Creationism is not science. Duh.

[dr_tectonic]

So, many of you have seen this already, but the judge in the Pennsylvania case about "Intelligent Design" (sorry, I can't write it without scare quotes) made his ruling today. Basically, the court concluded that teaching ID in biology class is governmental promotion of religion, and therefore unconstitutional.

At melted_snowball's recommendation, I actually read the entire 139-page opinion -- it's quite approachable -- and man, it is a doozy. You can find the whole thing here:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

I'm searching for a good metaphor here, and I'm having trouble. It's not just a slam-dunk for science, it's like a slam-dunk where the guy starts at the other end, leaps all the way across the whole court, dunks it, shatters the backboard, and then the whole arena collapses.

It's not just "ID is religion, not science", it's like, "ID is not science in every way possible".

The opinion basically says, "ID is creationism is religion. And you can't promote religion in school because it's illegal. DUH! So cut it out, because you're not fooling anyone, especially not me."

Nothing seems to piss off a judge more than acting like you think he's stupid.
Aside: It kind of puts me in mind of Steve Jackson Games vs the Secret Service, where the judge gave the Secret Service agents a public tongue-lashing in court for being idiots -- read the last part of this trial report for some of the good bits.)

Anyway, it put a little bit of a smile on my face, and I just had to share. Yey!

Comments

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

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.