ID and the Law

Great Op-Ed on ID in Michigan

stcynic — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:18:06 +0000

Great Op-Ed on ID in Michigan

The Detroit News had a terrific op-ed piece by Harry Cook, an Episcopal minister and rector of St. Andrew's Church, and Sherwin Wine, the founding rabbi of the Birmingham Temple, both in the Detroit area. In it, they make the argument that weakening the teaching of science with religious beliefs wrapped in a lab coat is bad for us economically as we try to compete in a high tech world:

The issue is plain: If Michigan is not to become an educational, medical and economic backwater, scientists and citizens need to join efforts:

To demand the teaching of solid science in Michigan's public school classrooms and resist the encroachment of sectarian religion under the guise of pseudo-science.

To urge the passage of legislation to permit sophisticated stem-cell research now banned by state laws that were adopted at the behest of the religious right and its legislative allies.

To ensure economic growth by removing barriers to the teaching and practice of sound science, thus making Michigan more attractive to 21st-century companies and businesses that require a supply of graduate-level scientists and opportunities to pursue sophisticated research untrammeled by restrictive laws.

Sounds good to me.

stcynic Mon, 10/16/2006 - 03:18

Tags

ID and the Law

I was driving from Toledo, back to Indianapolis, when I heard a radio interview with one of the gubernatorial candidates (it was 7am on a Sunday, so what else would be on?) This guy, the Republican I believe, was touting INDIANA as being in better job-formation/financial shape than Michigan.

If true, then you guys are in really sad shape. It might be worth pointing out that Indiana received an A- or B+ on the Fordham Foundation review for science standards a few years ago. (Not that that means doodly when it comes to implementation.)

OBTW, congrats to the Tigers from a long-time Yankee fan.

fusilier
James 2:24

O'Leary and Van Dyke

stcynic — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 07:51:47 +0000

O'Leary and Van Dyke

Denyse O'Leary has a post defending Frank Beckwith's credentials from an anonymous attacker on her blog. The anonymous critic wrote:

Beckwith is not a law professor. He does not have the requisite education to be a law professor. He has no juris doctorate. Therefore, he can only teach at the undergraduate level. And even then, he can only teach the "philosophy of law." Not law itself.

Now, I fully agree with O'Leary that this is a silly and pointless attack on Beckwith. She is absolutely right to point out that he has a Masters in Juridical Studies from Washington University-St Louis, which is an excellent law school, as well as a PhD in philosophy. She's also correct to point out that many respected legal scholars hold similar degrees, including Paul Finkelman and Kermit Hall. But this part jumped out at me:

Unlike the requirements for the JD, he was required to write a scholarly dissertation for his degree, which was published as several law review articles and then revised as a book and then reviewed positively in Harvard Law Review. Not bad.

Now we can certainly debate the merits of the book in question, Darwinism and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. I obviously do not find it persuasive, but I like and respect Frank Beckwith. But to say that the book was reviewed positively in the Harvard Law Review leaves out one important detail: it was reviewed not by a professor at Harvard Law but by Lawrence Van Dyke, who I believe was a 2L at the time (possibly a 3L).

More importantly, the review and Van Dyke's subsequent attempts to defend it was highly amateurish and ended up making him look quite absurd on a national stage. Leiter was correct to point out that Van Dyke's review read like a press release from the Discovery Institute, as he credulously repeated all of their talking points without a hint of having actually given them any thought. As a result, he passed on one false statement after another and ended up looking quite silly. But you would certainly not know any of that by reading O'Leary's simple claim of the book having been positively reviewed in the Harvard Law Review.

stcynic Thu, 10/05/2006 - 03:51

Tags

ID and the Law

Phillip Johnson's Dishonesty

stcynic — Mon, 15 May 2006 07:03:37 +0000

Phillip Johnson's Dishonesty

I had a couple people email me this article from the Sacramento Bee about Phillip Johnson, the founder of the ID movement. One thing that jumped out at me about it was this statement:

Johnson said his intent never was to use public school education as the forum for his ideas. In fact, he said he opposed the efforts by the "well-intentioned but foolish" school board in Dover, Pa., to require teachers to present intelligent design as a viable scientific theory.

It's very similar to an earlier quote from Johnson that I wrote about in a post over two years ago:

But Johnson argues that forcing intelligent design theory into public schools is not his goal. "We definitely aren't looking for some legislation to support our views, or anything like that," he says. "I want to be very cautious about anything I say about the public interest, because obviously what our adversaries would like to say is, "These people want to impose their views through the law.' No. That's what they do. We're against that in principle, and we don't need that."

My immediate reaction to this was, "Uh, what about the Santorum Amendment, which encouraged schools to teach ID? Phillip Johnson wrote it and bragged about writing it. I didn't bother to write this up, but Wesley Elsberry has done so, along with many other quotes from Johnson that clearly conflict with his claim. It's just another example of ID advocates speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Praise Janus!

stcynic Mon, 05/15/2006 - 03:03

Tags

ID and the Law

Don't you HAVE to speak (and "think") out of both sides of your mouth (head) in order to rationalize ID? I mean you have to be able to claim that there is no evidence for evolution at the same time you declare elements of the fossil record to be ape/man/man/ape/ape/ape/man, to declare a perfect transitional form to be nothing more than a fish because it isn't a perfect 50/50 ratio, etc. Especially when it comes to YEC ID-ists, they have to think out of both sides of their mind just to rationalize the world.

and they become doctors too

(grumble)

Evolution, ID and the Law

stcynic — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:49:52 +0000

Evolution, ID and the Law

The American School Board Journal has a thorough and informative article explaining what the law says about evolution, ID and public schools. This should be mandatory reading for school boards and administrators who are confronted with teachers who want to introduce creationism into the science classroom. Perhaps we should start with Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, who wrote in a letter recently that, "Since 1970, state law specifically allows public schools to teach "creationism" in conjunction with the theory of evolution." Well okay, Ernie, but since 1987, such laws have been unconstitutional so you can't enforce it. You'd think a governor would know that.

stcynic Thu, 04/13/2006 - 03:49

Tags

ID and the Law

Over all, a very fine read.

I would take issue with one sentence though:

But science has repeatedly confirmed the counterintuitive theory of undirected evolution based on random variation and natural selection.

I would not say evolution was undirected, only that there doesn't appear to be any discernable direction to it - that it doesn't culminate in humans for example. Also, the last bit might give the missleading impression that evolution is based only on random variation and natural selection. Although those are indeed important, there are other mechanisms at play too.

As Carol Rupe, a member of the Kansas State Board of Education, has said, "Certainly teach the controversy. But teach it in philosophy class, teach it in history class, teach it in a comparative religion class."

I agree.

I agree, but only to a point.

The point being that if you're going to teach ID's version of the "controversy", you should also be required to point out that the logical, argumentive, and factual fallacies of their claims. A teacher shouldn't be permitted to present material from Pandas or Wells's Icons unchallenged as the students will take the lies in those works seriously.

If in a "Philosophy" class, the flaws in their arguments, especially argument from incredulity and their quote-mining tactics, should be made extremely clear.

Of course, just how many Philosophy classes are there in a public high school? I graduated from one of the biggest and broadest schools in Virginia (Fairfax County) and there wasn't a philosophy elective there at all. Most of us who could have handled such a class were too busy with our AP course lists (like Calculus, History, Government, and English, and in some cases a foreign language). Plus band. ;)

I agree that "intelligent design" should be taught in humanities classes. But I don't see its own supporters finding much to like in that idea. Pushing "intelligent design" into science classes is their only way around the First Amendment. In science, if you have the dominant theory, then it will be taught regardless of how offensive it is (witness evolution for that one). But the humanities are a constant battleground. Nothing stands up for long in that environment. Put "intelligent design" in there and it just becomes one among many philosophical ideas to be used for intellectual cockfighting.

