. ??
9. Of Pandas and People, 126-7. The authors make a similar point in the Overview near the beginning of the book: "If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. What kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist" (7).
10. Interview with Dean Kenyon, 8.18.05.
11. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Great Britain: Burnett Books, 1985), 341.
12. Antony Flew, interview by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005.
13. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; J.D. Barrow and F.J. Tippler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986).
14. Interview with Charles Thaxton, 8.16.05.
15. Hubert P. Yockey, 1981. "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91, 13.
16. Interview with Charles Thaxton, 8.16.05.
17. Denton, 340.
18. S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 5th ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), 198.
19. See http://www.playboyenterprises.com/foundation/1999winners.html (last accessed April 25, 2005).
Judge John E. Jones III ruled today in the Dover vs. Kitzmiller intelligent trial. Deciding to move beyond the narrow issue of whether the Dover school board had a legitimate secular purpose in briefly alerting students to the theory of intelligent design, the judge also took it upon himself to tell scientists, science educators, and philosophers of science what is and isn't science and, specifically, why intelligent design, in his opinion, isn't science--though he conceded that ID arguments may be true.
Judge Jones offered three mains reasons for his conclusion that ID isn't science, all of which fall apart on close inspection.
Jones asserted: "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."
No. Design theorists argue that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world. Jones countered this point by noting that most design theorists believe in the Christian God, untroubled by the fact that he is here committing the genetic fallacy, dismissing an argument based on its source (here Christian scientists and philosophers). Commented one legal scholar, "It is worse than horrible, if that is possible. Essentially, what the judge has concluded is that if one is a religious citizen who offers an argument for a point of view consistent with your religious worldview, you will be segregated from the public square. But not because your argument is bad, but because of your beliefs and the company you keep or may have kept. I can't believe this could happen in America."
But lest anyone accuse the judge of bowing before the hobgoblin of little minds (consistency), he also in his ruling noted that the Dover school board, in a newsletter, pointed out that even British philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew came to recognize the legitimacy of certain ID arguments. The obvious point of the newsletter passage was to provide evidence that even respected scholars who are not Christians (or even theists) have examined intelligent design arguments and found them both sound and persuasive. But Judge Jones, apparently inhabiting the self-enclosed little world of the dogmatic Darwinists, somehow took this as further evidence that the Dover policy was all about religion (otherwise, why would they mention that Flew was a former atheist!).
Judge Jones was also unfazed by the fact that design theorists rightly infer mere design from things like the sophisticated machines in living cells, realizing that such features do not come with a maker's signature on the machinery (they would have to move to philosophy and theology to search out the identity of the designer).
Jones continues: "(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's."
The dualism he refers to goes something like this: "If one can punch enough holes in Neo-Darwinism, then creationism must be true." Design theory does not proceed this way, his appeals to the ACLU's expert witnesses, and his misrepresentations of Behe and Minnich, notwithstanding.
To see how design theory does proceed, consider Stephen Meyer's peer-reviewed essay published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There Meyer, the program director for Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the institutional home of the theory of intelligent design, examines Neo-Darwinian, punctuationalist, self-organizational, and structuralist models for the origin of the animal forms of the Cambrian explosion, and after arguing that each one is fatally flawed, goes on to offer a positive case for intelligent design as the best explanation.
More fundamentally, Meyer holds up to the light a set of exhaustive categories: (1) the Cambrian animal forms are eternal; (2) the Cambrian forms emerged by chance; (3) emerged by lawlike processes; (4) by a combination of chance and lawlike processes; or (5) by a process that involved an intelligent cause, one that could also have involved the other two sorts of causes. This really does cover all the bases.
Moreover, Meyer doesn't argue that dismantling the current competing explanations proves intelligent design in the way a deductive syllogism proves its conclusions. Building on the work of mainstream philosophers of science, Meyer argued in his work at Cambridge University in the History and Philosophy of Science that scientific models are routinely advanced as arguments to the best explanation. Thus, Meyer argues that intelligent design is simply the best explanation for the Cambrian explosion, an explanation that has grown stronger and stronger as more and more evidence has been uncovered.
Jones continues: "and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
Instead, ID has merely been denounced by the governing bodies of various scientific organizations, while a small but growing minority of scientists have challenged the reigning paradigm. Scientists like Kenneth Miller have merely refuted straw men versions of intelligent design, such as the depiction of ID as merely a negative argument. The judge attempts to head off our positive case for design by stating that it's merely the "Reverend Paley's" watch analogy updated for the modern era.
The charge is two-fold. (1) Paley was a Reverend arguing for God, so all design arguments are just religious arguments. Never mind that the pagan philosophers Socrates and Plato made similar design arguments.
Perhaps sensing that this point is weak on the face of it, the judge attempts to dismantle design theory's appeal to our uniform experience of things like information and intricate and functional machinery, things that always turn out to be designed when we know the history of their origin. With a childlike faith, Judge Jones quotes an ACLU expert witness who notes that the comparison between design in human artifacts and in natural structures is not a perfect identity (gasp!).
The logic is fallacious on the face of it. Imagine if someone unfamiliar with British culture said, "Basketball, football, and hockey are all sports, possessing such-and-such common features. It's most likely that this strange activity called Cricket is also a sport, since it involves these same features." If we extend the logic of Judge Jones and the ACLU's expert witnesses to the Cricket argument, we would have to conclude that we couldn't argue from the other examples that Cricket was probably a sport. Why? Because there are differences between Cricket and the other three sports. The reasoning is ludicrous.
Design theory holds that we have broad and detailed experience with intelligent causes. Here the identity in the comparison is intelligence or mind. Intelligent agents can look ahead to a future goal and arrange parts for the purpose of some future outcome. Material causes can't do this, a point not even contested by Neo-Darwinists. Such purposeful activity often leaves behind telltale features in the designed systems, a point granted in scientific fields like forensics. [Added] As Meyer argues, in this way the theory of intelligent extends the widely accepted uniformitarian thinking of geologist Charles Lyell, who argued that presently acting causes are the key to intepreting the past. Here the type of presently acting cause is intelligence.
[Added] As Meyer explains in a recent essay, "Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems, namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter irreducibly complex systems--such as an integrated circuit or an internal combustion engine--and we know how they arose, invariably a designing engineer played a role." Or as he notes elsewhere in the essay:
The scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, they also argue for design because we know from experience that systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer-from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity."
The judge makes many other incorrect assertions, including the charge that ID arguments aren't testable. I answer, or link to colleagues who answer, many of the most common objections against intelligent design here, many of those objections having been recycled by Judge Jones.
SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”
“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West. “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."
In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.
"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."
"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.
"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the world.
A “FAQ” for the interested layperson about the current federal lawsuit over the teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board. A decision in the case is now expected on Tuesday, December 20, 2005.
By Casey Luskin
This article responds to many questions we have received about what happened in the trial over teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania. Many people have wondered what the potential ramifications of this case are for the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design, and have also wondered if the plaintiffs’ arguments in this case were accurate.
This is a complex case. This article attempts to address those questions by laying out the case in simple terms, and by explaining and assessing the arguments made by the plaintiffs. Links to additional resources are often provided for those wanting more information. Additionally, this article explains the legal rules which will likely be applied, and also explores the broader ramifications of these arguments with regard to the big question at stake in the case: “is it constitutional to teach intelligent design?”
Outline:
1. What is the Dover case all about?
2. What are the plaintiffs’ primary arguments?
3. What is the law that will probably be applied in this case?
4. Are the plaintiffs’ primary arguments correct, accurate, and truthful?
5. What are possible outcomes of this case, and what might be the ramifications for teaching intelligent design?
6. Links to Amicus Briefs
1. What is the Dover case all about?
On October 18, 2004, the Dover Area School Board (in Dover, Pennsylvania) adopted a policy which requires that science teachers in the Dover Area School District read the following statement to students when teaching about biological evolution:
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
Subsequently, on December 14, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of 11 plaintiffs (the lead one being “Tammy Kitzmiller”) against the Dover Area School Board, seeking to prevent the reading of this 4-paragraph statement. Thus the case is titled “Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board.” In this lawsuit, the ACLU ultimately seeks a permanent injunction to prevent this 4-paragraph statement from being read to students.
The lawsuit alleges that “the effect of the defendant Dover School Board’s October 18 resolution as implemented by defendant Dover Area School District . . . will be to compel public school science teachers to present to their students in their biology class information that is inherently religious, not scientific, in nature.”
But the truth is that the ACLU has a much broader agenda than to ban merely this 4-paragraph statement from the science classroom. The ACLU believes that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in all circumstances, and thus it is seeking a broad ruling which holds that it is generally unconstitutional to teach intelligent design.
The trial over Dover’s policy began on September 26, 2005 as a bench (i.e. nonjury) trial in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with the Honorable Judge John Jones III hearing the case.
The trial concluded on November 4, 2005.
2. What are the plaintiffs’ primary arguments?
Simply put, the ACLU’s arguments can be broken down to essentially three categories. Here are their 3 primary arguments:
(a) The Dover Area School Board had predominantly religious motivations, and did not rely upon secular purposes, in enacting their policy;
(b) Dover’s policy employs “evolution is theory … not fact” language which has a primary effect which advances religion;
(c) Intelligent design is an “inherently religious view” such that teaching it will necessarily, in all circumstances, always have a primary effect which advances religion.
As can be seen, the ACLU’s arguments (a) and (b) are specific to the facts, events, and actions which have taken place in Dover (with the caveat that plaintiffs occasionally make the highly dubious allegation in their (a) argument that design could never be taught under a secular purpose under any circumstances). In contrast, however, ACLU’s argument (c) is a general argument which would allegedly apply to any school district which might teach intelligent design.
