The Mad Schemes of Dr. Tectonic

Yeah--it is fun to watch him start to get more and more pissed as the ruling goes on. I was also more than a bit surprised by just how much the work that people did behind the scenes was influential: I really didn't see Barbara Forrest's testimony as especially central to the Plaintiff's case, for example, but there she is in his ruling, talking about the Wedge strategy, talking about the history of the "ID" movement. There's the drafts of Pandas. There's the paleontologist. There's the historian of science. There's the theologian.

I still think the people who deserve the congratulations the most are the parents, who very specificially said, "No. You can't do this. I'll sue you and win." Go them.

[The phrase "judge pwnz ID nuts" comes to mind, but since I've never used the word "pwn", I may not have used it properly...]

From:

goobermunch.livejournal.com

No worries. You've used it correctly.

--G

From:

Hurrah! The pop culture has successfully impinged upon me...

From:

I thought the proper conjugation was "pwnz0rz", but I've always had trouble with verbs in L33t.

Is this one of areas where the Uberl33t dialect is totally different?

From:

I'm afraid that I'll never be Uber133t.

[*sniff*]

From:

I agree completely that ID should be left out of the science classroom (although I don't agree that ID is creationism, as it does not require the literal reading of Genesis that creationism does). However, Noah Millman--who also agrees with the result--has some fair questions that it would be worthwhile to consider:

Granted that we agree entirely that ID is fundamentally dishonest as a project, is not science, does not belong in a science classroom, etc. - where in the Constitution does it say that schools have to teach science?

Do you buy into the argument that religious "motivations" are sufficient to deem an activity a violation of the Establishment Clause? Can you see any potential problems for other traditional educational objectives if one embraced this principle?

Do you see any merit in Clarence Thomas' argument that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states at all?

Or, let's put the question more pragmatically. The school board that introduced ID into the Dover, PA school system has already been driven from office by an angry public. Do you think that the public will be more or less aroused to defend the schools against the imposition of ID on the curricula if the courts forbid such imposition? And which do you think will win more success for ID in the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans: losing at the ballot box or losing in the courts?

The Dover decision is clearly a victory for truth and right on the question of ID. Whether it is a victory for democracy, or a long-term victory for public understanding and appreciation of science, is much less clear to me.

Some of those questions may not trouble folks of liberal persuasion (e.g., the reading of the Establishment Clause), but everyone should basically be asking this question: Are judges the best people to decide what is science and what isn't? Perhaps the answer was obvious in this case, but it may not be in future cases. And Science may be the one stifled next time.

Anyway, I hope to get time to read the opinion for myself.

From:

ng-nighthawk.livejournal.com

My one thought on this is that there is a corollary to the principle that judges should not be legislating—that is that if there already exists a law which does not need to be changed to pursue the will of the people, we should not then have to re-legislate to ensure proper enforcement and reading of the law. Basically, if we have said that religion does not have a place in a public school, then it doesn’t strike me as the job of the executive or the legislative branches of government to rule whether or not something breaks that law. I mean, the legislative has a responsibility to ensure the law is clear and takes into account current situations, and adjusts for changes in technology or society. The executive has a responsibility to ensure that the law is enforced correctly. But deciding whether or not the law has been broken is clearly a judicial action, and is properly placed in the judicial sphere. Certainly we can imagine a situation in which judgment would be rendered moot by the executive changing its policy on enforcement or the legislative passing new laws. But when the people believe the government is not obeying its own rules, isn’t that why appeals to the courts are allowed?

From:

At least in the present case, your question about the Establishment Clause is actually moot; the Pennsylvania Constitution, for the obvious historical reason of the degree of religious persecution that its founders had suffered, has a very strong statement about religious freedom and explicitly bans a lot of the stuff that the Establishment Clause has had read into it. According to the Dover decision, post-14th Amendment, this has been read to be equivalent to the Establishment Clause, but the text is actually a lot more expansive.

[I realize that this is irrelevant to your general point, except insofar as a fairly large number of state constitutions include explicit Establishment Clauses of their own, and I suppose that of the others joined the US after the Civil War Amendments did extend the bill of rights to the states.]