Peter says:

I agree that "intelligent design" should be taught in humanities classes.

I agree if you mean that we could teach about ID in a humanities class.

I don't think that's a meaningful distinction. Put it in another subject:

"Teaching algebra" versus "teaching about algebra" — What's the difference?

In either case, the teacher can only put the information in front of the students, who must decide what to do with it. I think the "about" distinction is only being made for "intelligent design" because people imagine teachers brainwashing their students by forcing them to believe the claims of "intelligent design" proponents rather than simply telling them "about" the claims. I don't think it matters.

Regardless of the subject, once a teacher says, "You have to know this and you have to agree with it," no matter how right the claims of the teacher are, that's inappropriate in education. I don't care if the teacher is saying "You have to know the law of gravity and you have to agree with it." That's just ludicrous. It's antithetical both to education and to the scientific method, in which all claims are provisional — just some more provisional than others.

Peter -

I think it's a very meaningful distinction and it certainly was not just invented as some way to punish ID wherever it raises its ugly head. Intelligent design is an inherently religious idea (setting aside the fact it's also scientifically vacuous) and inherently religious ideas cannot be advocated in public schools, whether you call them science, philosophy, or whatever.

For example, it's like the difference between teaching about Christianity in a Religious Studies class and advocating Christianity. The first is Constitutional, the second is not.

Of course students don't "have to" agree with what the teacher says. They don't have to believe in atoms if they don't want to. That doesn't mean thier beliefs should be taken into account when grading their papers.

On the other hand, if a pro-ID teacher teaches a class covering ID and the student's paper or test essay rips ID to shreds, should the teachers' beliefs THEN be taken into account? Certainly that Virginia community college biology teacher gives me the impression she would have graded an anti-ID paper down.

Where is education when a student potentially has to regurgitate a total lie in order to pass a class?

There is a point where somebody has to decide what is and isn't true for a passing grade. Otherwise, education and grades merely become a war between the teacher's and the students' belief systems, each claiming their right to be taken into account.

With evolution, the definition of required factual learning is generally in the hands of the science committees (whether they are ignored by their school boards as in Kansas or not).

Where is the definition of fact when it comes to ID? Dembski's version (and the lies that go with it)? Behe's version (and the lies that go with it)? Johnson's version( and its attendent lies)? Flying Spaghetti Monster (and its associated truths)? Or are the facts of ID those that have pointed out so many times on pro-science websites throughout the world and to report any ID "claim" as being factual gets the kid a failing grade?

A pro-ID teacher could ignore the logical fallacies in a student's pro-ID paper (thus, the student learns nothing to fix their incorrect arguments), merely because the same logical fallacies exist inside his/her own head.

This is just not Aristotle vs. Democratus and "do we include the supernatural in our quest for answers". Hand in hand with ID are the lies about evolution that have been thoroughly debunked time and time again (and 3 more debunkings were published this past week alone). When those lies show up on a test and the teacher and student have differing views because of religion, whose is the mark that matters?

As long as ID requires acknowledging the claims of flaws of evolution that it currently does, it should be best left out of schools entirely. And if you take out those claims of evolution's downfalls, ID is an idea that only takes about 10 minutes to talk about.

Joe says:

Where is education when a student potentially has to regurgitate a total lie in order to pass a class?

But wouldn't the girl who's a Young Earth Creationist say exactly this when graded on the evolution section of her biology class? I'm sure she considers it all lies.

The education part comes from teaching the science as best we know it at the present time. It's not about the 'truth', its about the best testable positive explanations for the evidence. Evolution theory makes tangible predictions (like Tiktaalik) and ID makes none. That's why we teach one as science and the other is not.

There is a point where somebody has to decide what is and isn't true for a passing grade. Otherwise, education and grades merely become a war between the teacher's and the students' belief systems, each claiming their right to be taken into account.

But the great strength of science is not simply in the claims, but that the claims are empirically testable.

Where is the definition of fact when it comes to ID? Dembski's version (and the lies that go with it)? Behe's version (and the lies that go with it)? Johnson's version( and its attendent lies)? Flying Spaghetti Monster (and its associated truths)? Or are the facts of ID those that have pointed out so many times on pro-science websites throughout the world and to report any ID "claim" as being factual gets the kid a failing grade?

Again, its not merely the claim, but whether or not the claim has been or can be tested against the evidence (or even if it can be tested even in principle).

As long as ID requires acknowledging the claims of flaws of evolution that it currently does, it should be best left out of schools entirely. And if you take out those claims of evolution's downfalls, ID is an idea that only takes about 10 minutes to talk about.

I don't mind teachers talking about ID. But really, it'll only be useful if the student already has a good grasp of the scientific method and how scientists find out the things they do.

Dave S., I respect you, but you're completely missing my point. This is no longer about what is and isn't in a *science* class where ID's utter lack of testability makes it a non-starter in the first place.

This is talking about what of ID can and should be taught in a non-science setting as is advocated by the article: a "humanities" or "philosophy" class. In such an environment, "testability" means nothing.

In such an environment, ID remains an extremely flawed argument, a combination of incredulity ("it is too improbable for life to evolve via the accepted means") and false dychotomy ("therefore, it must have been designed"). In addition to that, ID is often combined with the long list of "creationist claims" (the "lies" as I call them).

(Bingo, I just *taught* all the ID that exists in 2 sentences.)

But is that the ID that will be taught when it is taught (or even "talked about") in a humanities or philosophy class?

If not, then what will?

If a teacher makes a false claim about evolution as part of a pro-ID argument/lecture, and then expects the student to repeat it on a test, is the student wrong for presenting the evidence that debunks it? Does it mean the student *failed* to *learn ID* and therefore fails the class?

Is a philosophy teacher mis-teaching the students by not pointing out ID's core argumentative flaws (incredulity, false dychotomy) when they present it? A "humanities" teacher?

But really, it'll only be useful if the student already has a good grasp of the scientific method and how scientists find out the things they do.

In other words, for the vast majority of kids these days, never.

And aside from recognizing a form of pseudoscience when they see it, how else is it "useful"?

But wouldn't the girl who's a Young Earth Creationist say exactly this when graded on the evolution section of her biology class? I'm sure she considers it all lies.

It was this that bothered me - in this case it is the girl vs. the education system that asserts the she must know science as the science committees have decided. the school is backed up by school board and local governmental and state congressional authority.

In the case of ID, however, what is the authority for the amount of ID to be taught and the approach it is taught at. do you give it a realm of credibility, or do you thrash it apart as a logically flawed argument supported by lies and distortions of evidence?

Is giving ID any credibility at all considered "promoting" it?

If the discretion is left to the teacher (as many of the "academic freedom" bills are trying to establish), then where is the teacher's liability for lying and/or teaching false logic?

Really, if the ID side just needs to get out of the education business because there is no way they can get into the schools and still look "good".

Sigh. I wish we in Kentucky could revise the Kentucky Revised Statutes to remove that item about Biblical creation. So far, it has not been challenged in court, because so far no teacher, AFAIK, has taken advantage of the law in a jurisdiction in which a challenge might be likely.

For your edification, here is the actual wording of the law, as revised in 1990. Note that it does not use the word "creationism," as Ernie implies, but the "Bible theory (sic) of creation." The two are not quite the same thing.

KRS 158.177 Teaching of evolution -- Right to include Bible theory of creation.

(1) In any public school instruction concerning the theories of the creation of man and the earth, and which involves the theory thereon commonly known as evolution, any teacher so desiring may include as a portion of such instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible, and may accordingly read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation, thereby
affording students a choice as to which such theory to accept.

(2) For those students receiving such instruction, and who accept the Bible theory of creation, credit shall be permitted on any examination in which adherence to such theory is propounded, provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.

