Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Federal Judge Rules on Intelligent Design Today
Culture warriors are awaiting U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III's ruling on intelligent design vs. evolutionary biology in Dover, PA, later today. Will science beat superstition? Stay tuned for developments.
|12.20.05 @ 9:18AM|#
For a great evolution lesson (no joke) check out Sunday's
Doonesbury:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218
|12.20.05 @ 9:44AM|#
This one is important guys. Are we going to trend towards a theocracy (what I think we are trying to get rid of Iran) or are we going to trend back towards an enlightened society where reason (no pun intended) and science rule.
|12.20.05 @ 9:48AM|#
I don't have any idea how this will come out. I expect the worst, but that's just a matter of principle. More likely, the judge will go out of his way to steer a middle course.
Warren|12.20.05 @ 10:13AM|#
thoreau,
Doonesbury is most definitely a joke, albeit no longer
a funny one. I'm perfectly happy to beat up on the simple minded
creationist. I'm even happy to bitch about how they're ruining
society (won't someone please think of the children). However,
creationist don't question the ability of a virus to mutate into
more resistant forms, only it's ability to mutate into a
duck.
Murphy,
I agree we are in danger of too closely resembling a theocracy. One
might think that pointing out how vile that is when our enemies do
it would be compelling. Unfortunately, it seems to be OK to put God
in charge of our law because ours is the one true God. Therefore
comparisons to Muslim states are entirely inappropriate.
I have to disagree that the alternative is to base our law on
science. I always cringe when lawyers try to argue and rule on
science. I'd keep science out of the court room as much as
possible. But you are correct that our judicial system reflects the
common law approach of the Enlightenment. A word with broad
implications, not only to science and philosophy, but also law,
religion, and the culture at large. The Enlightenment did indeed
bequeath us a judicial system based on reason and fundamental
rights and principals. One of those principals is that it should
not inquire as to how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 10:40AM|#
We're already a de facto theocracy. The 6th Circuit just ruled
in favor of a 10 Commandments display in a courthouse exactly like
the one ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in McCreary County
earlier this year (as with all displays and/or their histories,
each is a little bit different so as to provide judges a route to
distinguish away unfavorable precedent and decide the case how
he/she desires).
Of course Intelligent Design will win out today (by being relegated
to a 'theory' concurrently with evolution being delegated to a
'theory'). The anti-evolution stickers will be deemed literally
true and therefore a proper legislative action.
It's sad, but don't be shocked when it happens.
|12.20.05 @ 10:54AM|#
Warren:
Hmmmm, how about more, not less, science in the court room?
Of recent note, the exoneration of the innocent by DNA testing. And
the remarkable data showing just how poor is the memory of the
average witness.
|12.20.05 @ 10:55AM|#
That's what it takes to be a de facto theocracy?
A 10 Commandments display?
Those Iranians need to quit bitching and start being thankful that
they never have to hear "Hotel California" again.
Ed|12.20.05 @ 10:58AM|#
"We're already a de facto theocracy."
Ha ha ha, what utter bullshit, Bruce. Religion in this country is
nearly as fragmented as the Democrat party. The -cracy to be
worried about in the good ole U.S.A. is the bureaucracy. We'll be
buried by regulations, not commandments.
|12.20.05 @ 11:01AM|#
The judge just ruled that intelligent design can't be mentioned in biology classes.
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 11:15AM|#
got my cases mixed up, thought this was the one with the
stickers on the textbooks. Anyway, yes, the judge just came back
and ruled against our theocracy, and will be summarily overturned
by the 3rd Circuit later this year (with or without Alito on the
bench).
No it's not just the displays and the public prayers that makes us
a theocracy. It's the constant deluge of christianity everywhere
you look. Our leaders can't give a speech without mentioning it,
it's all over the various media, every car has a jesus fish or
praying calvin (which is an infringing derivative work, but I
digress), and our population as a whole can't focus on the
slightest problem (let alone the big ones) without turning to
prayer, faith, and other such facets of Christianity. And not just
general religion, not "judeo-christian" religion (which is a term
christians use to fool jews into thinking they are including them),
but fundamentalist christianity.
Tonight, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the country will be cursing
the hell out of Judge Jones and the ACLU. When religious people
don't get to trample over everyone unfettered, they feel their
rights are somehow violated and they're "oppressed."
|12.20.05 @ 11:20AM|#
From Associated Press
December 20, 2005 10:51 AM EST
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design"
cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public
school district.
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, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones
III ruled Tuesday.