I would argue that scientists should be the best people to decide what is science, and indeed we have: the handful of "ID"-related papers that have appeared in the peer reviewed literature in the past decade have all either been remarkably bad or in fact were published under questionable ethical circumstances. But in the present case, the question wasn't really "is it science", though Judge Jones did decide to rule upon that question as well, but "is it religion", which Judge Jones strongly argued it was. Theoretically, I suppose, it could be both.

From:

Thanks for the detail on the PA constitution. Does it quote the PA constitution in the decision? I haven't gotten very far.

You're right that the most critical question in the decision appears to be "is it religion?" Personally, I think our restrictions on religion in public scools are overly broad, but Judge Jones is certainly following the prevailing interpretations, as tortured as they might be.

I will say this: after reading the introduction of the decision, I find the "ID policy" to be pretty dang modest. I know, I know: it's all a weasel move, a trojan horse, whathaveyou. Hey, maybe it is. But if rabid creationists have been forced to tone their language down to that level, then I don't know that its necessary for the scientific community to join them in rabidity, which they have. Maybe the democratic process has worked pretty well. As Millman implies, no one ever claimed that democracy fosters nothing but pure truth.

My prescription, for what it's worth, on this whole thing is to get some philosophy in the standard curriculum, including something that points out the self-imposed limitations of scientific knowledge. Don't try to force non-scientific conclusions into science class, just put that science class in perspective. Actually, it wouldn't be terrible to emphasize those limitations at the start of a science class; evolution wouldn't have to be mentioned at all, since it applies to the whole discipline.

From:

Yes, near the very end, it does cite the PA constitution. [The plaintiffs had argued that there was a violation there, and even though he'd already said, "yes, it violated the US constitution", the judge followed up with, "And it violates the PA constitution, too."

[The relevant section, incidentally, is "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship." As I said, it's a heck of a lot stronger than the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses in the US constitution. It also makes me smile, which is why I'm including it here...]

I agree that Establishment Clause jurisprudence is really wacky. I care a lot about religious pluralism, which is why I may be less bothered by it than you, but I definitely agree that it's weird.

I think the reason why a lot of us scientists (and here I'll put my molecular evolution researcher hat on) are pissed off about this is that what happened in Dover was the consequence of a lot of very courageous science teachers trying to the extent possible to stand up to their bosses and still having this railroaded down their throats, to the point where this was the compromise they hammered out while others prepared to sue. The original goal of the board's creationists was much stronger (some of the history of that is also in the ruling; more is in the testimony).

As to its modestness, it's possibly worth reading Brian Alters's testimony; he's the K-12 science education expert who spent a while testifying about what the meaning of the lesson might be for the kids. I mean, I do see where you're coming from. But I'm not especially convinced it's as modest as some have suggested.

Most college textbooks about evolution actually start with a chapter to the effect that you suggest, about the practice of science, about the history of ontological naturalism, and about the limitations of science. [This actually is problematic, because the people who teach those courses are not of necessity any more educated about philosophy of science than are any of their colleagues; indeed, I worry about this with respect to the course at my university.] I really wish that we forced all undergraduates in science to take a history or philosophy of science course, so you'll get no objections from me with extending that to K-12 education, though I'm obviously less connected to that.

From:

My prescription, for what it's worth, on this whole thing is to get some philosophy in the standard curriculum.

Sounds like a fine idea to me! I guess my only caveat is that I think we need "here's the basics of philosophical inquiry, and here's the basics on a bunch of different philosophical outlooks", rather than "this philosophy is Right and that one is Wrong"...

From:

One thing that'll get lost in this is the particular species (ha ha) of ID & of creationism involved. I agree that not all variations of ID represent repackaged creationism, but a) proponents of those forms of ID bear the burden of publicising their differentiation; b) they are less likely to treat their version as scientific and therefore c) are less likely to make the mistake of pushing it into science classrooms. So, as far as the public arena is concerned, an authentic ID concept that's scientifically compatible is almost irrelevant as an issue, as it is very clearly part of faith.

