Great decision, huh? And by a Bush appointee no less. It is almost enough to make me believe there is a god. For now, though, I will only believe in Santa Claus.
I need to have explained to me why intelligent design = religion. The idea of an intelligent designer implies nothing supernatural. It neither implies a morality system, which I would say is the most vital and defining part of any religion. How then can teaching intelligent design be considered the establishment of religion rather than just bad education?
It concerns me when people applaud the ‘correct outcome’, reached the wrong way. Our federalist system is supposed to preclude the arbitrary intervention of national authority in state and local affairs. Yet is that not what has happened in this case? What religion was being established? Who was going to be intimidated into professing religious belief, and how? Who was going to feel excluded? Personally, I don’t buy it.
As others celebrate the national imposition of what I myself think is the correct science education policy, I will quietly mourn as federalist principles are again trampled, as usual without comment or notice.
Who cares if intelligent design is religion or not, the point is it is NOT science. What predictions does it make? And in this court case there was testimony that this was creationism text with the name changed to ID.
The major prediction that ID makes is that whatever happens can be explained by invoking ID instead of requiring any type of rational inquiry. Basically that hard work isn’t necessary. 😉
I’m at the point in my life where I don’t really care what other people believe as long as I can get funding to do my work. It helps if they believe that hypothesis testing advances knowledge, but I’m not going to stop anyone who believes that I’m divinely inspired from giving me money.
To say that the tactics used in this case were not based on the attempt to establish religion in the classroom doesn’t sit with me. By their own admission, the board members were attempting to (paraphrasing) “stand up for the guy who died on the cross.” I would argue that the ID that you are thinking about Bill is a totally different ID than the ID as practiced by 99.9% of those who are supporting it. Your ID is basically a hypothesis whose impact is so little that it can never constitute religion. But to most people, and especially to the board members whose motivations were explicitly to cross the separation of church and state (as admitted by the chairmen of the school board), ID is a very different creature. Do you really think those who are advocating ID are doing it for reasons besides establishment of their religious ideas? I call BS.
I agreed initially with Bill, but I think you two’s views can be reconciled. In a way, it seems a shame that it wasn’t struck down because it was bad science. On the other hand, I’m sure scientists have as large a role in the process as is possible.
I’ve only read the first part of the judgement, but you should take another look at p18 (where it first begins the real analysis):
“At a minimum, the pertinent inquiry is whether an “objective observer†in the position of a student of the relevant age would “perceive official school support†for the religious activity in question.”
and continues with:
“1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About “Gaps†and “Problems†in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism”
So the court acknowledges the deviousness of ID. Later major points 2-4 are: Whether an objective student/parent would see the instruction as an endorsement, and whether ID is science (p64). Only skimming, it looks like the court strikes it down like only a lawyer would: invoking precedence. Oh well.
Bill: If you need it explained to you, you should read the text of the decision. It explains in great detail why the American intelligent design movement is really Christian proselytization. The judge determined that the only “intelligent designer” that anyone involved ever had in mind was the God of Christianity. He also determined that anyone in Dover (students, parents, bystanders) could see through the euphemisms and know that biology students were being asked to believe the Bible.
I certainly agree with the judge and with everybody else here that the motive of the ID proponents was the promotion of Christian creationism, as it has been in every other case involving ID that I know of.
–
I also realize that the motives of the government officials involved is subject to scrutiny in deciding the case, based on the 1971 Lemon vs. Kurtzman precedent. My problem is with that precedent. Some objections are (1) identical situations arrived at by government officials with different intents result in different decisions, (2) when the decision is reached by a voting body, the motives of those voting are likely to differ, and (3) bad motives shouldn’t impugn a good policy. My opinion is that, legally speaking, government’s motives shouldn’t matter nearly as much as the effects of the policy, which after all ought to be judged on its own merits and not the merits or motivations of its most vocal proponents.
–
I had similar objections to last summer’s McCreary vs. ACLU decision, though I admit they followed from reading Scalia’s dissent. I think section II was the relevant one…
–
And in the interest of full disclosure, let me disclaim that (if sloppy legal thinking, complete disregard for precedent, and possibly misremembered case citations have not already made this obvious…) I am certainly no lawyer!
Ah, I almost understand your objection now.
You might be interested to know that in this case, both sides agreed that the Lemon test was the valid test. However the defendants in the case objected to the use of the establishment clause (which is kind of funny, when you think about it, saying OK to that mish mash of precedent known as the Lemon test, but objected to one part of the Bill of Rights. BTW, there are clear reasons why the defendants want to avoid the establishment clause…)
But in this case, as I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), the judge ruled based on both the Lemon precedent, and separately on the establishment clause test articulated by Justice O’Conner in Lynch: “The central issue in this case is whether [the government] has endorsed [religion] by its [actions]. To answer that question, we must examine both what [the government] intended to communicate . . . and what
message [its conduct] actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test represent these two aspects of the meaning of the [government’s] action.”