V "in yo face, thumpers" M|12.20.05 @ 11:20AM|#
"The judge just ruled that intelligent design can't be mentioned
in biology classes."
obviously an "activist judge who legislates from the bench". that
is the proper term for a judge that tries to keep those imaginary
friends out of the tax payers' way, right? :)
it's really sad that something like this would take so long. it is
such a slam dunk that that ID is merely bullshit on stilts for the
weak minded. science (scientific method,etc) is not philosophy or
mythology. keep 'em separate.
you can tell yer kids yer those ghost stories on yer own time. in
the meantime, actual good teaching of math and science are going in
the toilet. in part due to this (as an extension of the "lazy
student" theory from yesterday's redbook story).
the fact that there are so many quibbledicks out there that refuse
to let go really makes you wonder. wonder.... wonder.......
welllll, a coupla aren't a surprise, but, as usual, their group
homes must watch the internet more closely.
Warren|12.20.05 @ 11:30AM|#
Righter,
Good point. When I get nervous is when the adversarial system tries
to figure out how reliable that DNA test actually is. Or
conversely, and symptomatic of a much larger problem, when the
court appointed attorney fails to challenge the DNA evidence.
Bruce,
On the one hand, I feel that people can fall to their knees every
time the wind blows, or decorate their cars with WWJD bumper
stickers, hell they can even live in a giant cross if they want to,
so long as no religion is established by the state and I'm free to
not worship as I see fit. On the other hand, it does seem to me
that the president, who now admits his stated reasons for going to
war were a crock, has been signaling to his base "God told me to
kill these people" and his base is buying it.
|12.20.05 @ 11:30AM|#
Um... about the impending theocracy and all... I hate to sound like Haklyut, but things have been MUCH worse in the past. Read some presidential/congressional speeches from before 1960, find out about the rhetoric of the prohibitionists, and you'll see what I mean. If anything, the "religious pressure" has lessened significantly.
Doc|12.20.05 @ 11:41AM|#
The judge *spanks* the ID folks.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html
Of course, dependable right wing Cobb Co's case is still
pending...
|12.20.05 @ 11:41AM|#
. what bugs me the most about this whole affair is not
necessarily the theocrats trying to inject religion into the public
schools but that the scientific process is basically reduced to a
popularity contest .. gee, if we get enough votes we can make the
universe behave how we think it should behave!! .. "By a two-to-one
margin the sun was ruled to be a flaming chariot being pulled thru
the sky!! And this just in: it's a geocentric solar system
75%-25%!!"
.. Hobbit
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Warren,
Sure I don't care if they want to do that stuff in private, on
their own time and on/with their own property, but history dictates
that religious people are never content being religious on their
own time and on/with their own property. When every car has a jesus
fish on it (in the interest of full disclosure, I live in Texas),
it is symtematic of the problem. Try explaining to a majority why
it should not always have its way.
|12.20.05 @ 11:51AM|#
Here's a copy of the judge's order:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
(WARNING!! It's a 139 page PDF!)
matthew hogan|12.20.05 @ 11:52AM|#
Full decision, here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
|12.20.05 @ 11:57AM|#
My take on keeping science out of the courtroom is that we should keep unproven/shady science out of the courtroom. DNA is well established, but suing the pants off of fast food companies because the study de-jour says there is an increased risk of diabetes is where mixing science and law can get scary.
|12.20.05 @ 12:01PM|#
"the scientific process is basically reduced to a popularity
contest"
Didn't the voters of the area just throw out 8 pro-intelligent
design school board members in the elections?
Even if public schools are protected from religious influence, the
curriculum still needs to be chosen. Time for instruction is
limited; my high school for example only required a year of "earth
science" and a semester of biology to graduate. Under our school
board system, there is a popularity contest between the different
sciences as well as English, history, math, etc.
|12.20.05 @ 12:01PM|#
My elevator news reported the judge ruled that teachers can't MENTION ID in the classroom. Is that accurate? Can't MENTION? Mentioning seems a very far cry from teaching...
Warren|12.20.05 @ 12:11PM|#
Bruce,
I don't want to push them into the dark corners. They should be
free to proselytize publicly. An ocean of fish does not make me
less free.
Never the less, I share your trepidations. The Christocrats (tm)
get bolder (read crazier) when they are allowed to steep in their
own juices unchallenged.
But would you ban the fish? Of course not (I hope). They have the
right to free speech, and to run for office, and to vote their
"conscience". In a free country ruled by sanctimonious asshats, I'm
afraid that convincing the majority why it should not always have
its way, is our only option.