From:

For what it's worth, the opinion makes a very strong case that ID is, in fact, just creationism repackaged. Progressive/old-earth creationism, not literalist young-earth creationism, but creationism nonetheless. In particular, it's billed as such by a pamphlet from a prominent creationist organization.

From:

And from a certain set of definitions, that "very strong case" may still be wrong. As Joe says, one thing we really need is better definition of "Intelligent Design" and publicization of its different strains. The Cardinal of Vienna has been writing recently on Intelligent Design and the Vatican has no connection to American fundamentalism.

Still, even if I can prove that the school board members who foisted this policy are devoted creationists, or find creationists who claim ownership of ID, what should be in question is the nature of the policy itself.

From:

I'm sensing a miscommunication going on between us here -- I think there are some words and phrases that we're using differently.

Sometime, after you've had a chance to read through the whole opinion, we should discuss the subject generally, because I'm interested in your thoughts about it. Right now, I'm not quite following you.

From:

As Dan said, the best people to decide what's science are scientists. They have done so.

The problem is not deciding what's science, it's having school boards listen to the decisions of experts (as is their charge) instead of ignoring them in favor of a religious agenda (which is illegal). That's what makes this a court case and not a scientific debate. The scientific debate happened decades ago; parts of the public just haven't coped with it yet.

From:

...that 50% of the US population does not know that the Earth revolves around the sun in one year. 50 goddamn %. No wonder they cannot cope with more complicated scientific concepts.

From:

If Mr Clever NPR Commentator thinks the school board members who created this policy don't know that it takes a year for the earth to orbit the sun, then I think he's the one who needs to hit the books. He can start with statistical correlation.

From:

The commentator--a scientist--was making the point that if the public does not understand a scientific finding, the correct response is to better educate the public so that they do understand, instead of deciding a particular concept is "hard" and replacing it with more comfortable less true options like creationism. If 50% of Americans do not know that a year is the time it takes Earth to revolve once around the Sun, they need to learn that. Similarly, if they do not understand the theory of evolution, they have to learn that, too. That's where the school board members failed the science test.

Also, it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that one or two of the old school board don't know about Earth's year length. All kinds of people get elected in this country :-p

From:

And we have no reason to believe that the parents who objected and sued know Darwinism from Dar Williams (cute, huh?).

The problem here is that our scientist-commentator's argument is just that those who disagree with him must be knuckle-draggers, and those who agree are enlightened saints. Which is the oldest specious argument in the world. It's more accurate and more useful to see this debate as a matter of cultural conflict rather than pure ignorance vs. pure rectitude.

The NPR guy and the judge are surely right on the matter of what's scientifically defensible and what's not. But it's not ignorance that's driving the ID movement, it's cultural defensiveness. People on both sides are rightly concerned about what their children learn in school and how it affects their formation as human beings. Pro-darwinists are just as guilty of defensiveness when their reaction to four simple paragraphs is slavering outrage rather than simple dismay (and for parents, a request for transfer to a new school). They should be dismayed! They should not get their pitchforks when someone says "Darwin's theory is...a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."

Okay, I don't totally blame them, but their reaction is precisely the evidence that what we have is a cultural conflict--something in which the local science curriculum is a mere skirmish--and that labeling the other side as morons is pointless, counterproductive, and crude.

From:

In the case of Bryan Rehm, if he doesn't know what Darwinism is, he should be fired, given that he's a biology teacher. [But I don't know who Dar Williams is.]

I agree that this is a cultural issue, not a scientific one at base; the evolution wars are really just part of the culture wars.

But it is true, if you read the testimony as I have, that several of the board members who advocated this policy have zero understanding of what it means. I think that one member of the board who voted for the policy had read Of Pandas and People, while all of the folks who voted against it read it, if I remember correctly.

It's easy to read it as a cultural elite vs. "just folks" fight, and undoubtedly that's there in part. One of the more laugh-out-loud moments for me was when I was reading [I think] Casey Brown's testimony. The plaintiff's attorney asked what newspapers she read, and she listed off the York daily papers. He started to go on to the next question, and she interrupted and said, "And the New York Times."

And I would respectfully suggest that you're quoting it out of context; you've got just about the only part of that statement that don't make me very concerned.

From: