Thank God
Happy Friday.
As last week’s posting detailed, there is no doubt that the current administration is not having a “Happy Holiday” season. Neither is its devoted, brainwashed constituency. The religious zealotry upon which the current administration relies to seduce its otherwise desperate supporters took a severe hit this week when the theory of intelligent design was determined to be neither a theory, nor intelligent, nor well designed.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., Case No. 04-cv-2628 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005), Judge John E. Jones, III, a republican Bush appointee, lambasted the defendants and their attempt to impose intelligent design on the school curriculum.
At issue was this exerpted statement, adopted by the outcasted school board, to be read to ninth grade biology students before the teaching of evolution:
The defendant school board contended that this "disclaimer" did not endorse religion but merely encouraged students to "keep an open mind." After a lengthy, detailed review of the lay and legal history concerning failed attempts to incorporate a specific religious doctrine into public schools under the guise of science, the Court concluded that:
Id. at 38. The Court when on to explain that:
Id. at 49. Judge Jones could have stopped there. Instead, he continued by reviewing the legitimacy of intelligent design concluding that it was not a science:
Id. at 64. Intelligent design has now been rejected by a court of law. While it is certainly not the last word on the issue, future proponents of the "idea" (having been downgraded from a "scientific theory") will have to contend with the reaility that an objective, third-party, republican jurist has "seen the light." Survival of the fittest indeed.
As last week’s posting detailed, there is no doubt that the current administration is not having a “Happy Holiday” season. Neither is its devoted, brainwashed constituency. The religious zealotry upon which the current administration relies to seduce its otherwise desperate supporters took a severe hit this week when the theory of intelligent design was determined to be neither a theory, nor intelligent, nor well designed.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., Case No. 04-cv-2628 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005), Judge John E. Jones, III, a republican Bush appointee, lambasted the defendants and their attempt to impose intelligent design on the school curriculum.
At issue was this exerpted statement, adopted by the outcasted school board, to be read to ninth grade biology students before the teaching of evolution:
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be 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 who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
The defendant school board contended that this "disclaimer" did not endorse religion but merely encouraged students to "keep an open mind." After a lengthy, detailed review of the lay and legal history concerning failed attempts to incorporate a specific religious doctrine into public schools under the guise of science, the Court concluded that:
After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow, we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion.
Id. at 38. The Court when on to explain that:
In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.
Id. at 49. Judge Jones could have stopped there. Instead, he continued by reviewing the legitimacy of intelligent design concluding that it was not a science:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three ifferent levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on volution have been refuted by the scientific community.
Id. at 64. Intelligent design has now been rejected by a court of law. While it is certainly not the last word on the issue, future proponents of the "idea" (having been downgraded from a "scientific theory") will have to contend with the reaility that an objective, third-party, republican jurist has "seen the light." Survival of the fittest indeed.
posted by Happy Friday | 7:34 AM
9 Comments:
While I personally agree with Jugde Jones's conclusions, I'm nonetheless disturbed by his arrogance. Who the hell cares what he thinks?
Why the townspeople need his blathering pronouncements -- delivered through the pompous, Royal "We" -- is utterly beyond me. As noted in this blog last month, the citizens of the town voted the school board out of office, tossing its idiotic science curriculum with it.
This judicial pontificating is not only moot, but harmful, in that it perpetuates the Paternalism of the federal government. There's just no way anyone can tell me that it's "best" for a judge --sitting on high in Harrisburg or Pittsburg or whereever it is that he's sitting -- to decide what *should* be taught in some small town school district. It's better if the citizens of that town decide for themsleves.
And you know what? They did decide, and the choice was to teach science rather than magic & myth & other mumbo-jumbo. But if they wish to teach their children that a bearded man sitting on the clouds got bored one day & decided to create the heavens & the earth & people it with beings in his image, well that's their business. Not mine, not yours, not George Bush's, and certainly not Judge Jones's.
As the locals in Treasure of Sierra Madre might have said regarding the schooling of their children: Judges? We don' need no stinkin' judges.
Their votes were good enough.
So if the "townspeople" voted to teach that we are all descended from aliens, blacks have a lower IQ, Jews have horns, and gays are immoral, that'd be A-OK? To the extent you think it is an extreme example, so is intelligent design.
The problem with teaching about your "bearded man sitting on the clouds" is that it imposes -- without limitation -- the will of a majority on a minority.
Local school boards should decide what is taught within the confines of the Constitution. Since at least 1803, those parameters have been defined by the courts. Without those protections, we're left with the tyranny of the majority.
As John Stuart Mill eloquently explained:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.
— On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.
Judge Jones's descision does not embody a paternalistic federal government imposing its will on the "townspeople". Instead, it seeks to prevent a paternalistic town from imposing its will on the individual.
Good comments all. Nice Mill quotation especially. But, a few points:
1. The majority tyrannized no one. In fact, the majority voted the tyrants out. What's the problem here?
2. Who decides what's right or wrong here? The majority says I have to pay taxes. The majority says I have to watch my nation wage war. The majority says George Bush is my Pres . . . oops, scratch that one.
I don't like much of what the majority decides. Can I go to court each and every time?
3. Show me where the Constitution says that a *local* -- i.e., non-Federal -- schoolboard is forbidden from deciding what it teaches. You won't find it, but if you want to look, be my guest.
4. To riff off your Strawman example (Jews with horns, immoral gays, etc.), what if every single person in town wished to teach/believe those things? In other words, no minority is being tyrannized. Under what rationale can you or I or Judge Jones go into that town and tell them to stop? Who's being tyrannized? Potential minorities who don't live there, yet might in the distant future?