3. What is the law that will probably be applied in this case?
Since 1971, nearly every case decided by the Supreme Court about the Establishment Clause has employed a test created in the famous case Lemon v. Kurtzman (called the Lemon test). Furthermore, most Supreme Court cases dealing with religion in schools have employed the Lemon test. Additionally, the Lemon test has been the primary judicial vehicle for deciding cases over the teaching of origins of life. This Lemon test states that a law will be constitutional only if it meets each of the three following criteria (commonly called “prongs”):
[1] First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
[2] [S]econd, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion,
[3] [F]inally, the statute must not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion.”
(Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) at 612-13 (internal citations and quotations omitted))
To reiterate, if a law fails any one of these prongs, it is unconstitutional. In this case, the ACLU does not allege that Dover’s policy violates the third “entanglement prong.”
The Lemon test has been sharply criticized over the years. The most common criticism is that its “first prong” should not delve into the motivations or purposes of legislators because (a) it can be difficult to correctly ascertain the true motives of an entire legislative body; (b) our country permits religious freedom and has a long history permitting people to act publicly upon their religious values; and (c) all that really matters is the effect of a law, and if the effect is secular and beneficial to society, then the motivations for passing it should be immaterial. As Justice Scalia pointed out in a case dealing with the teaching of creationism, “[t]oday's religious activism may give us the Balanced Treatment Act … yesterday's resulted in the abolition of slavery, and tomorrow's may bring relief for famine victims.”
Despite these criticisms, as one court dealing with an evolution disclaimer observed, “[a]lthough widely criticized and occasionally ignored, the Lemon test continues to govern Establishment Clause cases.” Thus, while Lemon may have flaws and many legal scholars continue to question its adequacy as a legal rule (particularly with regards to its purpose prong), it will still likely be applied in this case.
Plaintiffs allege that Dover’s policy violates the prongs of Lemon test as follows:
| Argument: | | Prong Of Lemon Dover Allegedly Violated: | | Does this address the general constitutionality of teaching intelligent design? |
| |
| (a) The Dover Area School Board had predominantly religious motivations, and did not rely upon secular purposes, in enacting their policy. | | Prong (1) (the “purpose prong”). | | Generally “No,” but only “Yes” to the small extent that plaintiffs argue that intelligent design could NEVER be taught under a secular purpose. |
| |
| (b) Dover’s policy employs “evolution is theory … not fact” language which has a primary effect which advances religion. | | Prong (2) (the “effect prong”). | | No. A policy teaching students about intelligent design could easily be enacted without the controversial “evolution is theory … not fact” language. |
| |
| (c) intelligent design is an “inherently religious view” such that teaching it necessarily will, in all circumstances, always have a primary effect which advances religion. | | Mostly Prong (2), but to a lesser extent Prong (1). | | Yes. This argument deals directly with the general constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. |
4. Are the plaintiffs’ primary arguments correct, accurate, and truthful?
In this section, I will try to address some of the primary arguments being offered in this case which could have a bearing upon the general constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. The following arguments will be addressed:
a. Intelligent design could never be taught under a secular purpose.
b. Science is defined by methodological naturalism.
c. ID is not science, therefore it is religion; ID endorses religion.
d. ID appeals to a supernatural creator or supernatural cause.
e. ID is not testable.
f. ID is creationism.
a. Intelligent design could never be taught under a secular purpose.
The Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard held that passing a law under a religious motivation was permissible as long as the religious purpose did not “predominate.” Thus, a law which is passed under partially religious motivations is permissible as long as secular reasons for passing the law predominate.
In this section I will not address the question of “Did Dover itself have predominantly secular purposes for passing the law.” This is a question of fact for the judge to decide. However, I am interested in the bigger argument the ACLU has made, that there are NEVER any secular purposes for teaching intelligent design. I strongly disagree with this argument.
There are many secular purposes under which design theory could be taught:
• Informing students about competing theories of biological origins as they exist within the scientific community;
• Helping students to better understand neo-Darwinism by understanding a theory with which it competes;
• Enhancing critical thinking skills by exposing students to alternative explanations for the origin of life;
• Helping students to understand the value of dissenting viewpoints in the advancement of scientific knowledge;
• To comply with the Conference Report of the No Child Left Behind Act, by including “the full range of scientific views” about biological evolution in its science curriculum.
As strong evidence that these secular purposes are viable, a number of educators approve of teaching students about intelligent design in the science classroom because they believe it helps students to better understand science, and in particular it helps them to better understand Neo-Darwinism. As John Angus Campbell writes:
“That professional science educators, none of whom are associated with ID (and for all we know may be critical of it) would come to the same conclusion as ID advocates about how to best teach evolution is not surprising. The idea of teaching [controversies] is arguably the oldest idea in our common educational tradition. Darwinism and design theory are clearly opposed philosophically and scientifically; however, considered from an educational standpoint each competing perspective is half of an ancient, unbreakable dialectal pair … They will likely continue their antagonistic relation into distant futurity -- if for no other reason than each requires knowledge of the other to define and explain itself.”
(John Angus Campbell, “Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and Public Education Philosophy,” in Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 21 (Michigan State University Press, 2003))
Thus there is no question that there are many secular reasons for which a school board could teach intelligent design.
b. Science is defined by methodological naturalism.
Many commentators have recognized that methodological naturalism is neither a necessary component for the practice of science, and indeed if one accepts methodological naturalism, then one might exclude some scientific hypotheses which are generally regarded as scientific. Thus, the following links discuss methodological naturalism (MN) as it applies to science and ID:
The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories by Stephen C. Meyer
(critiques demarcation arguments such as those of Robert Pennock in the Dover Trial, and argues that intelligent design and Neo-Darwinism are “methodologically equivalent” such that intelligent design could not be excluded from science unless Neo-Darwinism were to be similarly excluded)
Will Robert Pennock Become the Next Michael Ruse? by Casey Luskin (talks about critiques of methodological naturalism as made by philosophers of science)
Pennock to the Court: "Methodological Naturalism is all there is, or was, or ever will be" by Casey Luskin
(agues that even if methodological naturalism were to be accepted by science, the reasoning behind MN would not disqualify ID from being a scientific theory)
c. ID is not science, therefore it is religion; ID endorses religion.
Rebutting the first part of this claim is so simple it does not need an article. Essentially, the logic claims that “if something is not science, it must be religion.” This need not be the case because many things are neither science nor “religion.” Obviously I believe intelligent design IS a scientific theory . But even if it were not, that would not mean it had to be “religion.” Philosophy, history, and many fields are considered to be outside the realm of science. But their theories and ideas are not therefore necessarily religion.
Rebutting the second part requires an understanding of the law. The "endorsement test" is a legal test which states that something is unconstitutional if an average citizen would think the government action endorsed religion. The problem with this argument is that using the test in this issue equally threatens the teaching of evolution: if some citizens think that intelligent design endorses religion, then many people also will think that teaching evolution endorses anti-religious views. Thus Justice Black wrote in the landmark case Epperson v. Arkansas:
"Unless this Court is prepared simply to write off as pure nonsense the views of those who consider evolution an anti-religious doctrine, then this issue presents problems under the Establishment Clause far more troublesome than are discussed in the Court's opinion."
(J. Black, concurring, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 113 (1968))
What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. When the plaintiffs argue that teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because some people will think it endorses religion, they threaten the teaching of evolution on precisely the same grounds. The bottom line is that intelligent design is based upon empirical data and does not make its claims using religious arguments. If some people take it to have broader religious implications, so be it. But that should not disqualify it from being taught in schools, lest we also disqualify similarly situated theories such as Neo-Darwinism or Big Bang cosmology, which are also based upon empirical data but seen by many as having broader religious implications. As two Supreme Court Justices noted in Edwards v. Aguillard:
"A decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught "'happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.'" Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 319 (1980) (quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961)).
(Justices Powell and O'Connor concurring, 482 U.S. at 605 (1987))
Thus, as Discovery notes in its Amicus Brief, there is a long-established legal doctrine that something can be taught if its "primary" effect does not advance religion--but the "secondary" or "incidental" or "indirect" effects may indeed impact religion. Teaching intelligent design may have indirect or incidental effects upon religion, but its empirical basis means that its primary effect is to advance science education.
d. ID appeals to a supernatural creator or supernatural cause.
This is a common claim made by the plaintiffs which is simply false. In reality, intelligent design as a scientific theory cannot address metaphysical questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. To understand the truth behind the claim that biological design requires a supernatural designer, visit this link for documentation on the actual arguments of ID proponents regarding intelligent design and the supernatural.
e. ID is not testable.
Because plaintiffs mischaracterize intelligent design as an appeal to the supernatural, they then claim that design theory is not testable because it makes statements about supernatural entities which cannot be observed. Since their premise that ID theory tries to speculate about supernatural entities is a misrepresentation in-and-of-itself, their conclusion that ID theory is not testable is also false.
In reality, intelligent design merely seeks to determine if an intelligent agent was at work in the past. Design theory thus employs established methods from fields of forensic science, archaeology, and even the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence to detect the prior action of an intelligent cause.
The second objection to design theory is that it is “untestable” or equivalent to “throwing up our hands” and making an argument from ignorance. According to the textbook I used while studying evolutionary biology at the University of California, at San Diego, Darwin’s theory couples “undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection” thus making “theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” So if evolution is science, and evolution claims we arose due to “undirected” and “purposeless” processes, then why should it be untestable to claim that life arose through an intelligently “directed” or “purposeful” process? The answer is that if the claims of evolutionary biology are testable, then the claims of design theory must also be.
