The Dover Trial, ID and the Law

[arthwollipot]

Something Plumjam said in another thread struck a chord with me. It was off-topic for that thread, so here it is.

when did matters of truth in life/evolution/intelligent design become decidable in a court of law?I find this question asked a lot whenever I bring up the Dover trial, and I think it's important to outline exactly what was decided in Dover and why.

In this thread I will be quoting from the Decision Memorandum (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf) which is available on the NCSE's website.

The trial was brought because of the activities of the school board, which mandated that a statement be given to students:


The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

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.


With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.


Some people believed that this violated their rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

From the Memorandum:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

To summarise: In order to determine whether the actions of the school board violated the Constitution, it had to be determined whether ID is religion or not. If ID is religion, then the board violated the constitution. So a significant part of the trial concerned whether ID was scientific or not. In the end, the judge determined that ID is not scientific; it is religious, and therefore it is unconstitutional for a school board to mandate teaching it.

Judge Jones had to determine whether ID was science or religion, because it related directly to a question of constitutionality. Were the school board's actions an endorsement of religion or not? This is why matters of truth in life/evolution/intelligent design are decidable in a court of law.

[KingMerv00]

Courts analyze junk science all the time:

Daubert Hearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_hearing)

[devnull]

And once again, evolution has *nothing to do with* the origin of life on this planet, but explains the *diversity of life on this planet*.

These people call themselves educators? Get a grip.

[arthwollipot]

I'm waiting for plumjam to weigh in on the subject.

[devnull]

:popcorn1

[martu]

plumjam has a point here, scientific 'truth' (I hate using that term but can think of no other so early) is not decided by judges but by the evidence.

So I predict another semantic discussion, oh joy.

[arthwollipot]

plumjam has a point here, scientific 'truth' (I hate using that term but can think of no other so early) is not decided by judges but by the evidence.

So I predict another semantic discussion, oh joy.Agreed. But that's not the same thing as what happened in Dover. Matters of constitutionality are decided by judges. The judge could not determine whether the policy of the school board was constitutional unless he could determine whether ID was science or religion.

Personally I think there's a minor false dichotomy here - something can be neither science nor religion, but I don't think that matters because I agree that ID is religion.

Lastly, judges do use evidence to decide a matter... :rolleyes:

[Wildy]

plumjam has a point here, scientific 'truth' (I hate using that term but can think of no other so early) is not decided by judges but by the evidence.

So I predict another semantic discussion, oh joy.

Well in the case of Dover what Judge Jones determined was whether ID could be considered science from a legal standpoint based on the evidence given.

[martu]

Agreed. But that's not the same thing as what happened in Dover. Matters of constitutionality are decided by judges. The judge could not determine whether the policy of the school board was constitutional unless he could determine whether ID was science or religion.

Personally I think there's a minor false dichotomy here - something can be neither science nor religion, but I don't think that matters because I agree that ID is religion.

Lastly, judges do use evidence to decide a matter... :rolleyes:

Hmm nice rolleyes thanks.

Judges use evidence to decide matters of law not science. Something can be lawful but not science and vice versa. I think this was plumjam's point.

[martu]

Well in the case of Dover what Judge Jones determined was whether ID could be considered science from a legal standpoint based on the evidence given.

Not really no, he decided whether it was lawful to teach ID in science classes in the United States. A US judge does not decide what is and what isn't science, merely what the US law is.

This is the point that plumjam made and it is trivially correct but not really very interesting.

[Darat]

For the purposes of making a determination under USA law the judge did have to determine whether ID was science or not. See: http://forums.randi.org/index.php?pageid=dover for links to all the transcripts and the final opinion.

[martu]

For the purposes of making a determination under USA law the judge did have to determine whether ID was science or not. See: http://forums.randi.org/index.php?pageid=dover for links to all the transcripts and the final opinion.

So Judge Jones could have found in favour in favour of ID and we would all have to conclude that ID is science?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not really no, he decided whether it was lawful to teach ID in science classes in the United States. A US judge does not decide what is and what isn't science, merely what the US law is.

These are technically correct (the first part) and technically incorrect. Dover was a church/state case so Judge Jones had to decide if ID was science or religion and if it was the latter I could not be taught in science classrooms of public high schools. His decision over the legality of teaching it was determined by whether it violated the establishment clause by being religion, not science.

So Judge Jones could have found in favour in favour of ID and we would all have to conclude that ID is science?

Kind of... at least as far as the legality of it being included in science classrooms in his court district (remember this was a District case, not a Circuit or Supreme case and thus would only have applied to his jurasdiction {see some of the 9th Circuit decisions}). We wouldn't have to accept it as science, but the schools in his district would have regardless of how the parents and teachers felt or thought about it.

[martu]

Kind of... at least as far as the legality of it being included in science classrooms in his court district (remember this was a District case, not a Circuit or Supreme case and thus would only have applied to his jurasdiction {see some of the 9th Circuit decisions}). We wouldn't have to accept it as science, but the schools in his district would have regardless of how the parents and teachers felt or thought about it.