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 12:12PM|#
Linguist: Like always, the press conflates court orders like this with prior restraints. Like "you can't say the pledge of allegiance anymore" or, as seems to be the case here, "you can't even mention the words 'intelligent design.'").
|12.20.05 @ 12:18PM|#
From the decision:
"The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident
when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been
fully revealed through this trial," Jones said in a 139-page
decision. "The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area
School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal
resources."
Booyah!
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Warren: no I would not ban the fish (on their privately-owned
cars). I do think religion is like pubic hair in that it should
ideally be kept out of public view and certainly kept off the
dinner table. Just because they have a right to believe it, speak
it, and show it off doesn't mean it's not objectively stupid as
well as dangerous to a free society. For those reasons, just like
with commercial speech, religious speech should have its limits. I
completely disagree with the notion that religious speech is "more
protected" than ordinary speech like, say, pornography or Ashton
Kutcher movies.
As far as I'm concerned, free exercise means you can believe
whatever you want in the privacy of your own head, and pray to
whatever god you want in the silence of your own closet, with the
door shut.
|12.20.05 @ 12:34PM|#
My elevator news reported the judge ruled that teachers
can't MENTION ID in the classroom. Is that accurate? Can't MENTION?
Mentioning seems a very far cry from teaching...
The judge ruled they can't read a statement that basically said,
"what we're about to teach you is crap and there is a book in the
library on ID where you can read about how this shit really
work"
It's basically the same case as the sticker on the textbook. I have
no problem with mentioning that, hey, there's this ID stuff out
there, it's not science, but there's a book in the library on it.
But the calling of evolution "not a fact" is what I object to.
|12.20.05 @ 12:35PM|#
Linguist, the whole case was about mentioning ID. They were never going to devote time to teaching it, but simply "mention" in the beginning of the class that evolution has gaps and oh, here's an ID textbook for an alternative theory (that presumably doesn't). It may seem extreme to make a federal case out of that, but imagine a physics class mentioning that there are many contrasting views of gravity and hey, it might have just been God; please see the Bible for more information.
Details Matter|12.20.05 @ 12:40PM|#
The whole lead is worth quoting:
"HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design"
cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania school
district, concluding that school board members who backed the
policy lied about their true motive, which was to promote
religion."
I wonder if the judge was correct about the lying. He did take 139
pages to explain how he knew there was lying, so maybe / hopefully
he is correct. This stuf about lying about motivation seems like a
jury issue to me. I wonder how the judge ended up with it here. If
he is making credibility determinations on summary judgement then,
of course, he can and should be reversed.
|12.20.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Yogi,
You beat me by a minute. Anyway, it would be accurate in a sense to
call evolution "not a fact", but that issue is best addressed in a
philosophy of science class or something of that nature. For the
sake of 9th grade biology, evolution is a fact, the same way that
for 9th grade history, the Holocaust happened.
VM|12.20.05 @ 12:41PM|#
... and Zach:
building on your point, it's astonishing that this issue would get
such traction!
you'd think that this wouldn't be necessary... sigh.
"open mindedness" has now been coopted by one of the more
closed-minded groups around...
|12.20.05 @ 12:44PM|#
Anyway, it would be accurate in a sense to call evolution
"not a fact", but that issue is best addressed in a philosophy of
science class or something of that nature.
I absolutely agree. The people that say evolution is 'not a fact'
show their ignorance of how science works.
|12.20.05 @ 12:44PM|#
So does this mean that now, teachers are breaking the law if
they say the opposite, e.g., "By the way, there's this thing other
people believe that's called ID, which we won't be covering in this
class because the Supreme Court ruled it isn't scientific"?
Or better still, "You may have heard about something called ID.
Here's what it states. Now we're going to look at evidence that
says that is a religious belief and not science. It's a good
example of things people believed a long time ago, like that Zeus
made fire, and how those beliefs lead people to perform science and
discover that actually fire happens because..."?
A teacher is now NOT ALLOWED to say something like that? I'm
against teaching ID, but I'm also against restricting teaching
methods so drastically.
|12.20.05 @ 12:45PM|#
I think it is fucked up that a judge can say what can't be
taught in a classroom.
They can teach Satanism for all I care.
That is the 1st Amendment folks.
Now y'all are going to come back and say that the teachers are paid
with taxpayer money. Well now, THAt is the fucked up part.
|12.20.05 @ 12:47PM|#
FWIW, here's the full text of the Dover statement that was read
to biology students. I downloaded it a while ago from the school
board's newsletter, which I no longer have a link to. But I'm sure
you can find it with Google:
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.�
With regard to the statement itself (and not the context of other
things happening in the district), my biggest objection is to where
they say that evolution is not a fact. In some sense they are
correct: Science doesn't deal in certainty. We are open to the
possibility that even the best-supported theories could later be
disproven. We subject these theories to constant testing.