But intelligent design is demonstrably testable. Design theory begins with observations about the types of informational properties commonly produced by intelligent action. Leading design theorist William Dembski in his 1998 Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, explains that the informational properties commonly resulting from intelligent agency can be quantified as “complex and specified information” (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a particular pattern (making it specified). Everyday examples of CSI include the highly unlikely yet specifically ordering words you are reading in this article. As you view these words, you immediately recognize them as a non-random event which conforms (hopefully) to the specific rules of syntax of the English language. Congratulations! You’ve just made a design inference using the precise reasoning used by biologists who recognize that the high levels of CSI in our language-based software-like genetic code were also designed. We can test for the presence of CSI in biological structures by doing reverse engineering, to determine if the structure fails to function properly if it is changed or tweaked slightly.
For a more detailed explanation of how ID is testable, please see The Positive Case for Design.
f. ID is creationism
While there is a diversity of definitions for creationism, scholars and authorities on all sides of this issue have consistently defined creationism with one common feature: that it involves the action of a supernatural being who created life on earth. Yet intelligent design theory lacks this single universally ascribed quality of creationism, because intelligent design does not attempt to use science to speculate about the nature or identity of the designing agent. Thus, intelligent design does not postulate a “supernatural creator.” This is outlined in detail here.
The plaintiffs’ arguments go deeper than this, but as they go deeper they also get much shallower. Plaintiffs allege that a pre-publication version of the textbook Of Pandas and People (Pandas)used the word “creationism.” But this should not matter, because students are not reading pre-publication drafts of Pandas. They are reading the actual published versions, which do not mention creationism.
Moreover, if the Court constructs a legal rule which looks at prior versions of Pandas to determine the constitutionality of later versions of the textbook, then it would place in legal jeopardy Kenneth Miller’s pro-evolution textbook used by 35% of students in the USA. Earlier published versions of Miller's textbooks have explicitly promoted philosophical materialism and other anti-religious positions. See this link for details.
Finally, plaintiffs' do not recognize that when pre-publication drafts of Pandas used the term "creationism," they used it in a way which was different from how creationism has been declared unconstitutional by courts. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared creationism to be a religious viewpoint because it implied a "supernatural creator." Yet in Pandas, "creation" was juxtaposed with statements that we could not scientifically detect a supernatural creator. In other words, even in its pre-publication form, the project of the authors of Pandas offered a theory that was fundamentally distinct from the versions of "creationism" struck down by courts. Plaintiffs are thus playing word games and ignoring the substance of how the term "creation" was being used. Regardless, the authors never included the term "creationism" into the published drafts not to hide something, but because their project was fundamentally distinct from that of "creationism." "Creationism" was thus not an accurate term to describe their intended project. Hence the usage of "intelligent design."
For a more detailed rebuttal of the plaintiffs' arguments that intelligent design is creationism because early drafts of Of Pandas and People used the term "creation" see Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Thought and Ethics. See also Jonathan Witt's Origin of the term Intelligent design.
5. What are possible outcomes of this case, and what might be the ramifications for teaching intelligent design?
The ramifications of this case for teaching intelligent design could vary greatly. To understand possible outcomes, we must return to the ACLU’s three primary arguments:
| Argument: | | Ramifications for Teaching Intelligent Design: |
| (a) The Dover Area School Board had predominantly religious motivations, and did not rely upon secular purposes, in enacting their policy. | | Regardless of what the Judge finds on this point, it is unlikely that the specific motivations of the Dover Area School Board would have major ramifications for the general question of whether or not it is constitutional to teach intelligent design. One hopes the Judge will recognize that intelligent design can be taught under many secular purposes. |
| |
| (b) Dover’s policy employs “evolution is theory … not fact” language which has a primary effect which advances religion. | | Regardless of what the Judge finds on this point, it is unlikely that whether or not the “evolution is theory … not fact” language would have any bearing upon the general ability of a school district to teach intelligent design because a policy teaching intelligent design could be enacted without using such controversial “evolution is theory … not fact” language. |
| |
| (c) Intelligent design is an “inherently religious view” such that teaching it necessarily will, in all circumstances, always have a primary effect which advances religion. | | This point would likely have the largest impact on the ability of a school district to teach intelligent design. Keep in mind that at the current level of the District Court, the Court’s decision has jurisdiction only within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. However, if the case becomes appealed to higher levels, then the decision, whatever it is, could have broader ramifications. |
6. Links to Amicus Brief:
For more information about Legal Arguments in this case, see the following Amicus Briefs submitted to the Court in this case:
Brief of Amici Curiae Biologists And Other Scientists In support of Defendants: The Nature of Science is not a Question to be Decided by Courts
October 4, 2005
Brief of Amicus Curiae, The Discovery Institute: Legal brief filed by Discovery Institute about secular purposes for teaching about the scientific theory of intelligent design. [Revised version]
October 31, 2005
Discovery Amicus Brief Appendix A: Documentation showing the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about the identity or nature of the intelligent cause responsible for life. [Revised version]
October 31, 2005
Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Teaching about intelligent design out of Of Pandas and People does not establish religion. See also Appendices A-D.
November 4, 2005
Brief of Amici Curiae Discovery Institute and Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Amicus Briefs.
December 12, 2005
For years Darwinists have been doing their best to remind the world of the good news that evolution and religion can be compatible. Yet skepticism of evolution continues to remain at a very high level in the United States. Why is this?
A timeline of random samples of statements and polls:
1982: Polls say that only 9% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.
1984: The National Academy of Sciences assures the public that science and religion occupy "separate and mutually exclusive realms," and that religion and science are compatible. (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 1st edition, 1984)
1993: Polls say that only 11% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.
1998: Douglas Futuyma's popular text Evolutionary Biology pacifies students with the knowledge that "many Western religions ... vie[w] evolution as the natural mechanism by which God has enabled creation to proceed." (pg. 759)
1999: Polls say that only 9% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.
1999: The National Academy of Sciences again reassures the public that science and religion occupy two separate realms," and that religion and science are compatible. (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, 1999)
2001: Polls say that only 12% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.
2001: Alters and Alters publish their book Defending Evolution as a teacher's guide, which recommends that teachers should explain to students that many scientists see religion and evolution as compatible (Defending Evolution, pg. 123-124)
2004: Polls say that only 13% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.
2005: University of Kansas Chancellor Hemenway explains that "I see no contradiction in being a person of faith who believes in God and evolution, and I'm sure many others at this university agree." (Evolution Statement, September 26, 2005)
These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high despite the fact that scientists, educators, and religious leaders have tried to remind people that religion and evolution are compatible. Why does skepticism of Neo-Darwinism remain high? IT'S THE SCIENCE, SILLY!
What these Darwinists don't get is that for many people, this issue isn't simply about religion. It's about science. The science provides plenty of reasons to be skeptical of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists can issue proclamations about the "separate realms" of science and religion and can cite to religious evolutionists all they want. That's fine--few people (including myself) would deny that it is possible for a person to believe in God and evolution.
The ineffectiveness of these proclamations stems from the fact that they often don't address the core issue. The answer to the title's question is that many people see scientific flaws with Neo-Darwinism, and that for them, this issue isn't simply one about religion.
It's about the science!
Mike Gene has a noteworthy piece about the Mirecki scandal--and, in particular, about how various groups have reacted to it. He writes:
An urban legend is clearly evolving into place before our eyes, where many in the blogosphere now tell the story of a professor who insulted some fundamentalists and this caused those in political power to pressure his university to have him fired while taking away his free speech. But it’s much more complicated than this.
While the media has latched on to the “fundie” and “slap their fat faces” comments [made by Mirecki] for obvious sensational reasons, the other e-mails are what probably hurt Mirecki even more. They show a guy who was partying with his students and encouraging their anti-religious banter. For example, he schemed with them to pass out anti-Bible tracts and while Catholics mourned the death of their Pope, the religious studies scholar laughed with his students about “a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress.” What’s more, he even told his students that most of his colleagues in the Religious Studies department were atheists.
Remember, this is not some professor with a pseudonym making obnoxious claims on the internet. This was the Chair of the Religious Studies department who certainly appeared to be encouraging anti-religious bigotry among his own students. The Chair is a leadership position and even Mirecki himself admits his failures in his own apology: “I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.”
But the problems with the e-mails go further than this. Read the rest here.
In an Iowa State Daily story about the running debate between religion professor Hector Avalos and astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez, the reporter (or perhaps the copy editor) misrepresents Gonzalez, an astrobiologist with dozens of peer-reviewed papers to his name.
The story, "Intelligent design opponents willing to debate," discusses a new seminar led by Avalos, Jim Colbert, and Michael Clough entitled, 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science." Boy, that's sounds balanced, a real effort to stimulate the critical thinking skills of students. No spoon feeding there.
Eventually the article quotes Gonzalez: "I don't intend to participate in a kind of forum presented by the opposing side." That's it. No explanation. End of story. One gets the image of a grumpy old man, arms crossed, holed up in his office grinding his teeth. One sentence for the man at the center of the Iowa State controversy. Fishy.
Let's finish the article.
"I explained that Avalos and the other critics of ID on campus have to date resorted to misrepresentations of ID and personal attacks on me," Gonzalez explained in an e-mail. "So, I don't want to waste my time with them."
"I make myself available to questioning by critics every time I speak on ID," he added. "I've done so to a highly critical audience in September at UNI, at the Univ. of Northern Texas in September, at the invitation of a well known ID critic at Truman State in October, and at the UT Austin in November."
He also answered questions at Smithsonian in June, though as far as we know, none of the Smithsonian staff critical of his work showed up to ask him questions.