Yes agreed, unless a US Judge can decide that ID is science and we all have to agree then plumjam's point is trivially correct.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes agreed, unless a US Judge can decide that ID is science and we all have to agree then plumjam's point is trivially correct.

Judge Jones basically did that. He set a precident which can be cited by other judges in other jurisdictions even up to the Supreme court. His judgement, combined with Epperson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas) (equal time for Creationism and Evolution) plus Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) (outlawed Creationism) is basically a "truth" evaluation of ID that I just don't see being overturned unless IDers can come up with some actual science instead of relying on "God of the Gaps" in a lab coat.

[martu]

Judge Jones basically did that. He set a precident which can be cited by other judges in other jurisdictions even up to the Supreme court. His judgement, combined with Epperson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas) (equal time for Creationism and Evolution) plus Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) (outlawed Creationism) is basically a "truth" evaluation of ID that I just don't see being overturned unless IDers can come up with some actual science instead of relying on "God of the Gaps" in a lab coat.

So if he had decided that ID was science then what?

[HawkeyeMD]

So if he had decided that ID was science then what?

There would have been an appeal to a higher court.

How is this a new question? All of these court cases way back to Scopes have involved "improved" definitions of the same old stuff under newly-coined names that are intended to disguise the fact that ID = Creationism = Religion. They only started trying to pretend it was science once the courts had thoroughly decimated the idea that they had the right to teach religious beliefs in science class. ID only exists for the purpose of trying to do this--it has no independent being.

"Having to disguise themselves in the robes of science no matter how badly they fit" is more or less the way Asimov once described the practice.

[martu]

There would have been an appeal to a higher court.

So you agree with me judges do not decide what is science 'truth' and what isn't science 'truth'. Thank you.

How is this a new question? All of these court cases way back to Scopes have involved "improved" definitions of the same old stuff under newly-coined names that are intended to disguise the fact that ID = Creationism = Religion. They only started trying to pretend it was science once the courts had thoroughly decimated the idea that they had the right to teach religious beliefs in science class. ID only exists for the purpose of trying to do this--it has no independent being.

"Having to disguise themselves in the robes of science no matter how badly they fit" is more or less the way Asimov once described the practice.

It isn't a new question, ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. The question is about this statement:

And in any case, when did matters of truth in life/evolution/intelligent design become decidable in a court of law?

Courts of Law do not decide what 'truth' is. Otherwise a judge would be able to decide that ID is science and we'd all have to agree with them wouldn't we?

[Gazpacho]

So you agree with me judges do not decide what is science 'truth' and what isn't science 'truth'.
Judges decide what is and isn't promotion of religion in religious establishment cases. In a case where deciding whether something is religion means deciding also whether it is science, they will do that. Blame the authors of OPAP for trying to repackage religion as science in the first place.

[martu]

Judges decide what is and isn't promotion of religion in religious establishment cases. In a case where deciding whether something is religion means deciding also whether it is science, they will do that. Blame the authors of OPAP for trying to repackage religion as science in the first place.

You're missing plumjam's 'truth' part - what the judge decides has no bearing on reality, one cannot say ID is not science because a judge says so anymore then one could say ID is science because a judge says so. ID isn't science (mainly) because it isn't falsifiable, nothing to do with a judge though fortunately in Dover the judge was an intelligent man who agreed with the facts.

plumjam may often talk a lot of nonsense but this time his statement was correct.

[linusrichard]

I read a case where the judge ruled that a particular house was haunted as a matter of law. This doesn't mean the house really was haunted, obviously. It also doesn't mean that the judge believed the house was haunted. What it meant in that case was that the defendants had benefitted so much from asserting that the house was haunted that it would be unfair to now allow them to deny that the house was haunted, and therefore if the plaintiffs were going to claim it was haunted, no evidence allowed to the contrary, it was haunted.

(the decision is worth a read - it's here (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/stambov.htm), and at 169 A.D.2d 254)

This is very different, of course, but there's a similarity. The judge doesn't get to decide what is Real and True outside the case. It happens in this case that he got it right. But he didn't get it right simply by virtue of being the judge in the case. We have to as individuals look at the facts as they are, and we can see (with no judge's help) that ID is religion and not science. And those of us who have trouble doing that will think the judge got it wrong. But the judge got it right.

[drkitten]

Agreed. But that's not the same thing as what happened in Dover. Matters of constitutionality are decided by judges. The judge could not determine whether the policy of the school board was constitutional unless he could determine whether ID was science or religion.

Personally I think there's a minor false dichotomy here - something can be neither science nor religion, but I don't think that matters because I agree that ID is religion.

Something can also in theory be also science and religion. And the Dover decision was very clear in the way that it analyzed stuff.