(3) No teacher in a public school may stress any particular denominational religious belief.

(4) This section is not to be construed as being adverse to any decision which has been rendered by any court of competent jurisdiction.

You legal hounds can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe paragraph 4 means this statute has no legal standing if a higher court has ruled such action unconstitutional.

For example, it's like the difference between teaching about Christianity in a Religious Studies class and advocating Christianity. The first is Constitutional, the second is not.

But I don't think education should involve advocacy in science, history, literature, philosophy, or any subject that involves provisional knowledge. (Which basically leaves mathematics alone in the corner with incontrovertible content.) My point is not that "intelligent design" should not be specially watched for traces of advocacy in the classroom, but that all educators in (almost) all subjects should be watching themselves for traces of advocacy, Constitutional or not. My view is narrower than that of the constitution, in other words.

Furthermore, I don't think adding the word "about" is nearly enough to guard against "advocacy." It's just a vague preposition — smoke and mirrors, worthy of the ID people themselves.

Science education is a two-tiered affair: (1) Children are taught the scientific method, which can be applied to anything; (2) Children are taught the prevailing theories about life and the universe that have been the products of the scientific method.

As to the first tier, the scientific method, it's a philosophical proposition just like any other. It's based on the idea that we can know things about our environment and that we can know those things based on a system of causality and testing. Could a person reasonably disagree with that? Absolutely. But the scientific endeavor has led to many benefits of health and technology. Should that be pointed out to someone who rejects the philosophical basis for the method? Sure. But they can still disagree.

As to the second tier, the prevailing results of the scientific method, it's just like learning historical facts: "Evolution is the theory under which most life scientists operate under." It is basic cultural knowledge, like knowing that Hitler led Germany during the Second World War. Whatever you further attach to either of those facts about evolution or Hitler depends on how you want to view the circumstances, how you want to spin the context, and so on. Do kids need to believe that Hitler was evil and that evolution is correct? No! They just need to know that Hitler is generally seen in a very poor light and that evolution is the prevailing theory of life.

But as a society we fail to educate our children such that they can couch their knowledge of things in such provisional terms if they want to. If we taught them to do that, or allowed them to do that, they might be better independent thinkers and the scientific community might ultimately see a greater benefit at the professional level. But being able to use knowledge in provisional terms is exactly what makes science unique and exactly what religion refuses to do.

If children came home to their parents and said, "Some people believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again a few days later, but other people think Jesus perhaps never existed," it would be an absolutely true statement. Christian parents will have none of that, though. There will be no admission that there are in fact sane people who do not take Christianity seriously and are not in fact under the influence of Satan.

So why should the scientific community be upset if children can similarly come home to their parents and say, "Some people believe that all life on earth arose through evolution by natural selection, but other people believe that God designed everything to be this way"? Why shouldn't the scientific community be more able than the Christian to community to admit to its detractors and meet them face to face?

Why shouldn't the scientific community be more able than the Christian to community to admit to its detractors and meet them face to face?

My response would be that Biblical literalism (creationism) and intelligent design (creationism disguised) are not sciences, and have no place in a science curriculum. So, one would hope, a child would not be bringing such news home from his science class.

I do agree, however, that teachers should spend some time in class acknowledging that the theory of evolution is controversial in the public arena, but that in the scientific arena it is not. (Behe, Dembski, et alia not withstanding.) Teachers should not (especially in public schools) spend time discussing in detail what either creation science or ID propound.

The question is not whether we are trying to avoid "the controversy," but whether we are trying to avoid adding to the confusion between what is science and what is not.

As for the question of the Resurrection (rather timely, don't you think?), surely Christian families would recognize that Jews and Muslims, for example, do not accept the Resurrection. They may not be happy about the admission, but they would have to at least educate their children that not all people are Christian.

wheatdogg wrote:

I wish we in Kentucky could revise the Kentucky Revised Statutes to remove that item about Biblical creation. So far, it has not been challenged in court, because so far no teacher, AFAIK, has taken advantage of the law in a jurisdiction in which a challenge might be likely.

It doesn't need to be challenged in court, it's already invalidated by Edwards v Aguillard. It is as pointless as states still having laws against miscegenation on the books. The moment they tried to actually enforce such laws, a Federal court will hit them with an injunction so fast it'll make their heads spin. Anyone challenging that enforcement would get a summary judgement in no time and that judgement would be upheld. In fact, you don't even need Edwards to know that law is overturned. Kentucky is in the 6th circuit, which ruled in 1975 in Daniel v Waters that you could not teach the Biblical creation story. The case was not appealed, but it's still binding in the 6th circuit.

In response to my question, "[W]hy should the scientific community be upset if children can similarly come home to their parents and say, 'Some people believe that all life on earth arose through evolution by natural selection, but other people believe that God designed everything to be this way'?"

wheatdog said:

Biblical literalism (creationism) and intelligent design (creationism disguised) are not sciences, and have no place in a science curriculum. So, one would hope, a child would not be bringing such news home from his science class.

It doesn't matter whether Biblical literalism, creationism, or intelligent design are "sciences." What matters is that they, together with the scientific enterprise, are attempting to answer the same question: "Why are things the way they are?"

For the vast majority of human history, the theory of evolution by natural selection did not exist. Every culture has come up with a different idea for how things got to be the way they are. Some cultures have come up with multiple ideas. There is a historical and psychological connection between these attempts to explain the world and that connection cannot be denied, unless the scientific community wants to go Orwellian on the rest of the world.

Taking the long historical perspective, evolution by natural selection is only the latest in the long stream of attempts to explain how things got to be the way they are. Most scientists agree that it is also the best explanation, by far (and I agree with them). However, the nature of our society, and especially the nature of human society on a global scale, is that many of those old ideas about the origins of life are still hanging on in various groups of people. It is one thing to say that those people should be aware of other explanations, but quite another to tell them they must abandon their old beliefs in favor of the new scientific explanation. To do the latter would not be significantly different from behaving as the most expansive and oppressive religions have done, and would cross the line from science to "scientism."

As well, from a historical and cultural perspective — wholly aside from the scientific one — I think we would do a great disservice to ourselves and our children by crushing or ignoring the long history of ideas about how life got here that existed prior to 1858. How can a student understand the growth and expansion of Christianity if he or she has been told that everything about Christianity is patently wrong and superseded by science? That may be true, but in order to understand how the world got to be the way it is, with Christianity filling the sails of Western Europe and subsequently expanding over the globe, a person needs to understand that there was a time before evolution by natural selection, indeed a time before science, when intelligent people could believe the claims of Christianity without seeming to be insane.

Students need to be taught our complete cultural history and that includes Christianity. It also includes the very important fact that, in the last 500 years, Christianity has butted heads with science again and again. In my opinion, the only reason we are not doing that in our schools is because we, as a society, are using education as the latest battleground in the conflict and not allowing that perhaps the students deserve to know what's going on and think for themselves, rather than passively suffer the fallout from constant ideological warfare.

I don't think an understanding of creation myths is very important to understanding european history. When religious clashes happened it was never over creation myths. Up until recently few people knew the prayers of their church, let alone theological positions. Aside from anti-evolutionism, the creation story has been a pretty irrelevant part of history.

There's more to religion than just creation myths, and religion without creation myths is incomplete. Today we are accustomed to having massive amounts of reliable information at our fingertips and we have unprecedented control over our immediate environment. But for most of human history, neither of those things was true. The world was a vast, powerful, and capricious place. Having a tool to understand it was very important to maintaining sanity, goals, group cohesion, social hierarchy, and all sorts of other things that were necessary for human society to develop. Religion played that role and did it so well that for many people the idea of a sane society without religion seems impossible. Simply running roughshod over that historical legacy by insisting that Biblical literalism, creationism, and intelligent design are only religious beliefs and therefore must crumble before the bulldozer of science with the help of the Constitution is socially irresponsible. We cannot expect public schools to pretend that religion does not exist by failing to address the historical connection between religion and science.