Meanwhile, perhaps someone at the new seminar can ask Avalos if he thinks the "Overwhelming Consensus of Religion" is that atheism is good religion, and whether an atheist should be able to teach his worldview right alonside Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other world religions in a religion department funded by taxpayers.
I say, sure. It's called academic freedom.
The article then goes on to give the misdefinition of intelligent right out of the NCSE's playbook (the National Center for Selling Evolution) The definition succinctly presents ID as an argument from incredulity that appeals to a supernatural agent when in fact ID appeals to positive evidence for design and merely detects design, leaving the question of the designer's identity to religion.
The reporter does deserve credit for interviewing Iowa State's Tom Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics, who says that, while ID shouldn't be taught as fact, it isn't "unreasonable to discuss the subject in a science class" (reporter's language).
Reports out of Georgia about this morning’s arguments in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is really interesting as the three Judge panel jumped all over the ACLU attorney.
First the Atlanta Journal Constitution leads with this: Three federal appeals court judges today indicated a lower court judge got key facts wrong in declaring unconstitutional an evolution disclaimer sticker put in Cobb County science books.
During oral arguments, all members of the federal appeals court panel noted that U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made incorrect findings as the basis for his decision that the stickers violated the First Amendment by endorsing a religious viewpoint.
And if that isn’t interesting enough for you, here are a few comments from the Judges themselves: "The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," [Judge] Carnes told Atlanta lawyer Jeffrey Bramlett, who argued on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed. And: Judge Frank Hull also noted that Cooper said the sticker misleads students even though there was no evidence to support that position.
"The order's problematic, you'd agree with that, in the way that it was written?" Hull asked Bramlett, who had little time to argue his position.
Judge Bill Pryor also noted that Cooper relied on facts that "are just contradicted by the record." Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting: "I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences," Carnes said to an attorney for parents who sued challenging the stickers during a hearing on the case. "It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that." At the end of the session the Judges called the ACLU on the carpet about their legal briefs: At the end of the arguments, Carnes took the highly unusual step of calling Bramlett back up to the podium and suggested he may have mislead the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his legal brief filed with the court.
Iowa State Daily yesterday published an article that they cheekily titled "Intelligent design opponents willing to debate." As your ead the article you see that this is Orwellian in the extreme. For their purposes these intelligent design opponents at Iowa State have redefined "debate" (a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides) to mean indoctrinate: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. There is no debate being considered, only a one-sided, negative presentation designed to denounce intelligent design.
The Iowa State Daily reports: A new seminar, led by Hector Avalos, Jim Colbert and Michael Clough titled "The Nature of Science: 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science,'" will be held to explore why the majority of scientists are coming out in such strong opposition to introducing Intelligent Design as a science.
The seminar will explore the history of biological evolution and recent developments in Intelligent Design, and according to its course description, "address why biological evolution is considered to be better science and why Intelligent Design is not." This is not a debate. Nothing in this description sounds like an open debate, or civil discourse, or the free flow of ideas. It sounds like a one-sided attack on intelligent design.
On the hand, Dr. Tom Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics in Iowa State's The Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology (GDCB) has been teaching a course called "God and Science" for the past five years that presents intelligent design in at least a more neutral, if not favorable, light.. According to the Daily: Despite his personal views, he said he makes "every effort to be impartial," and welcomes critical evaluation from students.
The seminar's impartiality came under fire in 2003, when Ingebritsen brought his proposal for re-approval to the Honors curriculum committee, a process which occurs each time.
Ricardo Salvador, interim director for the agronomy department, said the textbook being used at the time was a "religious text that did not allow for differing interpretations."
Salvador said the issue was "resolved when the instructor agreed to change the textbook." The current text is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution." "Finding Darwin's God" was written by the rabidly anti-ID Darwinist Ken Miller of Brown University. I hardly think that his book allows "for differing interpretations." It provides one interpretation, Miller's, which is that intelligent design is not science. There is no balance, no "debate" between two points of view allowed. At Iowa State, the idea of balance means that you present intelligent design in the most negative way possible.
It’s okay for Hector Avalos to teach a class that specifically denounces intelligent design, but it isn’t okay for Tom Ingebritsen to teach a class that presents intelligent design and evolution impartially. This is supposed to be free and open debate? Curiously, a spokesperson for President Gregory Geoffroy said: "The president is fully supportive of the debate." What debate? Whatever he is supportive of it isn't fair and balanced presentation of scientific ideas. Apparently, as long as one doesn’t actually present any supportive evidence or positive information about intelligent design, President Geoffroy is supportive of such debate.
You could probably light ISU for the holidays with energy coming off poor George Orwell’s spinning body.
There is biting irony in the sanitized history of Social Darwinism presented by the new Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). As blogged previously, the Museum's exhibit completely suppresses Darwin's own views about social applications of his theory. But Darwin's views aren't the only things being suppressed at the exhibit. The AMNH also doesn't acknowledge its own shameful legacy as one of the chief scientific boosters for eugenics, including the hosting of an extensive pro-eugenics museum exhibit in the 1930s.
The Museum's current exhibit glancingly mentions eugenics as an aberration, but this so-called aberration was supported by most of America’s elite universities and scientists for several decades. In 1932, for example, the AMNH itself played official host for a scientific meeting titled the "Third International Congress of Eugenics," and in conjunction with that meeting the Museum mounted an extensive public exhibition uncritically extolling the "science" of eugenics (much in the same way the current exhibit uncritically extolls neo-Darwinism).
The papers presented at the 1932 scientific conference and photos of its public exhibit (which featured prominent busts of Charles Darwin and Francis Galton to honor their contributions to eugenics) were published in a volume titled A Decade of Progress in Eugenics: Scientific Papers of the Third International Congress of Eugenics held at American Museum of Natural History, New York, August 21-23, 1932 (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., 1934).
The "scientific" papers presented at the conference included such gems as "Virginia's Effort to Preserve Racial Integrity," and "Selective Sterilization for Race Culture." The latter paper championed sterilization as a solution to the unemployment problem during the Great Depression, which the author (Theodore Robie) blamed in part on unlimited procreation by "defectives." He argued that the “present picture of millions of unemployed” provided evidence for the idea that “our population has already attained a greater number than is necessary for efficient functioning of the race as a whole.” He further suggested that “a major portion of this vast army of unemployed are social inadequates, and in many cases mental defectives, who might have been spared the misery they are now facing if they had never been born.” Indeed, “it would certainly be understandable” if such people “prefer[red] not to have been born, if they could have known what was in store for them on this earth where the struggle for existence and the urge toward the survival of the fittest makes it necessary for all those who would survive to possess a native endowment of at least average intelligence.”
Another paper presenter at the conference was doctor Lena Sadler from Illinois. She piled on the lurid metaphors, vilifying presumed mental defectives as a “viper of degeneracy,” a “monster [that] will grow to such hideous proportions that it will strike us down,” and “an army of the unfit [that] will increase to such numbers that they will overwhelm the posterity of superior humans and eventually wipe out… civilization….”
The current Museum, of course, is no longer a champion of eugenics, but its spirit of boosterism for Darwinism seems eerily the same. In the place of critical analysis and genuine scientific inquiry, it offers dogmatism and propaganda in favor of the current majority view. The Washington Post has reported that the exhibit doesn't even cover the scientific debates currently taking place among evolutionists:
But in its eagerness to declare the grand evolutionary questions settled, the show takes its lone stumble.
Only four decades ago, most paleontologists rejected the theory, now broadly accepted, that comets and volcanic eruptions delivered mass extinctions and so played a key role in speeding evolution. Nor are scientists clear on the mechanism by which one species evolves into another; curator Eldredge and the late scientist Stephen Jay Gould crafted the once heretical theory of punctuated equilibrium, which holds that species sometimes evolve in grand leaps.
And the well-known Cambridge scientist Simon Conway Morris has taken to arguing that even very distant species share structural similarities and journey toward inevitable complexity. This suggests to him that evolution adheres to an architecture.
Which, after a nervous fashion, loops back to the God question.
Ask Eldredge about this and he shrugs. He has a practical scientist's appreciation for Charles Darwin and a theory that, in its broad outlines, grows only stronger.
As the 1932 exhibition attests, presenting propaganda in the guise of science is apparently a historic practice at the Museum.
University of Minnesota (Morris) biology prof P.Z. Myers is hailed by Nature magazine as a serious blogger on evolution issues, and he certainly is prominent on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. He not only urges his fellow professors to get tough with any ID-friendly colleagues, but he reveals the face of the Darwinists that the media never show.
The media endlessly inspect the religious affiliations of Darwin critics, of course, supposedly because a scientist's religious views can be used to discount his scientific views. But, in contrast, they do not show us the views of the proselytizing atheists who host so many of the Darwinist organizations and websites, leading so much of the the Darwinist campaign against ID.
If you do watch their websites, read their commentaries, and see what groups are most ardently involved with promoting their cause, you'll get a glimpse of their motivations--the ones the media sedulously ignore. This is the media's idea of "religious neutrality."
But not to worry--P.Z. Myers makes his religious motivations painfully clear in this invitation to watch a new version of The Passion of the Christ (December 11, 2005) on Pharyngula.org.
The New York Times published a letter today from the president of Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, correcting Laurie Goodstein’s piece “Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker.”
In addition to the misinformation Chapman notes, Goodstein’s piece also passed along an error concerning the Templeton Foundation. Goodstein wrote that Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president of Templeton, said that the foundation asked intelligent design proponents for research proposals” but that “they never came in.” Templeton is an enormous foundation, so it's not surprising that Harper is apparently unaware of all the goings on of the organization. Design theorists have not only submitted research proposals to Templeton-funded research initiatives, Templeton has funded some of those proposals.