I understand your objection Bill as an objection to the “purpose” prong of this test. Which I am partially sympathetic too. I would say that this prong leads to a slippery slope. But I would point out that none of the objections you raise were actually at stake in this case except perhaps for your second objection. And in this case I think we are far far away from the slippery slope even in your second objection. The school board clearly had the purpose of violating the establishment clause (and then, sadly, lying about their motivation.) Second I would point out that the “effect” prong is equally as important and it is clear that on this part of the establishment clause test in this case the ID side clearly failed to demonstrate their case. So I don’t see your objections for this particular case.
That being said, it would be interesting to me to know if there are any cases in which the three objections you raise have played a role. I’ve been told by my more lawyery friends that making arguments based on single instances which place you one boundaries is not going to get you anywhere in the world of law, but being a physicist, such thought experiments intrigue me.
Then again maybe I’ve totally misunderstood your objections (I am dense, you know.)
Re: Bill’s objection –
If your objection is that “bad motives shouldn’t impugn a good policy,” rest easy; that’s not what happened here. As the court points out in its opinion, the problem is not with consideration of, research into, or teaching of ID. The problem is with teaching ID as science, which it assuredly is not. I think we can agree that teaching as science something that isn’t doesn’t constitute “good policy.”
Broadly summarizing the court’s opinion regarding whether ID is science:
The fundamental notion in ID is that of “irreducible complexity.” If a system in a living being is comprised of a number of constituents, removal of any one of which would render the system non-functional, then the genesis of that system can’t be explained by evolutionary principles (at least as those principles are understood by ID supporters). Since no reproductive advantage is conferred by the separate constituents of the system, there is no selection in favor of them, and thus no reason for them to be available to form the system.
There are at least 3 difficulties with “irreducible complexity” as the foundation for a scientific theory of ID:
(1) It is a criticism of evolution, not a proof of intelligent design. That is, saying “I don’t see how evolution could have resulted in the presence of this system in this animal” is not equivalent to saying “God [or another Intelligent Designer of your choice] put it there.”
(2) There is no objective scientific concept of the meaning of “irreducible.” How/when do we (objectively) know that a given system cannot suffer removal of any constituent part without ceasing to function?
(3) Closely related to (2), examples in the ID literature of irreducible complexity have been proved wrong. One such example is the immune system “cascade,” the system through which a relatively small stimulus creates an immune reaction. Subsequent to citation of the biochemical pathways involved in the cascade as an example of irreducible complexity, living beings have been identified with functioning immune cascades lacking up to 3 of the “irreducible” steps.
By the way, the court doesn’t just point out the problems with ID and the notion of irreducible complexity, at least as scientific theories. It also notes that evolutionary theory does in fact provide explanations for the existence of complex systems in living beings.
Great decision, huh? And by a Bush appointee no less. It is almost enough to make me believe there is a god. For now, though, I will only believe in Santa Claus.
I need to have explained to me why intelligent design = religion. The idea of an intelligent designer implies nothing supernatural. It neither implies a morality system, which I would say is the most vital and defining part of any religion. How then can teaching intelligent design be considered the establishment of religion rather than just bad education?
It concerns me when people applaud the ‘correct outcome’, reached the wrong way. Our federalist system is supposed to preclude the arbitrary intervention of national authority in state and local affairs. Yet is that not what has happened in this case? What religion was being established? Who was going to be intimidated into professing religious belief, and how? Who was going to feel excluded? Personally, I don’t buy it.
As others celebrate the national imposition of what I myself think is the correct science education policy, I will quietly mourn as federalist principles are again trampled, as usual without comment or notice.
Who cares if intelligent design is religion or not, the point is it is NOT science. What predictions does it make? And in this court case there was testimony that this was creationism text with the name changed to ID.
The major prediction that ID makes is that whatever happens can be explained by invoking ID instead of requiring any type of rational inquiry. Basically that hard work isn’t necessary. 😉
I’m at the point in my life where I don’t really care what other people believe as long as I can get funding to do my work. It helps if they believe that hypothesis testing advances knowledge, but I’m not going to stop anyone who believes that I’m divinely inspired from giving me money.
To say that the tactics used in this case were not based on the attempt to establish religion in the classroom doesn’t sit with me. By their own admission, the board members were attempting to (paraphrasing) “stand up for the guy who died on the cross.” I would argue that the ID that you are thinking about Bill is a totally different ID than the ID as practiced by 99.9% of those who are supporting it. Your ID is basically a hypothesis whose impact is so little that it can never constitute religion. But to most people, and especially to the board members whose motivations were explicitly to cross the separation of church and state (as admitted by the chairmen of the school board), ID is a very different creature. Do you really think those who are advocating ID are doing it for reasons besides establishment of their religious ideas? I call BS.
I agreed initially with Bill, but I think you two’s views can be reconciled. In a way, it seems a shame that it wasn’t struck down because it was bad science. On the other hand, I’m sure scientists have as large a role in the process as is possible.
I’ve only read the first part of the judgement, but you should take another look at p18 (where it first begins the real analysis):
“At a minimum, the pertinent inquiry is whether an “objective observer†in the position of a student of the relevant age would “perceive official school support†for the religious activity in question.”
and continues with:
“1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About “Gaps†and “Problems†in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism”
So the court acknowledges the deviousness of ID. Later major points 2-4 are: Whether an objective student/parent would see the instruction as an endorsement, and whether ID is science (p64). Only skimming, it looks like the court strikes it down like only a lawyer would: invoking precedence. Oh well.