Religion should be taught (or "taught about," if you think vague prepositions make it safer) in public schools; but all religions should be taught. Students should know about the Western religions as well as the Eastern ones, and how those religions have affected their cultures. (That is especially important with the increasing importance of Asia to the world economy.) Students should be aware that when they go to public schools, their classmates come from different cultural traditions so their parents teach them different things. With so much diversity at the elementary school level, where children are most impressionable, what good reason do we have for refraining from talking about these things until they're undergraduates in sociology, philosophy, and anthropology classes? So long as no religion is advocated and no religion is excluded, I see no Constitutional barrier.

Which basically leaves mathematics alone in the corner with incontrovertible content.

Actually, aside from the rules of proofs that one gets in geometry (one has to learn the rules of deduction at some point), basic algebra (communative and associative properties, etc), and the rules of arithmetic itself (really the rule of addition, as by the time one hits 4th grade, subtraction, multiplication, and division have been derived from addition), everything in mathematics classes is derived. Including fractions, percents, decimals, etc., as they're derived from division by giving alternate means of expression for the "remainder". Everything else is derived from those other rules and defining what terms to use when those rules seem to fail (like irrational in geometry (pi) and square roots, or imaginary numbers).

In fact, its the whole "proof" thing, that while effectively supporting the fact that mathematics all "works" to the students, is the biggest turn-off to most students because it means learning too much of why something works so one never connects the dots to how one is supposed to pragmatically use it.

Kids *seem* to take it for granted that this math stuff works, but in reality they are exposed to the proofs regardless of whether a particular teacher or level of understanding requires them to re-derive those same proofs on a test. (in some classes like calculus one rarely is actually asked at the high school level to re-derive the limit and/or differential from the infinite series, but one is often asked to rederive, say, the pythagorean theorem or certain facets of analytic geometry like why a parallelagram and rectangle have the same rule for calculating area).

Peter --

I am not disagreeing with your argument that students need to be educated about the "big picture." I merely suggest that the science class may not be the best venue for such discussions. Rather, social studies or history classes may be a better place. Our Euro history teacher, for example, addresses the Muslim vs Christian and the Lutheran vs Catholic aspects of European history by holding mock trials, in which Luther (for example) has to defend his theology against the Catholic "prosecution." No doubt this teaching method could be adapted to evolution vs creationism, or whatever.

You are right in saying that students need to have a better idea of our history, and of how evolution and the rest of science fits into that history. For that matter, so do our teachers and politicians. This comment here, however, I have trouble with.

Simply running roughshod over that historical legacy by insisting that Biblical literalism, creationism, and intelligent design are only religious beliefs and therefore must crumble before the bulldozer of science with the help of the Constitution is socially irresponsible. We cannot expect public schools to pretend that religion does not exist by failing to address the historical connection between religion and science.

The first sentence here overstates the case, at least in my mind. Science and religion are connected, yes, but they are different pursuits that address different concerns. I am not proposing at all that science should become "scientism," as you say, but that students should realize that science cannot and should not address questions that are purely theological, such as supernatural influences on the development of life. Similarly, religion cannot and should not address questions that are purely scientific, such as the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang. This coexistence does not mean science will obliterate religion, or religion science.

Even atheists can agree that religion and religious beliefs have played an enormous, if not dominant role in human history. To ignore religion in the pursuit of some pristine "secular" education would do our students a great disservice. At the same time, we cannot let them disapprehend that religion can replace science, or science religion, which from my vantage point extremists on either end of the spectrum seem to advocate.

ahem -- it's late and my fingers do not obey the mind. I meant "misapprehend."

It is one thing to say that those people should be aware of other explanations, but quite another to tell them they must abandon their old beliefs in favor of the new scientific explanation. To do the latter would not be significantly different from behaving as the most expansive and oppressive religions have done, and would cross the line from science to "scientism."

So expecting people to abandon the intuitively appealing notion that the Earth is flat in favor of the scientifically-derived knowledge that it's roughly spherical is 'scientism'?

'Science' is what we named the method that produces high-quality approximations of the truth. We did not simply declare that method to be useful and productive, we acknowledged the objective reality that it is so.

Some beliefs can only be justified irrationally. Other beliefs could theoretically be justified by evidence, but the existing evidence rules them out. Demanding that we NOT expect people to abandom those beliefs is insane.

What you call 'scientism' seems to be nothing more than basic, applied rationality.

Joe -

It's quite possible I am missing your point. My apologies...its not done on purpose.

This is no longer about what is and isn't in a *science* class where ID's utter lack of testability makes it a non-starter in the first place.

To me, there are 3 issues here.

1. Is ID science?
2. Even if not a science, does ID at least posit some useful model of any kind?
3. Is it religion?

The answers are no, no and yes.

This is talking about what of ID can and should be taught in a non-science setting as is advocated by the article: a "humanities" or "philosophy" class. In such an environment, "testability" means nothing.

Personally I think it could be taught in such a setting as a survey of who the main ID avocates are, and what they believe and what their arguments are. But I also think this can't really be done without confusion until the student first has a solid background in the scientific method. It would not do to simply take the Dover model (or a blatantly pro-Creation model as happened in El Cajon) for example and present it in a philosophy class instead of a biology class, because that model clearly advocates the ID arguments, it does not merely teach about them. Obviously there are many grey areas which have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on exactly what the class content is.

But is that the ID that will be taught when it is taught (or even "talked about") in a humanities or philosophy class?

One could also teach about the specific arguments they use, such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, and why scientists reject those arguments (and hopefully the students could figure this out themselves using their background knowledge in science). However what you can't do (and we're talking public schools here) is teach that they are valid scientific arguments. This would be so in my opinion even if you were in a philosophy class and not a science class.

If a teacher makes a false claim about evolution as part of a pro-ID argument/lecture, and then expects the student to repeat it on a test, is the student wrong for presenting the evidence that debunks it? Does it mean the student *failed* to *learn ID* and therefore fails the class?

This problem could well exist for any class. If a teacher presents a bad proof for example in math class and the student gives the correct proof on a test, should that student fail? No, he should be able to appeal to someone else or some acedemic body. I think common sence applies here.

In other words, for the vast majority of kids these days, never.
And aside from recognizing a form of pseudoscience when they see it, how else is it "useful"?

I think kids at least have a better grasp than the average adult. At least, I hope so.

As for usefulness, I don't think ID has any use scientifically in the mainstream except as a bad example, although it has some political and social uses for a segment of the community. But like it or not, it is topical, and people want to hear about it. I don't see devoting an entire course to it, but some may.

It was this that bothered me - in this case it is the girl vs. the education system that asserts the she must know science as the science committees have decided. the school is backed up by school board and local governmental and state congressional authority.

It's not a punishment, but a responsibility for us to teach our kids the very best science we have, with the understanding that science is stable, but it never stands still. You can disagree with the facts, but you don't get to choose them.

Is giving ID any credibility at all considered "promoting" it?

I believe in giving credibility where it's due. So far, there is no credibility to the ID position from the scientific standpoint. But pointing out for instance that its a clever strategy designed to succeed where the more blatant and overt forms of creationism by attempting to hide its religious basis better, iow that's its more credible legally or politically, is not promoting it. But that's my opinion. Others may see it differently.

If the discretion is left to the teacher (as many of the "academic freedom" bills are trying to establish), then where is the teacher's liability for lying and/or teaching false logic?

Well there's no constitutional barrier against being a bad teacher, just a teacher that promotes religious viewpoints. There are other checks on that. Like any profession though, there are good ones and bad ones.

Really, if the ID side just needs to get out of the education business because there is no way they can get into the schools and still look "good".