• Templeton funded a proposal by astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez to research the hypothesis that discoverability correlates with measurability (Go here for further description). The research led to The Privileged Planet, a book endorsed by Cambridge's Simon Conway Morris and frequent Templeton speaker Owen Gingerich of Harvard.
• William Dembski submitted a research proposal that led to No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence, a book endorsed by Frank J. Tipler, a leading cosmologist and co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.
• Templeton funded a proposal by Discovery Institute fellow Robin Collins to research fine tuning. Some of Collins' work will appear in an upcoming issue of Philosophia Christi.
Design theorists have submitted other research proposals to Templeton-funded initiatives, proposals with strong ID implications. Here are two of them:
• Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards on fine tuning as it relates to the extraordinary fitness of water for life, a line of evidence for purpose in the formation of the universe that Templeton promotes here.
• Michael Behe on "Tolerance in Protein Shape-Space." Here is a peer-reviewed article co-written by Behe about proteins that bears on the theories of intelligent design and Neo-Darwinism.
As evidenced here and here, the Templeton Foundation is doubtless under fierce pressure to distance itself from proponents of intelligent design. The reality is that some of the work of even Templeton Prize winners supports evidence for design, or to use a slightly less dangerous term, purpose, in the formation of the universe.
Harvard's Owen Gingerich, a friendly critic of many intelligent design arguments, has charted another way of engaging design theory. He agrees on those arguments for purpose where he agrees (such as fine tuning) and disagrees where he disagrees (such as certain design arguments in biology). The tone he sets is beneficent. The Templeton Foundation needs the space to explore and promote different lines of evidence for purpose, and the mandarins of Darwinian orthodoxy don't want to give it to them. Scientists and scholars will continue to uncover increasingly powerful evidence for purpose in a variety of scientific fields. The only question is who will join in the adventure and who will stand on the sidelines.
Nature magazine, arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world, is trumpeting praises for the charming P.Z. Myers, an unabashed ID bigot. Scientists who blog see their activities as a useful adjunct to formal journals, not a replacement. "The standard scientific paper is irreplaceable as a fixed, archivable document that defines a checkpoint in a body of work, but it's static, it's very limited," says Paul Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, who blogs at Pharyngula. "Put a description of your paper on a weblog, and something very different happens," says Myers. "People who are very far afield from your usual circle start thinking about the subject. They bring up interesting perspectives." By sharing ideas online, you get feedback and new research ideas, he says. (NATURE, December 1, 2005, vol. 438, p. 549)
Here's one interesting perspective Myers has. Commenting on President Bush's favorable remarks regarding intelligent design in August, Paul "P.Z." Myers posted the following on Pharyngula: "I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It¹s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots." So I don't take it out of context here are a few other of Myers interesting perspectives in that very same post.
It is correct that if I were talking to a student or a parent, trying to persuade them to abandon misbegotten notions of creationism that are affecting the student's ability to be a good biologist, I wouldn't call them lunatics. It isn't very effective to try and persuade an individual by calling them idiots, and in most cases I don't think the creationist students I occasionally get are idiots—just sadly misled.
However, I was not attacking such individuals, but the president of the US and the preachers at the Discovery Institute. You know, the responsible people who are lying to the public or working to disseminate destructive delusions. So, "It isn't very effective to try and persuade an individual by calling them idiots" but it is
effective "for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots." Indeed, that is an interesting perspective.
That wasn't an isolated incident of anger for Myers. Here's another interesting perspective of Myers about teachers who question Darwinism that Myers shared on Pandasthumb.org: Please don’t try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians. Why would Nature waste space promoting anything PZ Myers does?
This is my second post in 2 days praising media articles which get this issue right. Let there be no mistake: the Evolution News & Views blog is not a "media complaints desk." It's a place for objective analysis--and we just try to call the balls and the strikes as we see them!
MSNBC’s Current Magazine article by Victoria Bosch ("Monkey Business"), manages to objectively discuss the question of how doubters of Darwin are treated in college science classes. The article sensitively talks about how students who are skeptical of Darwinism cope with the issue.
It was also gratifying that Niall Shanks at Wichita State professes to require only that students simply understand—not fully endorse--Darwinian evolution. Not only is it good science policy to require that students understand evolution, but this policy should be agreeable to anyone, if, indeed, the standard is fairly applied.
Of course, it also would make sense for Dr. Shanks to give the anti-Darwinian scientific view a fair hearing. A one-sided approach to this subject only turns off many would-be scientists who know there is more to the issue than they're being told. Failing to discuss the issues fairly only raises the intensity of their skepticism. As Allen Orr wrote in The New Yorker last summer, "a policy of limited scientific engagement has failed."
In practice, allowing a robust debate on the scientific issues could only add to students’ enthusiasm for the course work. Why full disclosure about evolution wouldn't be a desirable outcome in a country that doesn’t graduate enough scientists now is a mystery. Thus I agree with Shanks when he states:
Like it or lump it. If you’re going to prosper in this kind of environment, you’ve got to be biologically literate.
Perhaps current problems with the state of science in the U.S. are linked to the fact that the status quo forces students to swallow evolution uncritically, and neither interests them in science nor objectively informs them about the facts to become better critical thinkers.
The New Republic and The New Criterion have excellent pieces discussing the debate over Darwin. The former explains how Darwinism has become a brand of scientism in the eyes of many leading proponents. The latter takes aim at the science of Darwinism itself, comparing it to a dogmatic faith which makes claims beyond what is warranted from the evidence.
Monkey and Morals
In Monkey and Morals, Gertrude Himmelfarb, the distinguished professor emeritus of history at City University (N.Y.), explains that some Darwinists such as E. O. Wilson and James Watson have an anti-religious agenda in their Darwinian advocacy. Himmelfarb recognizes, however, that some proponents of intelligent design approach this issue with scientific objections to evolution:
"Yet others, themselves scientists, insist that their quarrel is not with evolution itself but rather with natural selection conceived as a purely mechanistic and entirely sufficient explanation. For them, intelligent design is nothing more or less than teleology, the recognition of a purposiveness or direction in nature, with or without a Creator in the orthodox sense of God."
(Monkey and Morals by Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New Republic, 12/12/05)
Himmelfarb explains the transformation of Darwinism from a humbly studied hypothesis into an untouchable dogma exploited for philosophical purposes:
"Today we have even more cause to be concerned about the mechanistic and reductionistic interpretation of all human life, including its emotional and intellectual dimensions, in the name of Darwinism. This is more than science. It is scientism--and scientism with a vengeance, for it is not only science that is now presumed to be the only access to comprehensive truth, but also that sub-category of science known as Darwinism."
(Monkey and Morals by Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New Republic, 12/12/05)
Himmelfarb is an historian of Charles Darwin. Her article will be taken very seriously in important academic circles.
Science versus scientism
A second excellent piece is in The New Criterion by John Silber, the straight shooting former president of Boston University, entitled Science versus scientism. Silber explains skepticism of evolution is met by dogmatic assertions:
"The critical question for evolutionists is not about survival of the fittest but about their arrival. Biologists arguing for evolution have been challenged by critics for more than a hundred years for their failure to offer any scientific explanation for the arrival of the fittest. Supporters of evolution have no explanation beyond their dogmatic assertion that all advances are explained by random mutation sand environmental influences over millions of years."
(Science versus scientism by John Silber, The New Criterion, Volume 24, November 2005)
While Silber believes that both Neo-Darwinism and intelligent design must ultimately be based upon faith, he cites favorably to the scientific challenges of evolution brought by Michael Behe in irreducible complexity. Silber further says that "scientists who dogmatically assert as factual explanations for the survival of the fittest which lack objective evidence" have become the new "literalists" of the university. He does not deny their right to assert Darwinism as fact, but he questions their dogmatic responses to reasonable critics:
"I do not question their right to develop their ideas and their research as they deem best. The freedom of inquiry should not be challenged. But neither should any scientist or researcher claim an immunity from criticism."
(Science versus scientism by John Silber, The New Criterion, Volume 24, November 2005)
Silber is another highly respected intellectual who understands the history of ideas. His article too, will receive wide circulation. Dare we predict that Darwinists will not argue with these articles but find some way to attack the writers?
“There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution,” said Robert Crowther director of communications for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin's theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.”
Discovery Institute hosted a briefing for the media on academic freedom at the National Press Club today, featuring a prominent astronomer persecuted for his views on intelligent design, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez of Iowa State University.
According to Discovery Institute, self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them.
- University of Idaho president Timothy White, issued an edict recently proclaiming that it is now “inappropriate” for anyone to teach “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses.
Cornell University President Hunter Rawlings, III, delivered a polemic speech denouncing intelligent design and scientists and scholars researching the theory.
- Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to a group of honors students.
- Three days before graduate student Bryan Leonard's dissertation defense was to take place Darwinist professors at Ohio State University accused Leonard of "unethical human-subject experimentation" because he taught students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.
- High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
- Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, for example, recently wrote this about anyone supporting intelligent design or questioning modern evolutionary theory: “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”
Discovery Institute is the nation's leading public policy center that defends "teaching the controversy" about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. The Institute recently launched a national campaign to defend the rights of scientists, teachers, and students who are being threatened because they dare to raise critical questions about evolution.
“Free speech and academic freedom are cherished principles in America,” added Crowther. “They are too important to be sacrificed to the intolerant demands of extremists on any issue.
The debate over evolution just blew out of Kansas and into Oz for one college professor. The Associated Press reports that KU professor Paul Mirecki was beaten up Monday morning. And this just after spending a week in the newspapers for caustic remarks he made belittling religion, Catholics, conservatives, and intelligent design.
