The Dover School Board Case
It's in Pennsylvania rather than the South that the first court battle over Intelligent Design will occur.
The Dover Pennsylvania School Board has decreed that Dover public schools treat Intelligent Design as a valid competing scientific theory. The board also requires the following statement to be read in ninth grade biology classes.
"Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
I find it interesting that the statement talks about "gaps" in the Theory of Evolution but is silent about any "gaps" (chasms?) in Intelligent Design.
"Of Pandas and People" is a textbook published by The Foundation for Thought and Ethics which has as its mission the purpose of "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective." Pandas was originally titled "Biology and Origins" and freely used the term "Creationism." The book was revised after the Supreme Court decision against the teaching of Creationism in the public schools, renamed "Of Pandas and People" and edited to remove all references to Creationism. The book hasn't been revised since 1993 which gives you a REALLY good idea how on the cutting edge of science it is.
The suit, by 11 parents supported by the ACLU, alleges that the board's directives are religiously motivated and are thus a violation of the principle of the seperation of church and state. Even the Discovery Institute, the main proponent of Intelligent Design, has distanced itself from the Dover School Board's position saying that they would prefer the diaglogue about Intelligent Design to be held in scientific circles and not school boards or high school science classrooms. Michael Behe from Lehigh however is planned to testify on behalf of the school board.
I suspect that the assault on Intelligent Design will be composed of three parts. The first, and probably the major, thrust will be that the school board’s directives are religiously motivated. The second will be that Intelligent Design is really warmed over Creationism and the third will be that Intelligent Design is simply lousy science. The school board will undoubtedly take the position that it’s simply doing its job ensuring that Dover students get a broad education and that religion has nothing to do with it.
It would be nice if the court would acknowledge that ID is creationism in disguise and lousy science, but that's extremely unlikely. The most one can hope for is a decision that, at least in this specific case, the directives are religiously motivated.
The prevailing precedent is the decision by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 by a 7-2 margin that the Louisiana Creationism Act “…impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind” and that creation science “embraces this religious teaching.”
This is what led to the editing of “Biology and Origins” into “Of Pandas and People.” This is also the rationale behind the Discovery Institutes absurd fiction that the “Intelligent Designer” need not be a god. This fiction is why I don’t believe a word the Discovery Institute says. If they REALLY wanted to engage in a scientific dialogue among peers, what difference would it make if the “Intelligent Designer” were a supernatural god? Only if one is trying to get around Edwards v. Aguillard does it matter.
The fiction that the “Intelligent Designer” need not be a god simply shifts the question by a level of indirection. Now not only do we need to figure out who the “Intelligent Designer” is, but also where the hell he (she? It?) came from. And since the design is chock full of irreducibly complex systems as well as complex specificity, he (she? It?) probably also is composed of irreducibly complex systems and complex specificity. OY-VEH, that means an “Intelligent Designer” for the “Intelligent Designer!” Now where did I put my Russki Matrioshka dollies?
A decision in favor of the school board would be a disaster and probably appealed. I doubt the school board could afford to appeal a loss, but I’ve been wrong about that before.
The Dover Pennsylvania School Board has decreed that Dover public schools treat Intelligent Design as a valid competing scientific theory. The board also requires the following statement to be read in ninth grade biology classes.
"Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
I find it interesting that the statement talks about "gaps" in the Theory of Evolution but is silent about any "gaps" (chasms?) in Intelligent Design.
"Of Pandas and People" is a textbook published by The Foundation for Thought and Ethics which has as its mission the purpose of "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective." Pandas was originally titled "Biology and Origins" and freely used the term "Creationism." The book was revised after the Supreme Court decision against the teaching of Creationism in the public schools, renamed "Of Pandas and People" and edited to remove all references to Creationism. The book hasn't been revised since 1993 which gives you a REALLY good idea how on the cutting edge of science it is.
The suit, by 11 parents supported by the ACLU, alleges that the board's directives are religiously motivated and are thus a violation of the principle of the seperation of church and state. Even the Discovery Institute, the main proponent of Intelligent Design, has distanced itself from the Dover School Board's position saying that they would prefer the diaglogue about Intelligent Design to be held in scientific circles and not school boards or high school science classrooms. Michael Behe from Lehigh however is planned to testify on behalf of the school board.
I suspect that the assault on Intelligent Design will be composed of three parts. The first, and probably the major, thrust will be that the school board’s directives are religiously motivated. The second will be that Intelligent Design is really warmed over Creationism and the third will be that Intelligent Design is simply lousy science. The school board will undoubtedly take the position that it’s simply doing its job ensuring that Dover students get a broad education and that religion has nothing to do with it.
It would be nice if the court would acknowledge that ID is creationism in disguise and lousy science, but that's extremely unlikely. The most one can hope for is a decision that, at least in this specific case, the directives are religiously motivated.
The prevailing precedent is the decision by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 by a 7-2 margin that the Louisiana Creationism Act “…impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind” and that creation science “embraces this religious teaching.”
This is what led to the editing of “Biology and Origins” into “Of Pandas and People.” This is also the rationale behind the Discovery Institutes absurd fiction that the “Intelligent Designer” need not be a god. This fiction is why I don’t believe a word the Discovery Institute says. If they REALLY wanted to engage in a scientific dialogue among peers, what difference would it make if the “Intelligent Designer” were a supernatural god? Only if one is trying to get around Edwards v. Aguillard does it matter.
The fiction that the “Intelligent Designer” need not be a god simply shifts the question by a level of indirection. Now not only do we need to figure out who the “Intelligent Designer” is, but also where the hell he (she? It?) came from. And since the design is chock full of irreducibly complex systems as well as complex specificity, he (she? It?) probably also is composed of irreducibly complex systems and complex specificity. OY-VEH, that means an “Intelligent Designer” for the “Intelligent Designer!” Now where did I put my Russki Matrioshka dollies?A decision in favor of the school board would be a disaster and probably appealed. I doubt the school board could afford to appeal a loss, but I’ve been wrong about that before.
posted by Alencon at 2:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home