I don't think they care about looking good. I think they care only about damaging evolution and in the process getting some form of acceptance of their theological views as genuine empirically supported theory.

As for teaching about modern ID creationism, it's going to have to be done carefully so as not to cross the line into proselytization. I'm not saying this is easy to do, and I know there are lots of areas where it might be argueable if you've gone too far.

Sorry if I'm still not getting it Joe.

Peter says:

But I don't think education should involve advocacy in science, history, literature, philosophy, or any subject that involves provisional knowledge.

I think we certainly need to advocate science as its best we know it today. Of course we need to stress that scientific knowledge is always provisional, but this need not stop us from accepting certain theories with a very high degree of confidence and teaching that those are 'correct' - correct inasfar as we know at the present time, pending possible refutation.

Which basically leaves mathematics alone in the corner with incontrovertible content.

Certainly some things may be beyond formal disproof, but there must be some areas in mathematics where there is dispute.

Furthermore, I don't think adding the word "about" is nearly enough to guard against "advocacy." It's just a vague preposition -- smoke and mirrors, worthy of the ID people themselves.

Granted this is a fairly broad standard, but I'm not sure how else you would in practice to guard against this advocacy you speak of. Surely we can't qualify every statement we make.

Luskin on Caldwell's Dismissed Lawsuit

stcynic — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:30:32 +0000

Luskin on Caldwell's Dismissed Lawsuit

Casey Luskin has an essay up on the Caldwells' lawsuit against UC's Understanding Evolution website, a suit that was dismissed a couple weeks ago. Luskin, like Caldwell, continues to make one glaring error in reasoning:

According to a Daily Californian article, attorney Larry Caldwell believes that by sponsoring the Understanding Evolution website "the state of California is taking a position on religious issues and advocating certain religious values, which is clearly a violation" of the Establishment Clause. Perhaps the most egregious example of such a violation is the title of a page which states, "Misconception: 'Evolution and religion are incompatible.'"** By labeling this belief a "misconception," the government is clearly taking sides on what is essentially a religious and not a scientific question: the question of whether religion and evolution are compatible.

Absolutely false, for one reason that should be glaringly obvious to anyone: they are confusing the general and the particular. The UC site merely describes the pro-evolution views of numerous religious organizations. The fact that many religious people accept evolution is enough, all by itself, to show that religion is not incompatible with evolution. Note that this is a different statement than saying that someone's specific religion is not incompatible with evolution.

Those who believe that their religion and evolution are compatible obviously have different religious views than those who believe they are incompatible. But the former clearly do exist and surely it's not unconstitutional for the government merely to reference their existence and to make the obviously accurate statement that some religious views are compatible with evolution. And if some religious views are compatible with religion, then there is no inherent incompatibility between religion and evolution, only between particular religious views and evolution.

The mere mention that other religious people hold a different view of evolution simply doesn't mean that the rights of those who think they are incompatible have been violated. Nor does it mean that the establishment clause has been violated. As Sandefur explained months ago, the claim that some religious groups accept evolution as true "is not a theological claim at all, no more than it would be to say that 'most Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God,' or 'Most Jewish groups are made up of Jews.' It is a descriptive statement, which is entirely appropriate in the context of taxpayer-funded education. No Court has ever suggested that the government cannot fund a statement which describes the beliefs of particular religious groups, even if they do so for a reason that parents do not want to hear."

stcynic Thu, 03/30/2006 - 02:30

Tags

ID and the Law

According to a Daily Californian article, attorney Larry Caldwell believes that by sponsoring the Understanding Evolution website "the state of California is taking a position on religious issues and advocating certain religious values, which is clearly a violation" of the Establishment Clause.

This argument keeps coming up in Creationist lawsuits and it keeps getting knocked down. Even if it weren't thoroughly ludicrious, there's precedent aplenty against it (Crowley v. Smithsonian etc.).

I have a different take on Luskin's comment and Caldwell's lawsuit. Unless they can show that UC actually denied a faculty member to post an anti-evolution, pro-creation or pro-ID website on its computers, the state has not "tak(en) sides" on the issue.

I say "faculty member" because usually university guidelines limit website hosting on its computers to faculty members and possibly some students. Universities usually don't allow their computers to host websites proposed by any Tom, Dick or Harry who walks in off the street and ask them to.

Isn't it amazing how these judges keep getting it wrong? That's three times in a row now (adding in Dover and Cobb County) that they've screwed it up, according to the Discovery Institute. Obviously a Darwinist conspiracy....

Not to mention the born again Christian president who keeps screwing up and nominating the judges who keep screwing up. And the born again Christian voters who screwed up and voted for him twice. That's one powerful Darwinist conspiracy at work.

Ginger, it appears that more people should be nominated for the Darwin Awards (www.darwinawards.com) than we would have imagined.

Another Caldwell Nuisance Suit Dismissed

stcynic — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:35:16 +0000

Another Caldwell Nuisance Suit Dismissed

Larry and Jeanne Caldwell, lawsuit filers extraordinaire, have had one dismissed. They sued over Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website, claiming that it used government money to promote religious views. Timothy Sandefur wrote a response to that suit showing why it was clearly frivolous and apparently the courts agreed. Carl Zimmer reports that the suit has been dismissed. I don't have details on the dismissal yet, but I'll post them as soon as I do.

Update: Christopher Patti, the UC counsel who argued this case, was kind enough to send me a copy of the judge's order granting the motion to dismiss. I have uploaded the order in PDF format here. The dismissal was primarily on the grounds of standing, not on the substantive issues in the case.

stcynic Tue, 03/14/2006 - 07:35

Tags

ID and the Law

Well it's good to see this one dismissed. Does anyone here know what happened to the one suit where the Christian Schools were sueing because their credits weren't being recognized?

Isn't there some sort of law that says you can't just file lawsuit after pointless lawsuit with the intent to be a harassing douchbag?

Halcyon wrote:

Does anyone here know what happened to the one suit where the Christian Schools were sueing because their credits weren't being recognized?

Still waiting for the judge to rule on the motion to dismiss. Mr. Patti was also kind enough to send me the defendants' filings on that, which I've been dying to get my hands on. I'll be posting about that shortly.

Woohoo! See I knew you'd have some info.

WRT "lawsuit after pointless lawsuit", INAL but I believe the term is "vexatious litigant" and the courts are, for some reason, very reluctant to take away someone's right to sue. 60 Minutes did a piece a few years ago about some woman who made her entire neighborhood a living hell by suing everyone for everything, and the courts still didn't sanction her.

Generally another party will have to make the vexatious litigant motion. Sometimes vexatious litigants avoid that by suing different people all the time. Caldwell has sued Genie Scott, in a suit he let lapse, his local school district, and Berkeley.

Someone sued by one of the Caldwells may want to have the history available for the sake of motions, but so far he's going after different defendants every time.

Has the Discovery Institute noted the dismissal? IIRC they and a few other ID blogs trumpeted the original suit. I'm sure in the interests of accuracy and fairness they'll want to note the dismissal.

Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the Complaint? Thank you.

I have a pdf of the complaint. It's 2.75 Mb. I could e-mail it or perhaps Ed would be willing to host it.

Bruce-

If you wanna email it to me, I'll be happy to host it. I don't think I've seen it myself.

I've uploaded the original complaint to my domain. Click here.

Since the merits weren't addressed don't they just have to correct the problems with standing and file the complaint again?

It seems clear that taxpayer funds are being used to send a religious message i.e. evolution is compatible with Christian theology. It isn't the gov'ts business to tell people what is and is not compatible with their religious beliefs. I'm surprised at anyone who supports the defendants in this.

"It isn't the gov'ts business to tell people what is and is not compatible with their religious beliefs."

The government (via the education system) just tells people what is generally agreed fact. It's the religions which have a tendency to inform their members that their beliefs aren't compatible with reality.