According to the Associated Press: "University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that two men who beat him were making references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring. Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request. "I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me." One of Mirecki's critics, Kansas state Senator Kay O'Connor, was quick to denounce the attackers. "I have zero tolerance for thugs," she told the AP. "There is never an excuse to behave in such a manner."
Good for her. No one should ever come under physical attack for exercising their right of free speech, no matter how offensive their views. What's needed is for everyone ot have the freedom to express their views without fear of reprisal, and certainly without fear of violence. Let's hope these two thugs are found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Space.com has an article against intelligent design entitled "SETI and Intelligent Design" by Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Institute.
William Dembski has provided a clear response to Shostak's article at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/541.
Shostak's essential argument is that SETI doesn't search for intelligent design, but rather "artificiality" in the universe:
"SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes."
Incidentally, Shostak's methods sound similar to how pro-ID philosopher Del Ratzsch argues we can detect design by searching for "counterflow" in nature:
"Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. When agents redirect, restrain or constrain nature, they leave counterflow marks. Ratzsch goes on to say that counterflow can be injected into initial states, processes, or results (p.7). Counterflow is important in identifying agent activity in a given structure."
(Counterflow entry in ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy--see also Ratzsch's excellent book Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science for a more detailed description)
Perhaps the methods of ID proponents and SETI are not so different after all.
To reiterate, Dembski's more complete response is at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/541.
In the November 28, 2005 issue of Newsweek, the renowned Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson claims that the term “Darwinism” is a “rhetorical device” merely invented by opponents of, well, Darwinism. The article quotes Wilson as follows:
“‘In part, the fascination with the man is being driven by his enemies, who say they’re fighting ‘Darwinism,’ rather than evolution or natural selection. ‘It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism’,’ says Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, editor of one of the two Darwin anthologies just published. … ‘Scientists,’ Wilson adds, ‘don’t call it Darwinism.’”
(“Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Scientist,” by Jerry Adler, Newsweek November 28, 2005, pg. 53)
The question must be asked “Is Wilson right to claim that supporters of Darwin don’t use the term ‘Darwinism’?”
Thankfully, there is an easy way to answer this question. This September, a literature search was conducted of Science, Nature, and PubMed to see how often terms such as “Darwinism,” “Darwinian,” “Darwinist,” (as well as “Neo-Darwinism,” “Neo-Darwinian,” and “Neo-Darwinist”) are used in the mainstream scientific literature. The full results of this search are reported here, but for now let’s just focus on Wilson’s claim of the usage of the term “Darwinism.”
Here were the results of the search for the word "Darwinism" in the mainstream scientific literature (conducted September 14, 2005):
Nature: 376 hits (online search at http://www.nature.com; searches Nature articles back to 1980)
Science: 44 hits (online search at http://www.sciencemag.org; searches Science articles back to 1995)
PubMed: 193 hits (online search at http://www.pubmed.org; searches various journals back to the 1950’s)
Contrary to Wilson’s assertion, the journal Science has used the term in a pro-Darwin manner, referring favorably to “Darwinism” in the context of this very debate over the biology curriculum:
“Two other sites previously reviewed in NetWatch brim with helpful information. In a section on obstacles to teaching Darwinism, this primer from the University of California, Berkeley, profiles different strains of anti-evolutionism.”
(“Standing Up for Darwin,” Science, 308:1847, 6/24/2005, emphasis added)
Even prominent Darwinist scientists use the term in their popular writings. Richard Dawkins writes that "There are people in this world who desperately want to not have to believe in Darwinism." (The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, 1996 ed, pg. 250) The term "Darwinism" has over 20 entries in the index to Stephen Jay Gould's magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
If Wilson is correct that “Scientists don’t call it Darwinism,” then apparently all the authors who use the term “Darwinism” in Science, Nature, books, and many journals are not scientists. The alternative explanations are that Professor Wilson is wrong, or is bluffing. I’ll go with either alternative.
Darwin-skeptics would love to take credit for inventing a prominently used scientific term like “Darwinism,” but it appears that we can’t. "Darwinism" is a term employed by scientists in the mainstream scientific literature. Another Darwinist myth has been busted.
The Pot and the Kettle…
Finally, what about Wilson’s objection that evolution shouldn’t be compared to “a kind of faith”? When the wagons aren’t circled around Darwin, it appears that Wilson has had a slightly different view about whether or not it takes a measure of faith to believe in Darwinism:
”How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate than any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to revision as we find out more about the nature and the history of life. The best that can be said for any scientific theory is that it explains all the data at hand and has no obvious internal contradictions.”
(Wilson, Edward O., et al., "Life on Earth", [1973], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1975, reprint, p.624)
My one-time hometown newspaper, The Monmouth (IL) Daily Review-Atlas, reports that Knox College in nearby Galesburg is launching a short course on intelligent design. The professor plans to look at the subject from all points--essentially philosophy, and religion, as well as science-- and properly starts back with the Greeks. But he also should investigate Ben Wiker's book, Moral Darwinism, for its excellent complementary discussion of the roots of Darwinian materialism, also in Greece. The sides have been clearly apparent for a very long time.
Dr. Martin Roth, a visiting professor, is not a supporter of ID, and may even oppose it. But he also may do a fair job of explaining it. Let's see.
If not, Knox in February will present a lecture by Dr. Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial and godfather of the modern ID movement. Students will be served by having his insights added to the mix.
Students at Knox, the Review Atlas reports, say they want to know more about ID than what they have been reading in the mainstream media. The college is responding.
We keep hearing about these courses in places one might not expect them. The Wall Street Journal and Knight Ridder have both carried recent stories of such activities developing on college campuses. Barbara Bradley Haggerty's story on NPR recently about persecution of ID friendly scientists mentioned 18 science professors around the country who would not allow themselves to be identified and interviewed for fear of persecution.
That's a number that even surprised us. Others, of course, are out in the open--and thanks partly to fulminating opposition, they are getting the attention of students.
In her new article dumping on intelligent design, New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein presents a fantasy version of the new Kansas science standards, claiming that "in Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design."
Actually, the Board did no such thing. The Kansas science standards encourage students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory. They do not ask for the teaching of alternatives to Darwin's theory such as intelligent design. Indeed, the Board included the following explicit statement in the standards:
"We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design...." [emphasis added]
This isn't merely a case of sloppy reporting. When Ms. Goodstein interviewed me, I emphasized that the Kansas standards do not include intelligent design. I then sent her an e-mail making the same point. I even attached a copy of the relevant parts of the science standards so she could check for herself. Did she bother to read the document? If she did, what part of "Standards do not include Intelligent Design" didn't she understand?
Here is the e-mail I sent to New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein after she interviewed me last Thursday for her predictable hatchet-job on intelligent design in Sunday's Times. Decide for yourself whether her story accurately reflected all of the information she was given:
Laurie,
It was good to talk with you. In follow-up to our conversation, here is a link providing a list of the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications favoring intelligent design and/or fundamental critiques of the claims of neo-Darwinism: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC.
To reiterate: We think that the debate over intelligent design will eventually be decided among scientists and scholars, and that's why we put most of our resources into supporting the work of scholars on intelligent design and challenges to neo-Darwinism. That's why we oppose efforts by school districts to mandate ID; we think such efforts politicize what should be a scientific controversy.
Furthermore, we think that our scholars have made great progress in the face of a lot of spurious attacks, and the evidence of that is the publication within the last year of articles in mainstream science journals supportive of ID or challenging neo-Darwinism--including Steve Meyer's peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington; Michael Behe and David Snoke's peer-reviewed article in the journal Protein Science; and Jonathan Wells' technical article on centrioles in Rivisti di Biologia, one of the world's oldest still-published biological journals. In addition, we've seen during the past year the publication of a scientific paper by Scott Minnich and Steve Meyer in a book of conference proceedings published by a major academic science and technical publisher in Great Britain, as well as an academic anthology on Debating Design, From Darwin to DNA co-edited by William Dembski and published by Cambridge University Press.
As I mentioned on the phone, our biggest concern about the future of intelligent design is the effort to deny freedom of speech to scientific critics of Darwin's theory and supporters of ID. During the past year we have seen numerous college campuses try to adopt what are in effect evolution speech codes restricting what faculty can say about evolution. We've also seen effort to fire or otherwise intimidate scientific critics of Darwin--e.g., the failure to renew the contract of biologist Caroline Crocker at George Mason University after she favorably discussed ID in one of her classes; the current effort to deny a doctorate in science education to Brian Leonard at Ohio State University; and the effort to attack attack tenure-track astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State and microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho. If the Darwinists are so certain that the evidence is on their side, why are they increasingly resorting to intimidation and harassment to preserve their monopoly? If they really think ID is going nowhere, why are they spending so much time trying to refute it?
I've also attached a couple of documents about Kansas. One documents the fact that the definition of science in Kansas is consistent with the definition used in virtually every other state; the other provides the actual wording of the science standards relating to evolution--and clearly shows that the standards do not deal with intelligent design, only scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory.
Cordially,
John
If you want another example of superficial analysis from the once-venerable New York Times, check out Laurie Goodstein's ill-informed effort to disparage intelligent design in today's edition. Among other things, Ms. Goodstein mangles the definition of intelligent design, misrepresents the content of the Kansas science standards, and displays her ignorance of evangelical Christian higher education and the academic supporters of ID.
Some background: Last Thursday Ms. Goodstein contacted Discovery Institute because she wanted to interview me for a story. Her deadline was later the same day, so she contacted Discovery right before she planned to file the story. When I called her, it was clear she already had written most of her story. All she was looking for was window-dressing.