Bill: If you need it explained to you, you should read the text of the decision. It explains in great detail why the American intelligent design movement is really Christian proselytization. The judge determined that the only “intelligent designer” that anyone involved ever had in mind was the God of Christianity. He also determined that anyone in Dover (students, parents, bystanders) could see through the euphemisms and know that biology students were being asked to believe the Bible.
I certainly agree with the judge and with everybody else here that the motive of the ID proponents was the promotion of Christian creationism, as it has been in every other case involving ID that I know of.
–
I also realize that the motives of the government officials involved is subject to scrutiny in deciding the case, based on the 1971 Lemon vs. Kurtzman precedent. My problem is with that precedent. Some objections are (1) identical situations arrived at by government officials with different intents result in different decisions, (2) when the decision is reached by a voting body, the motives of those voting are likely to differ, and (3) bad motives shouldn’t impugn a good policy. My opinion is that, legally speaking, government’s motives shouldn’t matter nearly as much as the effects of the policy, which after all ought to be judged on its own merits and not the merits or motivations of its most vocal proponents.
–
I had similar objections to last summer’s McCreary vs. ACLU decision, though I admit they followed from reading Scalia’s dissent. I think section II was the relevant one…
–
And in the interest of full disclosure, let me disclaim that (if sloppy legal thinking, complete disregard for precedent, and possibly misremembered case citations have not already made this obvious…) I am certainly no lawyer!
Ah, I almost understand your objection now.
You might be interested to know that in this case, both sides agreed that the Lemon test was the valid test. However the defendants in the case objected to the use of the establishment clause (which is kind of funny, when you think about it, saying OK to that mish mash of precedent known as the Lemon test, but objected to one part of the Bill of Rights. BTW, there are clear reasons why the defendants want to avoid the establishment clause…)
But in this case, as I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), the judge ruled based on both the Lemon precedent, and separately on the establishment clause test articulated by Justice O’Conner in Lynch: “The central issue in this case is whether [the government] has endorsed [religion] by its [actions]. To answer that question, we must examine both what [the government] intended to communicate . . . and what
message [its conduct] actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test represent these two aspects of the meaning of the [government’s] action.”
I understand your objection Bill as an objection to the “purpose” prong of this test. Which I am partially sympathetic too. I would say that this prong leads to a slippery slope. But I would point out that none of the objections you raise were actually at stake in this case except perhaps for your second objection. And in this case I think we are far far away from the slippery slope even in your second objection. The school board clearly had the purpose of violating the establishment clause (and then, sadly, lying about their motivation.) Second I would point out that the “effect” prong is equally as important and it is clear that on this part of the establishment clause test in this case the ID side clearly failed to demonstrate their case. So I don’t see your objections for this particular case.
That being said, it would be interesting to me to know if there are any cases in which the three objections you raise have played a role. I’ve been told by my more lawyery friends that making arguments based on single instances which place you one boundaries is not going to get you anywhere in the world of law, but being a physicist, such thought experiments intrigue me.
Then again maybe I’ve totally misunderstood your objections (I am dense, you know.)
Re: Bill’s objection –
If your objection is that “bad motives shouldn’t impugn a good policy,” rest easy; that’s not what happened here. As the court points out in its opinion, the problem is not with consideration of, research into, or teaching of ID. The problem is with teaching ID as science, which it assuredly is not. I think we can agree that teaching as science something that isn’t doesn’t constitute “good policy.”
Broadly summarizing the court’s opinion regarding whether ID is science:
The fundamental notion in ID is that of “irreducible complexity.” If a system in a living being is comprised of a number of constituents, removal of any one of which would render the system non-functional, then the genesis of that system can’t be explained by evolutionary principles (at least as those principles are understood by ID supporters). Since no reproductive advantage is conferred by the separate constituents of the system, there is no selection in favor of them, and thus no reason for them to be available to form the system.
There are at least 3 difficulties with “irreducible complexity” as the foundation for a scientific theory of ID:
(1) It is a criticism of evolution, not a proof of intelligent design. That is, saying “I don’t see how evolution could have resulted in the presence of this system in this animal” is not equivalent to saying “God [or another Intelligent Designer of your choice] put it there.”
(2) There is no objective scientific concept of the meaning of “irreducible.” How/when do we (objectively) know that a given system cannot suffer removal of any constituent part without ceasing to function?
(3) Closely related to (2), examples in the ID literature of irreducible complexity have been proved wrong. One such example is the immune system “cascade,” the system through which a relatively small stimulus creates an immune reaction. Subsequent to citation of the biochemical pathways involved in the cascade as an example of irreducible complexity, living beings have been identified with functioning immune cascades lacking up to 3 of the “irreducible” steps.
By the way, the court doesn’t just point out the problems with ID and the notion of irreducible complexity, at least as scientific theories. It also notes that evolutionary theory does in fact provide explanations for the existence of complex systems in living beings.