But to just say that the theory is not a fact, and that there are
gaps, is to leave out crucial context and a critical discussion of
the nature of scientific knowledge. And not only are these points
ignored, they are ignored in a deceptive manner. "Not a fact"
carries a bunch of connotations that do not really fit the matter
at hand. And while there are indeed gaps, the nature of those gaps
is not discussed. Those gaps are the subject of constant study, and
nothing that has been learned in the study of those gaps has given
us reason to think that the entire intellectual framework of
evolution needs to be completely trashed.
Finally, to associate evolution with a single person (Darwin) is
deceptive. It makes for a smaller target, and leaves aside the fact
that decades of study by numerous scientists has added many, many
layers of detail to the framework put forward by Darwin. Darwin is
not the only game in town with evolution. Challenging evolution
means challenging a vast community of researchers and more than a
century of discoveries.
|12.20.05 @ 12:48PM|#
So science is now upheld by legally censoring and suppressing dissenting theories (this is not to say that ID has intellectual merit)? This is a triumph? A court, a judge, has no business judging what has scentific merit and what does not, it is beyond the judiciary's competency.
|12.20.05 @ 12:48PM|#
I also think that if the judge forbade even the mention of ID in science class, then that is a mistake, because it deprives teachers of a way to contrast science with pseudoscience. Forbidding the school board from requiring teachers to say something especially something in favor of ID seems to violate both the establishment clause and the rights of instructors to freedom of speech. Preventing them from discussing ID also seems like a violation of freedom of speech.
|12.20.05 @ 12:50PM|#
Linguist, I don't think that's what this ruling means.
Now y'all are going to come back and say that the teachers are
paid with taxpayer money. Well now, THAt is the fucked up
part.
OK. But it's true. That being the case, should we have no say on
what the teachers we're paying teach?
|12.20.05 @ 12:53PM|#
I want to know more before I conclude that the judge
literally barred any mention of ID. He obviously declared
that the statement I quoted above has no place in the science
classroom, but I doubt a teacher will get in trouble if he gives a
short and reasonable answer to a student's question about ID.
Student: Why aren't we studying Intelligent Design?
Teacher: Intelligent Design isn't science, and this is science
class. If you want to study it, you're free to do that on your own
time, but this is science class.
I will be shocked if the ruling would bar the teacher from giving
that answer.
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 1:00PM|#
Thoreau of course the teacher can say that. This is about what
the school board can mandate, not what magic words teachers can't
legally say. This has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech,
prior restraint, or restraint on speech of any kind. Just like when
the 9th circuit said the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional
people were saying the court made it illegal to say the pledge.
That's not the case at all.
If the school board had mandated there be a class on how to be a
muslim (or jew or satanist) and the court said they can't have that
class at a public school, that's analagous to the situation here.
Nobody is saying you can't say "intelligent design" no matter what,
they just can't teach it.
Teachers can say "we can't teach intelligent design" or "the court
just had an opinion about intelligent design" or "intelligent
design is freaking stupid bullshit." Those are not at issue. The
court isn't banning words here.
|12.20.05 @ 1:01PM|#
Likewise thoreau, and again, I don't think this is what the ruling means. I think this is most likely a misconception based on secondhand reporting of the decision. That being said, I'm at work, and I don't have time to read 139 pages.
|12.20.05 @ 1:14PM|#
from the decision:
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests
to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the
Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this
determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID
is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID
cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.
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. To be sure, Darwin?s theory of evolution is imperfect.
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an
explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to
thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion
into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established
scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly
served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It
is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time
and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose
behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many
of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held
beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert
that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to
teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science
classroom. Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it
as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as
this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to
us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a
school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to
find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the
Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when
considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully
revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of
the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged
into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of
monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of
church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, ? 3 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently
enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to
denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from
requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory
known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that
Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants'
actions. Defendants? actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil
rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 subject Defendants to liability with
respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services
and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional
rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?? 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 such that
Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art.
I, ? 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover
Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file
with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and
a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim
entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such
fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes
and court rules.
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
|12.20.05 @ 1:14PM|#
That being the case, should we have no say on what the
teachers we're paying teach?