Ms. Goodstein told me her article was on the future of intelligent design. She obviously had been working on the story for some time. Given her topic, I found it interesting that she waited until the last minute to call the leading organization supportive of ID. Our conversation got off to a rocky start when I asked her who else she had interviewed for the story. She didn't want to tell me. When I asked her why it was such a secret, she bristled. She eventually revealed that she had talked with long-time ID critic Charles Harper at the Templeton Foundation and someone (who she wouldn't name) at a place called Vanguard University.
Ms. Goodstein was clearly surprised to learn that there are some scholars at evangelical universities who are critical of ID. In her own mind, she interpreted their criticism as disillusionment by those who had initially favored ID. As she writes in her article: "Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing."
I told Ms. Goodstein that it was hard to respond to such a claim unless she gave me more specifics--such as the actual names of the scholars she was talking about. I also pressed her as to how she knew that these "scholars and theologians" had ever been open to intelligent design. As our conversation progressed, it became clear that Ms. Goodstein did not know that many evangelical scientists and theologians are Darwinists who have been critical of intelligent design from the very start. Much like Catholic Darwinist Kenneth Miller, these evangelical Darwinists were never open to intelligent design, so it's preposterous to argue that they have somehow become disillusioned by it. I pointed out to her that the American Scientific Affilation, the major association of evangelical scientists, has long included many proponents of Darwinian theory who are hostile to intelligent design. When Goodstein told me she had never heard of the American Scientific Affiliation, it became clear just how shallow her knowledge of the views of evangelical scientists and academics was.
I don't know how much research Ms. Goodstein did for her piece, but it wasn't enough. The article is riddled with factual errors and misleading interpretations. Take the following assertion of fact: The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Really? Biola University in Los Angeles has held several national academic conferences on intelligent design and has even started a new master's program that prominently features the study of ID. In addition, professors at a number of other colleges have instituted courses that fairly examine the debate over intelligent design. (See, for example, this article about a new course at a college in Illinois.)
More ignorance is on display when Goodstein writes about Baylor University's harsh treatment of pro-ID mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. Goodstein exhibits surprise that Baylor did not embrace Dembski, writing that he "should have been a good fit for Baylor" because of its "Christian" worldview. Goodtstein shows absolutely no awareness of the acrimonious internal struggles at Baylor to define its identity, struggles that recently led to the resignation of Baylor's president. Given the sharp ideological disagreements that exist among Baylor faculty and administrators, the treatment of Dembski was not exactly surprising. In any case, the Baylor example in no way provides evidence for Goodstein's thesis that many evangelical scholars who were open to ID later became disillusioned by it. The hostility toward ID at Baylor was there from the start.
Goodstein's discussion of Baylor is equally misleading because she seems to think that William Dembski was the only scholar favorable toward ID at Baylor. She quotes disparaging remarks about ID by Derek Davis, the Director of the the Dawson Institute at Baylor, as if he speaks for the entire faculty. Goodstein apparently does not realize that the Associate Director of the very same Dawson Institute (Francis Beckwith) has written extensively about the legitimacy of discussing ID in science classes. Nor does she seem to know that Walter Bradley, Baylor's distinguished professor of engineering, has published articles in pro-ID academic anthologies. Nor does she seem aware that noted Baylor sociologist Rodney Stark has expressed public skepticism toward Darwinian dogmatism. The views of these scholars at Baylor would suggest that the academic debate over Darwin is alive and well at the university.
Finally, Ms. Goodstein in her article makes a big deal of the Dover school board case. It's clear she is trying to set up the case as a make-or-break decision for intelligent design. In doing so, she gives an utterly misleading presentation of Discovery Institute's position on Dover. She writes:
If the judge in the Dover case rules against intelligent design, the decision would be likely to dissuade other school boards from incorporating it into their curriculums...
Advocates of intelligent design perceived the risk as so great that the Discovery Institute said it had tried to dissuade the school board in Dover from going ahead and taking a stand in favor of intelligent design. The institute opposed the Dover board's action, it said, because it "politicized" what should be a scientific issue.
Now, with a decision due in four or five weeks, design proponents like Mr. West of Discovery said the Dover trial was a "sideshow" - one that will have little bearing on the controversy.
"The future of intelligent design, as far as I'm concerned, has very little to do with the outcome of the Dover case," Mr. West said. "The future of intelligent design is tied up with academic endeavors. It rises or falls on the science."
Goodstein claims that Discovery opposed the Dover policy because it feared that a negative court decision would be used to disuade other school boards from incorporating intelligent design into their curricula. This would be an odd fear for Discovery to have given that the Institute doesn't even favor having school districts incorporate ID into their curricula! In fact, Discovery opposed the Dover policy because it has consistently opposed efforts to mandate ID, and it opposed the Dover policy well before any lawsuit.
Goodstein further implies that Discovery Institute began downplaying the importance of the Dover case only after the trial ended. Yet the views she attributes to me are points I have consistently made to reporters since the very start of the trial. As I've told reporters, interest in ID is fueled by the scientific evidence, and that evidence cannot be made to disappear by judicial decree. Darwinists who think otherwise are in for a rude awakening. It used to be said that one of the best ways to make a book a bestseller was to have it "banned in Boston." If ID is "banned in Dover" by court decision, such a decision may well generate even more interest in ID. Most Americans don't like being told by the government that there are certain ideas they aren't permitted to discuss.
We are not alone in observing the sand wash out from under the Darwinists’ feet. The estimable editors of First Things have given readers a fine Christmas present in their December number. Within is an essay by CSC senior fellow Michael Behe on “Scientific Orthodoxies”, and another by senior fellow Wesley J. Smith—in a book review—meditating on John Brown. And there's a wonderful piece by Richard John Neuhaus mediating on a whole parade of related issues that we care about (such as Leon Kass’ principled leadership on the President’s Council on Bioethics), and, yes, evolution.
Fr. Neuhaus has fun with the NY Times’ religious language for materialism (e.g., the Times editors say they want to “enshrine” evolution theory) and he enjoys a shakedown ride on that antiquated troika of 19th century intellectuals, Marx, Freud and Darwin.
Writes Neuhaus :“The likelihood that Darwin’s eventual debacle will be sensational and brutal is increased by the arrogance of his acolytes...denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them.” Continuing, he says, “I detect a groundswell of discontent at this intellectual totalitarianism, so unscientific by its very nature....Such a position is not tenable, and the evidence that is crumbling is growing.” You can read it all online in about two and a half weeks. Or you could do yourself and First Things a favor, and buy a copy now.
In a column in USA TODAY (December 1), conservative columnist Cal Thomas and liberal Democratic strategist Bob Beckel reach unusual and welcome agreement on a policy of openness toward intelligent design. “Let’s have a public debate on the merits,” they suggest.
What a radical proposal! Imagine, we live in a democracy, we have a field of science that supposedly is open to constant self-criticism, and here we see introduced a totally new and amazing concept: “debate on the merits”!
We fully agree and are ready and willing.
Unfortunately, as the article makes clear, the Darwinists are neither ready or willing. They will do anything to avoid a serious debate “on the merits”. For example, a conference organized by the American Museum of Natural History this past week, and reported breathlessly in the mainstream media, describes the kind of deliberation on intelligent design the Darwinists propose.
That is, put four speakers on a panel, and make sure all of them are opponents of ID. The only disagreement allowed is over which pejorative explanation for the success of ID is most persuasive. In the AMNH meeting the answer was that ID is the product of a truly historic public relations campaign.
I hate that kind of statement. Not only does it demean the AMNH by showing an unwillingness to hear the actual evidence for ID from fellow scientists who support the theory, but it is bound to give Discovery’s over-worked media relations director, Rob Crowther, a big head. He will want a raise. What an underhanded way for the Darwinists to put more financial pressure on us!
So I have another suggestion. Maybe they should introduce into their thinking, if not their meetings, the mere possibility that the reason ID is on so many minds and is causing the AMNH to hold one-sided academic conferences, is that the scientific case against Darwinism and for ID is building by the month--with an increasing articles, books, lab work and more individual scientists deciding to throw in with us (30 in the last month alone). Maybe the reason Harvard is raising money to conduct research in support of Darwin’s theory and Cornell’s president is declaring ID a national threat is that the Darwinists are not confident at all. Why, when I was at Harvard, the evidence for Darwin’s theory was already proven for the ages--supposedly. Are the Darwinists possibly seeing the scientific sand wash out from under their feet?
If that’s not the true explanation, and it’s just PR prowess that is making a name for ID, then the way the Darwinists can really demolish us is to hold the kind of fair and extensive scientific debate that conservative Cal Thomas and liberal Bob Beckel propose, right? In such a scholarly setting, the likes of Darwinians Ken Miller and Larry Krause and Genie Scott should be able to crush the scientific pretensions of ID scientists, agreed?
But perhaps those two fine gentlemen writing the USA TODAY article probably don’t fully appreciate that science has now changed, and that the “new scientific method” is to smear anyone raising doubts about Darwin and, at all costs, avoid an objective debate about the evidence.
Actually, we suspect that Mssrs. Thomas and Beckel may have figured that out, too. Still, even raising the issue of debate helps point out the actual issues at hand, doesn’t it? We are grateful for their proposal. We accept!
CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer yesterday had a lengthy and informative piece --eloquently making the positive case for intelligent design-- published in the National Post in Canada.
Often, there are criticisms from the media that the theory of intelligent design is just an argument from ignorance. How many times have you read this tired, old description of ID: "life seems so complex evolution can't be the answer, must have been a supernatural power." Meyer's piece answers this and shows how recent scientific discoveries and standard methods of scientific reasoning guides our inferences about the origins and diversity of the universe and living systems.
"Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, they also argue for design because we know from experience that systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer-from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity."