Pico Farad wrote:

It seems clear that taxpayer funds are being used to send a religious message i.e. evolution is compatible with Christian theology. It isn't the gov'ts business to tell people what is and is not compatible with their religious beliefs. I'm surprised at anyone who supports the defendants in this.

This is false. The website does not endorse any religious view, it merely describes a religious view. It says that there are many Christian and Jewish organizations who have publicly stated that there is no conflict between evolution and their faith. There is no constitutional violation in describing religious views, only in endorsing them. It is a simple factual statement - some religious groups endorse evolution. It is no more a violation of the first amendment than to say that Islam was founded by Muhammed or that Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah.

By the way, Pico Farad is none other than our old pal DaveScot. While I appreciate him taking time out of his normal daily routine of making a complete ass of himself over at Dembski's blog, this just gave me the opportunity to ban him here as he was on my old blog.

In Canada, judges can asses the costs of the case against plaintiffs who have brought a frivolous suit: that means that they have to pay the defendents' lawyers and perhaps other expenses. It tends to cut down on such nonsense.

I've linked to this post from my own 'blog, with a few comments about it and of course a link to the neat Understanding Evolution site.

Slow Posting Day

stcynic — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:16:47 +0000

Slow Posting Day

Sorry about the lack of new posts, but I'm tied up at the moment with legislative issues here in Michigan. The house bill that includes language opening the door to ID was passed by the house last week and sent to the Senate. We are awaiting today the release of a separate bill by the chairman of the Senate Education Committee, which may or may not include similar language. We don't know at this point which of the two bills will be the final bill or what the language will be, so we are preparing our strategy in the dark at the moment. In the meantime, I'm getting calls from the press and we're taking a "no comment...yet" approach. The ACLU of Michigan, however, issued a press release on the matter this morning. MCFS will be issuing a public statement as well, but we are waiting for the wording of the Senate bill to be released first.

stcynic Wed, 03/08/2006 - 06:16

Tags

ID and the Law

It could be worse... You could be a Tiger fan...

This hits too close to home. As if Michigan weren't hurting enough already - let's give outside investors one more reason to avoid the state!

Ed, do you have a list of the idiot legislators who voted in favor? I'd like to know whom NOT to vote for next time!

Zachary:

Here are the yeas and nays on the bill:

Yeas--70

Accavitti Espinoza McDowell Rocca

Acciavatti Farhat Meyer Sak

Amos Farrah Moolenaar Schuitmaker

Anderson Gaffney Moore Shaffer

Angerer Garfield Mortimer Sheen

Ball Hansen Murphy Stahl

Baxter Hildenbrand Newell Stakoe

Byrnes Hoogendyk Nitz Steil

Byrum Huizenga Nofs Stewart

Casperson Hummel Palmer Taub

Caul Hune Palsrok Vagnozzi

Clemente Jones Pastor Van Regenmorter

DeRoche Kahn Pavlov Vander Veen

Dillon Kooiman Pearce Walker

Donigan LaJoy Polidori Ward

Drolet Law, David Proos Wenke

Elsenheimer Law, Kathleen Robertson Whitmer

Emmons Marleau

Nays--31

Adamini Cushingberry Kolb Smith, Virgil

Bennett Gillard Leland Spade

Bieda Gleason Lipsey Tobocman

Brandenburg Gonzales Meisner Waters

Brown Gosselin Miller Williams

Caswell Green Plakas Wojno

Clack Hood Sheltrown Zelenko

Condino Hopgood Smith, Alma

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone who voted for the bill is an idiot - the language we object to is one tiny part of the bill. One legislatore who voted for the bill, Wenke, tried to amend that section out but his amendment failed; he voted for the overall bill anyway.

Nevada Anti-Evolution Referendum

stcynic — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:59:56 +0000

Nevada Anti-Evolution Referendum

A masonry contractor in Las Vegas has filed the papers to put an anti-evolution referendum on the ballot in Nevada that would actually amend the state constitution. The act would require teachers to teach several silly anti-evolution arguments, such as the claim that "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself." The very phrase "mathematically impossible" is a nonsense phrase; presumably he means that the odds of the first cell evolving are extremely high, in which case I would ask him to produce a valid probability calculation to justify the claim. Even in Vegas, where figuring the odds of a proposition is second nature, I doubt he can.

My favorite requirement, though, is the one that says teachers have to teach students that "nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link.'" What an absurd standard to set. What does it take to make something "disputable"? One merely has to say, "I dispute that" and - voila! - it's not "indisputable" anymore. No one with any real knowledge of the fossil record would claim that there are no transitional species found in it, of course, but as long as one person, no matter how ignorant they are, doesn't accept it as such it's "disputible."

stcynic Wed, 03/01/2006 - 06:59

Tags

ID and the Law

Aren't there slightly more spiritually pressing matters for publicly minded fundies to address in Vegas than the teaching of evolution?

But it's the teaching of evolution, clearly, that's led to all the other stuff.

To pick a small nit...

"presumably he means that the odds of the first cell evolving are extremely high"

High in that sentence should be low, or else it should read something like: "presumably he means that the odds against the first cell evolving are extremely high"

It seems like it's terribly important for certain Christians (American conservative/literalist) to believe the Genesis account of the Fall to be exacty true as written, and they feel it's impossible to square that literal story with Evolution.

No literal Fall = no need for Jesus.

So, Evolution's got to go. (and by 'Evolution, most American conservative Christians mean everything attending modern Scientific understanding, like an old earth and Universe etc.)

It makes you wonder how sincere their recent alliance with ID really is, since you could make a case that many forms of ID are just as hostile to a literal Fall story.

Here we go again. So now a masonry contractor knows more about evolution than professional biologists. Oops - I guess that comment smacks of "elitism" - my apologies to dlamming.

It's amusing that his proposal would require to teach that "some scientists say this" and "some scientists say that". I'm sure we could find a few physicists who dimiss relativity, or cosmologists who dismiss the Big Bang. Why not insist on teaching that in Physics class as well? Same old story.

Perhaps this guy would like biologists to set the state and local codes for building brick walls and such - turnabout is fair play after all.

Here's a perfect case in point for dlamming. When igoramuses attempt to set education standards and policy, you get "garbage in, garbage out."

Enigma opines:

To pick a small nit...

"presumably he means that the odds of the first cell evolving are extremely high"

High in that sentence should be low, or else it should read something like: "presumably he means that the odds against the first cell evolving are extremely high"

I thought the same when I first read this. But the term is 'odds', not 'probability', and so I think high is the correct word there.

I could be wrong though. Your revised statement also looks good...depends on how you look at it.

No literal Fall = no need for Jesus.
So, Evolution's got to go.

Yes, evolution kinda goes against the whole evangelical schtick. God has a plan for your life, God answers your prayers, God sends you signs. God is on our side. It's a whole different, as they say, organizing principle.

The problem with evolution may be not so much that it flatly contradicts the Bible (+ approved religious media outlets) but that it's off-message, and controlling the message, including your idea of the meaning of life, is what it's all about.

countlurkula, YES!

Your second paragraph is a bull's-eye. Contemporary America is ALL MESSAGE! The only way to move masses, or to keep them where they are, is "persuasion science"-based message control.

See Ed's blog today on the "War on Christians".

This post should also be called "And People Wonder Why I'm a Cynic". This stuff just boggles the rational mind.

I think they may as well also amend the constitution to say that when turning brass on a South Bend lathe, one such use an open mind when selecting lubricants, including considering the use of honey for pieces greater than 1.4-inches in diameter. That masonry contractor is an absolute moron who has no respect and no understanding of his constitution.