If by "we" you mean a judge, I think not. If by "we" you mean the
parents and the school board, I think, 'absolutely' we should have
a say.
|12.20.05 @ 1:14PM|#
The Server Gods were with me when they smote the unbeliever Matthew Hogan by allowing my post of a link to the order to beat his! Ha, ha!
|12.20.05 @ 1:29PM|#
Kwais, the parents already did, by voting out the school board and was trying to do this. I see nothing wrong with also attacking the idea in court on the principle that it separates the violation of church and state, which it does. Living in Pennsylvania, I don't want another school board that my money indirectly funds deciding it also wants to start teaching this bullshit on my dime. This decision makes that much less likely to happen.
|12.20.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Comment by: Bruce M at December 20, 2005 12:31 PM
"As far as I'm concerned, free exercise means you can believe
whatever you want in the privacy of your own head, and pray to
whatever god you want in the silence of your own closet, with the
door shut."
So you are the arbiter of what "free expression" means now? Better
get started burning those churches and synagogs to the ground then.
Pal, you are in the wrong country.. Sounds like you'd fit in better
in China, Keeping those "dangerous" Falun Gong people from
gathering in public.
Some one standing on a public street corner telling folks that
about 2 thousand years ago a guy came along and said that the world
might be better if we were nicer to each other has ZERO impact on
your freedom. You always free to cross to the other side of the
street. Amazing how a Libertarian so quickly can shift gears to
totalitarian at the flick of Bible.
|12.20.05 @ 1:31PM|#
As someone has pointed out -- if schools were privatized, this
would not even be an issue.
Of course then there would be many more homeschooled kids from
jeebusland, and colleges would probably start paying closer
attention to the texts used by christian schools , and would quite
declare them to nor satisfy the science pre-reqs for
admission.
....and I would laugh and laugh......
|12.20.05 @ 1:36PM|#
MO giggity-
The Economist actually has an article this week about the
phenomenon that you describe. The University of California
(admittedly a public school) is being sued for saying that
creationist biology classes do not satisfy their admissions
requirements.
|12.20.05 @ 1:37PM|#
Coarse Hair 09:
"Some one standing on a public street corner telling folks that
about 2 thousand years ago a guy came along and said that the world
might be better if we were nicer to each other..."
Yeah, that's what they're preaching on the street corner.
That jesus said to be nice to each other. Those wonderful, colorful
street preachers, they never mention anything about god smiting
this or god smiting that...they never talk about the end
times...they never try to scare you into christianity with all
kinds of talk about the fiery furnaces of hell being your new home
unless you accept jesus. Nope. Never. It's all about how jesus said
we should be "nice to each other".
Look, man, I agree with you that "free expression" isn't what Bruce
M thinks it is...but the innocent, rosy picture you paint of
Christians is just absurd. Salvationist religions of all stripes
have long been about controlling the populace and scaring people
into complacency.
|12.20.05 @ 1:39PM|#
Zach,
I think the separation of church and state is originally about the
state not getting involved in church.
ie, the state not telling you what to believe. Which seems to be
the case with this story.
As a parent you should have the right to vote for school boards,
pull your kid out of school, if you don't like what the other
parents voted and put your kid in another school, or any number of
things.
What shouldn't happen is to have a judge say what a teacher can or
cannot say, nor have the judge say what the teacher can or cannot
teach.
|12.20.05 @ 1:39PM|#
As stated, our conclusion today is that it is
unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a
public school science classroom. Those who disagree with our
holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If
so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist
Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism
of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national
public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case
on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and
ultimately unconstitutional policy.
A couple of observations. First, whatever "activist" may mean, I
don't recall anyone ever seriously making the argument that elected
legislatures or even policy making bodies such as school boards per
se overstep their legitimate functions by actively legislating or
setting policy. Indeed, that is why they exist. (Whether we'd be
better off with much less legislation and policy making is, of
course, an entirely different matter.)
Second, whatever one makes of the proper application of the
Establishment Clause, this very much is an activist
judicial ruling in the perjorative sense of the word. As has
already been stated above, judges have no more business weighing in
on philosophy of science or the inclusion of arguments within a
course curriculum which, however favorable or supportive to any
particular religious belief they may be, are not tantamount to an
endorsement of that belief. Moreover, teaching "bad science,"
however intellectually egregious that may be, cannot itself be a
violation of the Establishment Clause. (Question: Could ID or even
undisguised Creationism be considered in a public high school
introductory philosophy class without violating the
Constitution?)