This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI's search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals from distant star systems. But closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting--by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts--an intelligent source for the information in DNA.
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information-whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal-always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence."
Read the whole article here and decide for yourself.
It is a shame that NPR’s “ombudsman”, Jeffrey Dvorkin, apparently has a hearing problem. He doesn’t seem able to listen to his own network very carefully.
For years, on program after program NPR has reported on intelligent design in a biased and even malign manner. We have complained to Dvorkin. He doesn’t ever bother to answer.
Ira Flatow on Science Friday does not allow ID scientists on his program, only critics of ID. If he does allow a proponent of ID, it is not a scientist, and in those cases the one ID proponent is set upon by a stacked panel of several Darwinists. Flatow himself is an uberlutionist, one of the most vocal adversaries of ID who in public speeches urges university presidents to publicly come out against ID.
One NPR program, Open Source, earlier this year carried a program on ID that featured an ID opponent, Ken Miller of Brown University. Miller was the shows lone “expert” on the topic. When we complained, we were told they “didn’t really want a debate” and might have a proponent on sometime in the future. The future never came, of course.
On another program, On Point, a debate actually was set up between George Gilder of Discovery Institute and Richard Dawkins, Oxford. At literally minutes before air time, as he undoubtedly had planned (Dawkins always refuses to debate ID since he lost a debate with David Berlinski some years ago), Dawkins advised the producer that he would not debate, but would consent to speak solo, and only after Gilder was through, not before. This arrogant demand was not denounced by the producer; far from it. The terms were readily accepted, with equanimity, by the program producer, who on the air even obligingly explained Dawkins conniving stunt in a manner flattering to Dawkins (he said Dawkins didn’t want to lend legitimacy to the ID position by debating it—a position, if sincere, Dawkins easily could have explained much earlier). After Gilder spoke, Dawkins ignored him. And then the program’s supposedly “objective” wrap up was provided by a third participant, the highly opinionated Darwinist, Michael Ruse. All of this propaganda was treated as just another day at NPR.
So NPR, with some notable exceptions, doesn’t report on ID fairly at all. For openers, it usually does not provide ID proponents’ definition of their own theory, but uses the definition of ID offered by ID OPPONENTS. Dvorkin does the same thing himself. So, of course, he isn’t able to discern the bias in his colleagues, because he incorporates it.
In short, the NPR “ombudsman” is a flak-catcher, pure and simple. He is there to defend NPR against criticism, not to investigate it. A good reporter at NPR is good despite the network culture, not because of it.
While the newsmedia lavish praise on the new Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, no one seems to have noticed that the museum is presenting a thoroughly sanitized portrait of Charles Darwin, completely suppressing Darwin's real views on such troubling issues as eugenics and race.
According to the online version of the exhibit, far from being a "Social Darwinist," Mr. Darwin is supposed to have been a passionate egalitarian who would have been horrified by any application of his theory to social and political issues. The exhibit proclaims:
Darwin passionately opposed social injustice and oppression. He would have been dismayed to see the events of generations to come: his name attached to opposing ideologies from Marxism to unbridled capitalism, and to policies from ethnic cleansing to forced sterilization. Whether used to rationalize social inequality, racism or eugenics, so-called Social Darwinist theories are a gross misreading of the ideas first described in the Origin of Species Species and applied in modern biology. [emphasis added]
In reality, Charles Darwin was an early booster of both eugenics and the application of his biological theory to issues of race and economics. Darwin's book The Descent of Man has an entire section devoted to the application of natural selection to civilized societies. Darwin's discussion opens with the following remarkable complaint, which was echoed again and again by later eugenists:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); emphasis added]
It's true that Darwin wasn't a champion of forced sterilization, but that's because the technology for sterilization wasn't developed until well after Darwin died. Darwin was certainly supportive of the early eugenics ideas promoted by his cousin Francis Galton (who actually coined the term "eugenics"), and he favored eugenic restrictions on marriage. [See Descent of Man (1871), vol. II, p. 403]
Moreover, Darwin used his biological theory to defend capitalism. California State University historian Richard Weikart has ably documented how Darwin drew on natural selection to criticize the work of trade unions and cooperatives, and how he even endorsed a book by German biologist Ernst Haeckel that employed Darwinism to refute socialism. [See Richard Weikart, "Laissez-Faire Social Darwinism and Individualist Competition in Darwin and Huxley," The European Legacy (1998), vol 3, No. 1, pp. 17-30, especially pp. 19-25; and Richard Weikart, "A Recently Discovered Darwin Letter on Social Darwinism," Isis (1995), vol. 86, pp. 609-611.]
Finally, although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of "men of distinct races." [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell "between the negro or Australian and the gorilla," indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that "[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin's thought is difficult to deny.
Darwin was undeniably a great figure in the history of human civilization, and I think that his works should be read by every literate American. But he was also a fallible human being who had some unsavory views about the social implications of his theory. Rather than honestly portray the real Darwin, the Museum has apparently decided to suppress the historical record and rewrite history in order to present Darwin as a figure who is completely disconnected from all of the problematic applications of his theory to politics and society.
This is hagiography, not history. It's an example of what some have called "Darwinian fundamentalism." Darwin is such an iconic figure for some of his latter-day boosters that they can't admit any fact that might somehow tarnish his reputation. There is an interesting story here for someone who wants to pursue it. Why are Darwinists so insecure that they must rewrite history in order to portray Darwin as a secular saint?
This past week there has been national attention focused on a Kansas university professor who decided to offer a class on intelligent design as "mythology" (see our report here). And rightly so. Professor Paul Mirecki's outrageous statements about evolution, intelligent design and religion shine a light on why he wants to teach this class right now. It isn't just his comments on intelligent design that have got him in hot water, but his calous and nasty comments over the years about religon in general, such as referring to the Pope as "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress."
Such comments, along with his foolish remarks about slamming intelligent design in his curriculum have resulted in his class being cancelled, and Kansas University investigating his anti-religious and bigoted comments. Not to mention stirring to outrage many of Kansas' citizens.
Professor Mirecki sent an e-mail that included such comments as : To my fellow damned,
Its true, the fundies have been wanting to get I.D. and creationism into the Kansas public schools, so I thought "why don't I do it?"
I will teach the class, with several other lefty KU professors in the sciences and humanities. ...
The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category "mythology". I expect it will draw much media attention. ...
Doing my part to piss of (sic) the religious right,
Evil Dr. P.
Much as Mirecki predicted, the media lapped it up with articles popping up all over the country when the class was announced. Not surprisingly, there were media reports that sought to make poor Mirecki out to be a victim, not the victimizer. They reported his complaint that this was a private e-mail, it wasn't meant for public consumption. "Mirecki didn't deny writing the message but suggested it wasn't meant to be seen by the general public. He said Wednesday that a "mole" who had been monitoring the student organization's list-serve sent the message to a fundamentalist organization.
"It's their version of ethics -- one citizen spying on another and reporting to authorities," he said."
Mirecki apologized for that e-mail, sort of. Kansans however may not even know it. An internet search turned up articles in the Chicago Sun Times, the Myrtle Beach Sun Times (SC), the Columbia Daily Tribune (MO), and theKarala News Times (India). We have seen how many in the media have developed a trope on this story that pits unreasonable Christians who are described as creationists in disguise opposing reasonable scientists who worry about Kansas’ image. The story of a malicious atheist who is bigoted against people of faith doesn’t fit the current stereotype, so it was ignored....At first, anyhow.
Parts of Mirecki's apology have been reported: "I accept full responsibility for an ill-advised e-mail I sent to a small group of students and friends that has unintentionally impugned the integrity and good name of both the university and my faculty colleagues, ..." Reportedly he assured the university provost that he would teach the course "as a serious academic subject and in a manner that respects all points of view." Does anybody really believe that?
But now more e-mails are surfacing. And they paint a picture of someone who would certainly be hard pressed to "respect all points of view." The Capital Journal reports: "Messages posted on a student list-serve during the past three years by Paul Mirecki, chairman of KU's Religious Studies Department, were circulated Wednesday among activists and university faculty. They depicted a man highly critical of Christians, especially Catholics.
In one message, Mirecki agreed to a description of Pope John Paul II as "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress."
"I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2," Mirecki wrote." And what else does this responsible and fair professor of religious studies have to say? "In one, Mirecki described his first experience in a Catholic Mass: 'I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience. I don't think most Catholics really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use condoms, and some of them beat their wives and husbands." Now it comes out that Mirecki is viciously anti-Catholic, among other things. A lot has been written about the so-called religious motives of those who attack Darwin's theory. It would be interesting if reporters would cover the anti-religious views of the most vocal critics of ID, like this guy, Barbara Forrest, Victor Stenger, Eugenie Scott or Hector Avalos, the atheist professor turned inquisitor at Iowa State University who is trying to marginalize astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez.
Imagine if during last Spring's debate over Kansas' science standards a similarly hostile e-mail had been uncovered to have come from an intelligent design supporter. There would have been outrage by Kansas Citizens for Science and other knee-jerk Darwinists. Yet, such an e-mail did surface but went completely unreported by the mainstream media.
Last May www.kansasscience2005.com disclosed an incredible internet post from Liz Craig, an official with Kansas Citizens for Science, the group that tried to prevent the inclusion of scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory in the Kansas Science Standards. On Febrruary 10, Craig outlined her group's disinformation plan to use the newsmedia to smear and demonize anyone who opposed to her agenda: "My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray them [the critics of evolution] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc.
There may no way to head off another science standards debacle, but we can sure make them look like asses... "
What is it about Kansas Darwinists and e-mails?
|
 |