Paternalism. Nothing but.
Well I guess since a Judge said it. . . it must be right.
If a majority of community members in a given town vote to have intelligent design theory taught as an alternative to evolution theory, the majority would be imposing its will upon the minority. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of our very democracy. Moreover, the Dover, PA case is not an isolated one. The following districts are contemplating the same misguided steps as we speak:
RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)
Additionally, several BOE's in Texas and Colorado have authorized the purchasing of new science textbooks that offer competing chapters on evolution and intelligent design theory.
Finally, many political leaders have expressed a disconcerting willingness to advocate for this "theory" of intelligent design. Please note the following:
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
--George W. Bush, President of the United States of America.
"All points of view should be available to students studying the origins of mankind."
--Senator John McCain
"[Evolution] is not a fact . . . We're dealing with censorship here. If we only taught Shakespeare in English class, that wouldn't be fair."
-- Senator Chris Buttars
"I think it's fair to allow and perhaps require students to be taught that there may be more than one explanation for the creation of the world."
-- Brian Bosma, Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives
Considering that matters of faith are playing far too large a role in American politics as it is (Roe v. Wade issues, the Schaivo case, money spent on faith-based initiatives, President Bush taking his cues from God because he is “God’s man on Earth”), allowing this misguided use of religion into one of our most sacred and influential institutions, especially in traditionally conservative states, could have more harmful implications than we can imagine down the road (e.g. Republican leadership for years to come).
Clearly, it is grossly unjust for even ONE student in ANY town to have to bend to the will of an irrational majority who advocates teaching what is nothing short of theology in a public school science class.
The scientific community classifies science as "knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system." (Thorndike Barnhart, p.910) Moreover, these observable facts and tested truths must undergo the rigors of the scientific method, which can be defined as “an orderly method used in scientific research, generally consisting in identifying a problem, gathering all the pertinent data, formulating a hypothesis, performing experiments, interpreting the results, and drawing a conclusion.”(TB, p. 911) Please note that the underlined segments disprove intelligent design theory.
Additionally, how do we define “theory”? There are lots of theories out there! A major problem with this argument is that evolution theory is a scientific theory and intelligent design is a theological (or at best philosophical) theory. For example, Aquinas theorizes the existence of God when he writes, “The existence of God can be in proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it in act,” and “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”(Summa theologiae, Part I, Third Article) Certainly high-minded, interesting, and maybe even true… but has no place in the science curriculum of a public school. As a side, I have many theories of my own concerning JKF, the Jets, the Mets needing another starting pitcher, etc…and I don’t think that they should be taught in science classes either.
The argument against intelligent design needed more political might and national attention. I would argue that Judge Jones’s comments were vital to moving this debate in the right direction, which in this case, trumps matters of paternalism in government.
RJM-
I happen to agree with you on everything you've said about Intelligent Design, Evolution, science & theology. I agree that teaching such garbage in science class in inexcusably stupid.
But that's not my business. It's not my school district, and it's not my place to tell them what to teach their children.
As such, I object to what you've said in your final paragraph: "The argument against intelligent design needed more political might and national attention. I would argue that Judge Jones’s comments were vital to moving this debate in the right direction, which in this case, trumps matters of paternalism in government."
Why did the argument against intelligent design need more political might & national attention? The citizens of Dover voted the school board out without anyone's help.
And your last sentence especially, is telling. You decide which is the "right direction" for the debate to move. Again, I agree with you and the NY Times does, and Happy Friday does too. But for anyone to declare that a "right direction" exists is paternalism.
Hi Mike,
Fair points through and through, however, I agree with Happy when he points out that " Judge Jones's descision does not embody a paternalistic federal government imposing its will on the "townspeople". Instead, it seeks to prevent a paternalistic town from imposing its will on the individual." For example:
"OLUMBUS, OH - The Ohio Board of Education on Dec. 10 voted 17-0 to give final approval to state science standards that allow the theory of evolution to be challenged in public schools. The new standards will permit teachers to "teach the controversy" and teach students to critically analyze the evidence, whether in support of "macroevolution" or not.
Surely the Ohio BOE does not speak for everyone in Ohio.
So I think this comes back to Happy's argument again regarding the severity of teaching intelligent design, as he writes in his opening: "So if the "townspeople" voted to teach that we are all descended from aliens, blacks have a lower IQ, Jews have horns, and gays are immoral, that'd be A-OK? To the extent you think it is an extreme example, so is intelligent design." In other words, it would seem that our reaction to cases like this will be based on how severe a threat we feel teaching IR in science classes really is (which I think is certainly a fair debate). Can we agree that the Jets are definately a cursed franchise though?
Yes to the Jets. And Judge Jones can declare as much.
The Ohio School Board action? If a given town doesn't want to teach this crap, it'll choose not to. I doubt you'll be seeing ID taught in science class in Shaker Heights.
As to Happy Friday's strawman, scroll back & see what I said. People should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. If they want to relegate their own children to a world filled with magic & myth, that's none of my business. Jews may not have horns, nor do Christians have fangs. But it's deemed ok in this country for one group to teach that God gave them his special law, but they can't eat pigs or shellfish & they have to rest on Saturday and wear a skullcap. And the other group can teach of virgin births & water into wine & resurrections & loaves & fishes & such.
I see this, as with teaching ID in science class, as a "threat. It's *all* nonsense. But it's not my business.
In my opinion God doesn't exist, but it's nice that you took him such a great role in your life. All your issues and details are totally seems familiar to me. Maybe you can use custom writing, and try to searching all current details. Thanks for post.
Post a Comment
<< Home