Buttars' Bills Facing Veto

stcynic — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:11:09 +0000

Buttars' Bills Facing Veto

The two bills that Sen. Chris Buttars of Utah has been pushing in that state legislature, one that is anti-evolution and one that would prohibit students from forming gay-straight clubs in public schools, may both be vetoed by the governor of the state:

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said for the first time Thursday that he'd veto a pair of controversial bills aimed at banning so-called gay-straight alliances in public high schools and at controlling what students are taught about evolution.

"If they look and feel like they did in earlier incarnations, I will veto them. We'll have to see what they look like when they reach my desk," Huntsman told the Deseret Morning News following his monthly press conference televised on KUED Channel 7.

Needless to say, Buttars is shocked - shocked! - by this development:

Both bills are sponsored by Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who said he was surprised at the governor's veto threat. "Why doesn't he like them? What's wrong with them?" Buttars asked. "I find it amazing he'd make those kind of comments, and he's never asked to talk to me."

Awww, don't worry Chris. One day an elderly legislator will die off and you'll get a seat at the adult table on thanksgiving.

stcynic Sat, 02/25/2006 - 05:11

Tags

ID and the Law

Buttars whinges:

"I find it amazing he'd make those kind of comments, and he's never asked to talk to me."

Why should he need to talk to Buttars? I think Buttars' position is already abundantly clear and abundantly wrong-headed. If the language is really so innocuous and carries "no message", then why is Buttars even bothering at all?

To quote the article, "All states have their idiosyncracies." And all states have their idiots.

Beckwith on the Dover Ruling

stcynic — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:38:05 +0000

Beckwith on the Dover Ruling

Frank Beckwith, a friendly rival on the question of intelligent design and the law, was a speaker at the Greer-Heard Forum that included many other prominent peopel on both sides of the ID question. The Baptist Press News has a report on his presentation, which a reader emailed me this morning. Beckwith, for those who may not know, is the associate director of the Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor and, as such, his views deserve to be taken seriously. And if you're beginning to suspect that my praise is setting him up for criticism, you're correct; I like Frank, but I really think he's wrong on this one.

His presentation apparently focused on the Dover ruling, for fairly obvious reasons. For less obvious reasons, perhaps, it appears that he focused his entire argument on one relatively minor aspect of Judge Jones' ruling. That focus is hinted to in the title of the BP News article, Faith factors don't negage intelligent design, prof says. The target here is Jones' ruling on the purpose prong of the Lemon test; more broadly, it is that prong anywhere it is applied:

Francis J. Beckwith, associate director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University, told a New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary forum that the striking down of a policy based solely on the religious motives of its adherents is "logically fallacious and constitutionally suspect."...
"Religious belief is one of the few rights absolutely protected under the Constitution," Beckwith said. "The government may penalize actions, not beliefs.

"Beliefs that propel a citizen to embrace particular policies may not be used by the government to limit a citizen's legitimate liberties or powers," he said.

To some degree, I agree with him on this. I don't think the fact that a given policy is motivated by one's religious beliefs, in and of itself, makes that policy violate the establishment clause. The civil rights laws are not unconstitutional merely because the leaders of that movement were mostly clergymen, nor does a legislator's religious objections to, say, abortion make a law against abortion trigger an establishment clause violation.

But I think he is oversimplifying things considerably here and changing the predicate without telling us. The establishment clause does not deal with limits on a citizen's legitimate powers but upon the government's legitimate powers, nor does invocation of the establishment clause "punish" someone for their beliefs. Equally as important, the purpose prong is generally applied more narrowly than he suggests; that is, it is generally applied by asking whether a given policy really achieves the policymaker's stated purpose. If it does not, that's a pretty strong indication that the stated purpose may well be a cover up for the real purpose.

For example, a key part of the court's ruling in Edwards v Aguillard was an examination of the Louisiana legislature's stated purpose. Justice Brennan wrote, "While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham." The ruling went into considerable detail on why the actual policy adopted did not further the stated goal, which was to insure "academic freedom'.

The court noted, for example, that the bill's primary sponsor said that the goal of requiring the teaching of creation science whenever evolution was taught was actually to get rid of the teaching of evolution; by no logical standard could that be construed as insuring academic freedom. The court also noted that the goal of academic freedom is not advanced by a policy that mandates the teaching of one, and only one, clearly religious alternative to evolution. The Act mandated the preparation of teaching materials on "creation science", but not of any other alternative.

Thus, the court logically concluded that the stated purpose was a sham, a mere cover for the real purpose. And to establish the importance of this finding, they cited Justice O'Connor in Wallace: "It is not a trivial matter, however, to require that the legislature manifest a secular purpose and omit all sectarian endorsements from its laws. That requirement is precisely tailored to the Establishment Clause's purpose of assuring that Government not intentionally endorse religion or a religious practice."

Likewise, Judge Jones in the Dover ruling goes beyond merely asking if the board was motivated by their religious faith, asking more specifically whether the board was seeking to have that faith endorsed in official school policy and, equally as important, attempting to cover up that fact with dishonest statements of purpose. And on that count, the record was very, very clear. Not only was the board's intent in passing the policy to advance and endorse a particular religious viewpoint, several of the members of that board also outright lied under oath to pretend otherwise.

There are a couple of other things that need to be said. First, bear in mind that Judge Jones is a district court judge. Regardless of whether one accepts the purpose prong of the Lemon test to be a good standard or not, a lower court judge is still bound to apply it. There is a great deal of confusion in the Supreme Court's various precedents on the establishment clause and Judge Jones wisely chose to evaluate the Dover policy based on any of the criteria that a higher court might choose to apply. Thus, his ruling included long sections not only on the purpose prong, but on the effect prong and on the endorsement test as well.

Second, and most importantly, even if you eliminate the purpose prong analysis from the ruling entirely, the result would still be the same. It's the effect prong material that is most important. Regardless of the school board's ostensible intent or purpose, if the idea being espoused is an inherently religious position being dishonestly dressed up in scientific-sounding language in order to escape judicial scrutiny, it is still clearly an establishment clause violation. This is an issue that Beckwith did not address at all in his presentation.

So even if he is absolutely correct in his objections to the purpose prong - and his objection is clearly to that prong itself, not to the specific application of it in this case - it is still not a compelling criticism either of Judge Jones' use of that test in Kitzmiller (he had no choice but to use it) or of the final conclusion he reached.

stcynic Thu, 02/16/2006 - 04:38

Tags

ID and the Law

Beckwith's argument I think boils down to:

If ID is scientific, then it should be allowed to teach it
in science class.

I happen to agree with that.

However, ID as currently formulated is not scientific. Beckwith has been fooled by Dembski and Behe's bullshit,
thinking it brilliance.

What Beckwith ignores is that purpose of a law or policy often matters more to its implemention (effect) than the actual wording of the law.

What's the betting on how long before the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas/Kennedy Court rejects/completely reformulates the Lemon test?

Tracy,

Read more of what Beckwith writes. I don't think his argument is that ID would be constitutional if it were science, but that ID is constitutional because it is good science.

At least that's what he argues until he's challenged, and if he's challenged well he retreats to saying he doesn't pass judgment on whether ID is science, though his writing assumes it.

His argument is a form of begging the question: He assumes the truth of the point he is trying to prove.

Ed (Brayton):

Thanks for your comments. A couple of points I'd like to make. First, my lecture is based on a paper I have coming out in Hastings Constitutional Law Quartery in March. An earlier version of the paper is posted on the AEI.org website here: http://www.aei.org/events/f.video,eventID.1126,filter.all/event_detail… Second, you are correct that my lecture was a direct criticism of the "religious motive" version of the purpose prong. I agree that the purpose prong is legitimate insofar as assessing the legislative purpose of statutes (ususally place in statutes or discussed in committee). However, the purpose may very well be to advance religion, e.g., banning religious discrimination (since it enhances free exercie, to be sure), and still be constitutional, since the arguments for it are compelling. Third, the establishment clause has been applied to citizens in religious motive assessments, e.g., Cobb County disclaimer case. In this case, the motives of the citizen-supporters of the legislation were examined for religious motives. As I point out in my Legal Times article, "Sticker Shock":

"Judge Cooper concludes that the sticker fails this test, though this judgment is not based on the âviews or reactions held by the Plaintiffs or the numerous citizens and organizations who wrote to the Board.â Rather, it is based on âthe view of a disinterested, reasonable observer.â Such a person, fully conversant with the history of opposition to Darwinâs idea, would recognize that the assertion âevolution is a theory, not a factâ has its origin in antievolution literature published by creationists.