Of course, the underlying problem here, in any case, is government
schools. Get the state out of the education business and all these
vexing problems largely cease to exist.
|12.20.05 @ 1:42PM|#
Mo: Most of the people I know who home school their kids don't
do so because they live in "Jeebus Land" but are doing it because
they have a kid with special needs, or are dissapointed with the
poor curricula pushed by the schools. If anything the home-school
materials are more science heavy than the public school stuff. They
usuall do QUITE well on the state standardized tests.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm basically an agnostic-leaning-to-atheist.. But
if religious folks are so blinded, why do catholic schools
generally do better in testing than public school kids, spending
FAR less per pupil??
|12.20.05 @ 1:46PM|#
kwais,
To summarize biologist's post, the School Board is prohibited from
requiring teachers to refer to ID, or require
that teachers denigrate evolution, or that they are
required to read the statement.
Also, the board, although they called themselves religious, are /
were liars, and that they wasted the taxpayer's time and money.
|12.20.05 @ 1:49PM|#
damnable server!
kwais et al., if the post is too long, just scroll down to the
section that begins "NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:". this
will clear up some misrepresented information in the news reports
and save us from arguing about moot points.
short enough?
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 1:49PM|#
Religious people are dangerous, that's the bottom line. Religious speech doesn't cause people to be nice to each other, it causes people to crash airplanes into buildings. Then it causes them to launch "Crusades" in response. Religion is incompatible with democracy and a free society. I don't have a solution, either. I'm not about to lock up someone for having a jesus fish on their car or for screaming about jesus in the streets (although if screaming about an imaginary friend named bob would get them committed involuntarily, then the same should apply to the jesus-screamers). But I'm also not about to pretend that religion does any good for this world, than religious people should be "tolerated" and that their opinions should be "respected." That's utter bullshit. Religion doesn't have to be respected anymore than does pedophelia. You have the right to think about having sex with kids, and you can masurbate to whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. Once you want to force it on the public, however, the line must be drawn (extra offense expressly meant to the Mormons who believe jesus commands them to be pedophiles).
|12.20.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Atheists can be just as dangerous as theists. Remember
Communism�s Stalin, Moa, and Pol Pot. I�ve got no problem with
Atheists, but it is inaccurate to single out theists as the only
source of government abuse. The problem lies in one person trying
to force his belief system on others. Whether or not that belief
system mentions G-d is irrelevant.
I don�t think ID has scientific merit or should be in a science
class, but I think the push against having ID in classrooms is
disproportional compared to other belief systems that are all ready
inserted into biology text books.
Dawkins, an evolutionist at Oxford, publicly advocates using
government run schools to spread Humanist principles. Humanism is a
religion like any other and teachers shouldn�t proselytize for it.
Yeah I know, Humanists say they aren�t a religion, but the gap
between Humanism and some of the more modern religions, like Reform
Judaism, Unitarianism, and Bahai is much smaller than the gap
between some theist religions.
The biggest challenge to scientific objectivity in biology
classrooms is from environmentalists, not creationists. New York
State replaced biology a few years ago with a regents level course
called living environment. Many questions on the living environment
regents require value judgments, and students with different ethics
from the test makers won�t get the �right� answer. The worse case
was supposed to test a student�s evaluation skills. It says:
�A television commercial for a weight-loss pill claims that it has
been �scientifically tested.� The advertisement includes statements
from 10 people who say that the pill worked for them. State two
reasons why someone should question the claims made in this
advertisement.�
The question gives no information about the experimental design of
the scientific test or the test results. There is no way to
objectively evaluate the weight-loss claim from the question. It is
based on the stereotype that business, as opposed to government
agencies and academia, usually spread false information.
Gould�s NOMA principle
(http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html) explains
what is science and what is outside science. Basically, science
uses the scientific method to prove or disprove things with
empirical evidence. If you can�t physically detect something, you
can�t gather empirical evidence about it and it is outside the
realm of science.
|12.20.05 @ 1:52PM|#
Thanks Shawn,
I guess I was wrong about nobody reading posts that long.
I like the part about condemning for wasting taxpayer money.
I am a little less enthusiastic about a judge saying to a school
board what they can or cannot require a teacher to do, in regards
to material they teach.
I still think that school choice is the answer.
|12.20.05 @ 1:57PM|#
Kwais, again, you seem unwilling to accept that public schools exist. As long as they do, then of course the public, through elections and the legislative branch, can tell its employees what they are and aren't allowed to do. Especially if its employees are in active violation of the separation of church and state. Simply repeating that you're "[un]enthusiastic about a judge saying to a school board what they can or cannot require a teacher to do" is missing the point entirely.
|12.20.05 @ 1:58PM|#
kwais, it is the function of a school board to set curriculum for the courses offered, but compelling speech is as much of a violation of freedom of speech as would be forbidding teachers from teaching evolution. academic freedom derives from freedom of speech. additionally, since the judge found that the school board clearly had religious motivations, this is also an establishment of religion, IMHO.
|12.20.05 @ 2:00PM|#
This decision blows.
It's all about the Establishment clause and motives and history of
the ID movement (a dangerous area) and not about science.
Frankly, if the plaintiffs could have done it, they should have had
the textbook litigated on the science standard of federal courts -
the Daubert case (Google it). That would have required it to be
shown that ID was a theory with widespread peer review support,
acceptance in the scientific community, demonstrated testing etc.
It would have lost on a slam-dunk....
Instead we are probing motives for legislation and political
movemens, a very very dangerous area, but one that pleases the
reflexive anti-fundamentalists.
Overturn.
|12.20.05 @ 2:07PM|#
All that it takes to probe the motives of an ID proponent is to understand what the theory actually teaches. That is, we don't know, so it was God.
|12.20.05 @ 2:11PM|#
kwais,
You're welcome. I used to go by the handle, "nobody," in college,
so what you said wasn't completely wrong.
P.S. I meant taxpayers', not
taxpayer's.
|12.20.05 @ 2:13PM|#
kwais,
"I am a little less enthusiastic about a judge saying to a school
board what they can or cannot require a teacher to do, in regards
to material they teach."
Should a school board be able to order its teachers to inform her
children, in math class, that Jesus is Lord, and that those who
don't have a personal relationship to them are going to hell?
If a school board did such a thing, and a parent sued them, should
a judge be able to order the school system to knock it off?
Matthew Hogan, from the decision, "we have addressed the seminal
question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is
not" The judge most certainly did consider that question in his
decision.
|12.20.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Matthew Hogan, from the decision, "we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that
it is not" The judge most certainly did consider that question in
his decision.
Let me double check, but if so, he should have stopped and started
there.
|12.20.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Let me double check, but if so, he should have stopped and
started there.
No, that way there would never have been a case. It's not as if the
parents sued for simply teaching something inaccurate. The entire
case was rightfully about separation between church and state,
because the ID debate is and always has been about teaching
religious ideas as science.
|12.20.05 @ 2:23PM|#
A slight Emily Litella -- never mind, the question is addressed sort of by using Daubert principles. But it should not have been buried in the middle. It should have been the centerpiece and not overreach or make the establishment clause dominant.
Pooh|12.20.05 @ 2:30PM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
Is it activist to follow well established precedent on the
Establishment Clause? That's a novel definition. (Well not really,
as Activist = judgifying I don't like). After hearing voluminous
evidence, Jones ruled that ID is creationism is scientist's
clothing (BTW, duh...), and as such endorses a particular religion
or set of religious beliefs. The weakest point of the argument is
the factual claim that this school board policy was in fact
endorsing religion. That's the weakest part. Are you going
to claim that they weren't?
FWIW, I don't think ID in a Philosophy class would be
unconstitutional, as the "Endorsement" analysis would be
substantially different.
Bruce M|12.20.05 @ 3:00PM|#
Religious people are dangerous, that's the bottom line. Religious speech doesn't cause people to be nice to each other, it causes people to crash airplanes into buildings. Then it causes them to launch "Crusades" in response. Religion is incompatible with democracy and a free society. I don't have a solution, either. I'm not about to lock up someone for having a jesus fish on their car or for screaming about jesus in the streets (although if screaming about an imaginary friend named bob would get them committed involuntarily, then the same should apply to the jesus-screamers). But I'm also not about to pretend that religion does any good for this world, than religious people should be "tolerated" and that their opinions should be "respected." That's utter bullshit. Religion doesn't have to be respected anymore than does pedophelia. You have the right to think about having sex with kids, and you can masurbate to whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. Once you want to force it on the public, however, the line must be drawn (extra offense expressly meant to the Mormons who believe jesus commands them to be pedophiles).
|12.20.05 @ 3:07PM|#
Pooh,
I won't debate the point at length, but your question to me is
question begging, suggesting that the decision was a foregone
conclusion solidly based on precedence. Though that may be the
case, I simply don't know that for a fact, nor, for that matter, do
I know for a fact that the line of precedence is not itself
suspect.
As I read the opinion exerpt, the judge is drawing an inference
that ID is per se pretextual, hence it is the unstated
motives behind the school board's decision that make the
otherwise merely bad science unconstitutional. Okay, so imagine a
school board filled with dim-witted atheists who, oblivious to the
nefarious designs of Creationists pushing ID for the high school
biology independently decide that ID represents a legitimately
non-religious intellectual alternative to evolution. So they pass
the same curriculum statement. Unconstitutional?
|12.20.05 @ 3:13PM|#
All that it takes to probe the motives of an ID proponent is
to understand what the theory actually teaches. That is, we don't
know, so it was God.