Thus, an informed, reasonable observer would view the sticker as endorsing a particular view of evolution espoused by the religiously motivated citizens and public officials of Cobb County. This, according to the court, tells citizens who are staunch supporters of evolution that they are political outsiders."

Fourth, it is ironic that you cite the Edwards' court citation of Wallace v. Jaffre, for that is one of the two opinions I use in my paper as a paradigm case of how the "religious motive analysis" is employed in a way injurious of free exercise values. Fifth, the newsreport of my talk is generally accurate, though you have to keep in mind that I spent very little time on the Dover case. I used it as my point of departure in crtiquing the "religious motive test." I do agree that as a District Judge, Jones had pretty much no choice, given the jurisprudence in which he had to work. In fact, I admit that point in my lecture.

And, finally, to the other Ed (Darrell): My position is that teaching ID in a particular way in a public school classroom is not unconsitutional, though as a matter of policy it is not a good idea to require it to be taught. I think that whether it is science or not is irrelevant, since the definition of science is itself in dispute. This is evident from the fact that under some definitions of science it is and others it isn't. I also argue that ID is not religion under the federal judiciary's understanding of that term. The important point in Establishment Clause law is not what counts as science, but rather, what counts as religion. For something can be "non-science" under one person's definition of the term and still be not religion, and still be permissible to teach in public school science classes. For example, mathematics is not-science (according to most accounts), and it is not religion, and yet one could teach it in a public school science class. I hope that clarifies matters, for the zillionth time. :-)

For something can be "non-science" under one person's definition of the term and still be not religion, and still be permissible to teach in public school science classes. For example, mathematics is not-science (according to most accounts), and it is not religion, and yet one could teach it in a public school science class. I hope that clarifies matters, for the zillionth time. :-)

So now I guess they want ID taught in two places; science class and ID class. :-)

That way they don't have to worry too much about whether ID is science or not. :-)

I think that whether it is science or not is irrelevant, since the definition of science is itself in dispute.

I'm gonna remember that one the next time I'm on a date. :-)

Have a nice day. :-)

Francis,

I understand your train of thought, I think, but there are certain issues of either fact or interpretation on which the entire debate hinges. You have been thoughtful enough to present these all in one paragraph, which deserves some comment:

My position is that teaching ID in a particular way in a public school classroom is not unconsitutional, though as a matter of policy it is not a good idea to require it to be taught.

Unfortunately, neither Judge Jones nor the overwhelming majority of scientists can imagine what that "particular way" might be, that might be constitutional. After all, ID says "goddidit" in pretty transparent terms. How is this not straight religious doctrine? What ELSE could it be?

I think that whether it is science or not is irrelevant, since the definition of science is itself in dispute. This is evident from the fact that under some definitions of science it is and others it isn't.

This statement might be well served by an example or two. The only definition of science I'm familiar with that permits ID to be presented is Behe's, and his definition is dismissed as flat IN ERROR by nearly all practicing scientists. Pretending that one self-serving definition nobody else uses is "some", and the definition used by hundreds of thousands of practicing scientists is also "some" is at the very best highly misleading.

I also argue that ID is not religion under the federal judiciary's understanding of that term.

On what basis? Once again, ID is pure religious doctrine. It rejects the scientific understanding of evolution without doing ANY research, states conclusions based on no evidence, and those conclusions agree with creationist beliefs and nobody else's. This is not religion?

The important point in Establishment Clause law is not what counts as science, but rather, what counts as religion. For something can be "non-science" under one person's definition of the term and still be not religion, and still be permissible to teach in public school science classes. For example, mathematics is not-science (according to most accounts), and it is not religion, and yet one could teach it in a public school science class.

Yes, this is understood. ID is religious doctrine. Nothing but, nothing else. This is the one and only reason why it's not legal to teach it in public schools. Yes, we know there are many non-religious materials which are also not science. We know these are legal. ID is religion. It is a statement of faith. It is not amenable to ANY scientific investigation, and its proponents (all devoutly religious) have not been able to even *suggest a testable hypothesis* since Behe's book was written.

On the stand, Behe was challenged to specify the mechanisms he said IC was "focused exclusively on". He could not name a single mechanism. All he could do was state his conclusion: that an intelligence was involved. But what research provided the evidence on which this conclusion is based? Well, actually, there has been no research, there is no evidence. Behe's conclusion was a statement of religious faith. And THAT is why it's unconstitutional to teach it.

I hope that clarifies matters, for the zillionth time. :-)

Yes, I think it does. The only way creationists can hope to get their faith taught as scientific fact is to claim their faith is scientific fact. That it is no such thing does not deter them; that no working scientist agrees doesn't bother them; that even non-scientist judges can see through this canard instantly doesn't bother them either. Nobody is fooled. Nobody is going to believe your claim that religious doctrine (we conclude that the Designer did it without any research) is science. So it's clear that's the dishonest claim you must make to insert creationism into science classes. What is NOT clear is why you wish to do this. I presume this is a requirement of your faith?

Francis Beckwith said:

I think that whether it is science or not is irrelevant, since the definition of science is itself in dispute.

The only people disputing the definition of science are those who yearn to have their supernatural beliefs endorsed by it, and the post-modernists who think science is only a subjective social construct. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of people (including virtually all scientists) there is no such dispute, nor should there be.

Dr. Beckwith said:

Thus, an informed, reasonable observer would view the [Cobb County schools' disclaimer] sticker as endorsing a particular view of evolution espoused by the religiously motivated citizens and public officials of Cobb County. This, according to the court, tells citizens who are staunch supporters of evolution that they are political outsiders.

The legal point here is in danger of being lost. The legal point is not that anyone is told they are "outsiders," but the fact that a governmental entity makes that statement in support of religion. It's not illegal for government to tell you that you are an outsider, generally; it's against our Constitution and Bill of Rights for government to take a stand on religion.

As for your last paragraph, in which you claim that it might be legal to teach ID, is this a change from your position before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003? They start out with a legally unrebuttable presumption that science is defined well enough to teach -- are you now arguing that astrology is fair game for Texas science classes, too?

I confess to some great discomfort at discussing education in Beckwithian philosophical terms, which seem to authorize great flights from the reality of applied science, and what we need kids to learn.

In the real world of education, teaching ID is just bad pedagogy. To fit it into any curriculum takes away time needed to discuss serious issues, and all demonstrations show that it confuses the kids about evolution, driving the kids away from required stuff they need for the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), the SAT, ACT, and AP exams. It still seems to me at least slightly immoral to to that to kids, regardless what philosophy may justify it.

Francis Beckwith said:

For something can be "non-science" under one person's definition of the term and still be not religion, and still be permissible to teach in public school science classes. For example, mathematics is not-science (according to most accounts), and it is not religion, and yet one could teach it in a public school science class.

Mathematics is a special case, since it is clearly relevant to science. But I guess that even teaching an irrelevant subject--such as English literature--in a science class would be constitutional, since teaching English literature has a valid secular purpose, even if it's not a scientific one.

On the other hand, teaching ID is unconstitutional, whether in science class or any other class, because it is deceptive nonsense and therefore has no valid secular purpose. Its purpose is purely a religious one.