More accurately, it is: if we don't know, and it looks like an
intelligent designer did it, then an intelligent designer did
it.
But then, maybe I'm splitting hairs.
My biggest problem with ID is that its proponents place a
rediculous burden of proof on evolutionary science that they
themselves refuse to subject their own theory to. In the absence of
an observable scientific explanation, you don't get to just make
unfounded inferences based on what it might be. To use their famous
example, if you find a watch in the woods, and you can't explain
how it was made, then you don't get to say "god made it" without
subjecting that assertion to the same standard as any other theory
would be subjected.
|12.20.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Okay, so imagine a school board filled with dim-witted
atheists who, oblivious to the nefarious designs of Creationists
pushing ID for the high school biology independently decide that ID
represents a legitimately non-religious intellectual alternative to
evolution. So they pass the same curriculum statement.
Unconstitutional?
Unless they change their teaching of ID to mean something which is
not inherently religious, as ID in its current incarnation is, then
yes.
Pooh|12.20.05 @ 3:20PM|#
D.A.,
Read the opinion starting at about page 24 for about 10 pages. The
pretextual nature of I.D. as presented becomes apparent pretty
quickly. I found the find-replace scheme of the Pandas book
particularly damning. Basically, the book was scrubbed of
"creation" language with following Edwards, with "design"
substituted, expressing the same underlying points.
The main precedent is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case
(Edwards). Now if you want to argue the Supreme Court was
wrong, you can certainly do that. (Won't happen in this case as the
Board is not likely to appeal since the Board is not the same
Board.) But the Disctict Court Judge can't. (That would be Activist
in the extreme.)
The School Board-as-dupes theory is interesting, but is manifestly
counterfactual in this case.
|12.20.05 @ 3:46PM|#
independently decide that ID represents a legitimately
non-religious intellectual alternative to evolution.
But, DA, that wouldn't really be possible. Or, it would be, but in
abstract words only, not in reality. You can call a cow a sheep,
but that doesn't change its reality.
Calling the Intelligent Design Theory non-religious wouldn't really
change the fact that it is decidedly non-scientific.
Saying "it looks like X, so it must be X, even though we have no
onservable scientific proof that it is X" is not
science.
The fundamental difference between ID and evolutionary theory is
that evolution is backed by loads of observable scientific fact.
Yes, there are places where evolution cannot explain what we
see---but there is no reason to throw the baby out with the
bathwater (as ID proponents propose we do). On the other hand, ID
is the foil of evolution - yes, it can explain some of the things
that we see (or, all of them, if you take it that far), but it's
not backed up by any reputable, peer-reviewed, observable
scientific fact. Therefore, it is not science.
This is why this ruling should have been more along the lines of
why ID is scientifically invalid. Putting it in the context of the
establishment clause means that, I suppose, if a theory is absurdly
stupid and is not supported by any scientific fact whatsoever, then
it's okay to teach in schools, so long as it carries no traditional
religious baggage along with it. And I don't really feel
comfortable with that. The standard here should be scientific
validity, not whether the theory came from religion or not.
Pooh|12.20.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Evan, I think you are getting pulled off-topic. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't so much matter that ID is stupid, only that it is, to borrow a phrase, irreducibly religious in nature. The appropriate method to deal with a school board which insists on secularly stupid curriculum is to fire them. The problem here is that religious endorsement is constitutionally excluded from public schools.
|12.20.05 @ 4:01PM|#
Pooh, a good point re the district court being bound here. I may break down and read the whole damned opinion later. I remain unconvinced of the "irreducibly religious" nature of ID theory generally, except in a manner that would too broadly define "religious," but I'll gladly admit its proponents there were thinly disguised Creationists. And I admit my counterexample was, well, counterfactual; but it was used to try to shed some light on what I think is going on in both sides of this issue. Anyway, enough for today.
Pooh|12.20.05 @ 5:35PM|#
It's possible to both believe in intelligent design and not
believe that god did it. It just requires belief in space aliens.
(I'm not being facetious.)
The thing that makes ID as posited in the U.S. irreducibly
religious, (and irreducibly Christian from what I can tell, which
is probably the bigger problem, if it were merely deist, that's
different, IMO) is that the 'designer' is presented as an
inherently supernatural, therefore godlike, being.
And let me be the 4,000,001st to say that evolution and ID are not
mutually exclusive, but ID is not science.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245