Basically, if ID were science --- it wouldn't even necessarily need to be "True" or "uncontroversial" science, since scientists don't have access to the Truth -- then there would be a clear secular purpose to teaching it regardless of whether or not it were religious. This is one of the reasons that a genuine "Bible as literature" class is constitutional no matter how many Jews and Buddhists might be offended.

If ID were merely junk, but non-religious, then it would still be constitutional to teach, but might violate various policies about quality and content of education. There is no constitutional barrier against my teaching that space aliens are going to steal all my valuable paper clips unless I line my hat with alumnium foil, but the State Board of Education might have something to say about it.

If ID were religiously based, however, teaching it would be a violation of the Establishment clause and therefore banned. The judge found, of course, that it was, and therefore banned it.

Based, of course, on evidence -- mostly upon testimony by experts who were familiar with the physical and documentary evidence.

[drkitten]

You're missing plumjam's 'truth' part - what the judge decides has no bearing on reality, one cannot say ID is not science because a judge says so anymore then one could say ID is science because a judge says so.

Huh? What the judge decides has no basis on reality?

If you mean that reality doesn't shape itself to bend to the judge's words, that's true. But the whole point of the decision is that the judge describes reality, based on the evidence -- and a judge is an ex officio credible describer of reality, which is why his decision is given weight by sensible people.

If I said that there were jack rabbits in Colorado --- I lived there for seven years and saw them --- that doesn't mean that God will suddenly populate the state with jack rabbits on my say so. ("Fiat bunnies!") But it does mean that any nutcase who says that there aren't jack rabbits has a serious credibility problem.

[KingMerv00]

Courts of Law do not decide what 'truth' is. Otherwise a judge would be able to decide that ID is science and we'd all have to agree with them wouldn't we?

No one, not even scientists, declare what "truth" is so I don't know why you think it noteworthy that a judge can't either.

Please look at my post above.

In a Daubert hearing, the judge determines what is valid scientific theory and what is junk science. He decides what theories my be presented to a jury and which are too speculative to be heard in court. If someone tried to call Behe to the stand in a murder trial as an expert witness, a Daubert hearing would (hopefully) prevent prevent him from testifying.

[martu]

Huh? What the judge decides has no basis on reality?

If you mean that reality doesn't shape itself to bend to the judge's words, that's true. But the whole point of the decision is that the judge describes reality, based on the evidence -- and a judge is an ex officio credible describer of reality, which is why his decision is given weight by sensible people.

If I said that there were jack rabbits in Colorado --- I lived there for seven years and saw them --- that doesn't mean that God will suddenly populate the state with jack rabbits on my say so. ("Fiat bunnies!") But it does mean that any nutcase who says that there aren't jack rabbits has a serious credibility problem.

Yes the bolded part is what I was trying to say.

[martu]

No one, not even scientists, declare what "truth" is so I don't know why you think it noteworthy that a judge can't either.

Erm because that's what this thread is all about:

And in any case, when did matters of truth in life/evolution/intelligent design become decidable in a court of law?

Please look at my post above.

In a Daubert hearing, the judge determines what is valid scientific theory and what is junk science. He decides what theories my be presented to a jury and which are too speculative to be heard in court. If someone tried to call Behe to the stand in a murder trial as an expert witness, a Daubert hearing would (hopefully) prevent prevent him from testifying.

Yes agreed - please read the OP.

[drkitten]

Yes the bolded part is what I was trying to say.

A word of advice, then. If the opposite of what you are saying is trivially, obviously, and self-evidently false, and if no one is claiming that it's true, then you have no need to say it.

No one is saying that reality molds itself to the judge's words. But the simple fact is that the religious vs. scientific content of ID is crucial to a correct legal judgement about the teachability of ID, and the judge issued a very clear and well-reasoned argument that well describes the reality to which the legal judgement must mold itself.

[martu]

A word of advice, then. If the opposite of what you are saying is trivially, obviously, and self-evidently false, and if no one is claiming that it's true, then you have no need to say it.

No one is saying that reality molds itself to the judge's words. But the simple fact is that the religious vs. scientific content of ID is crucial to a correct legal judgement about the teachability of ID, and the judge issued a very clear and well-reasoned argument that well describes the reality to which the legal judgement must mold itself.

So what was the point of the OP in your opinion?

[drkitten]

So what was the point of the OP in your opinion?

That plumjam is an idiot or a liar. (For the logicians out there, that's an inclusive or.)

And that the legal system is often called upon to make factual decisions in the course of making a legal determination.

[martu]

That plumjam is an idiot or a liar. (For the logicians out there, that's an inclusive or.)

And that the legal system is often called upon to make factual decisions in the course of making a legal determination.

And those factual decisions are open to revision which means they don't necessarily define the 'truth'.

I have no doubt that plumjam was trying to be obtuse and\or annoying but this statement:
And in any case, when did matters of truth in life/evolution/intelligent design become decidable in a court of law?
is trivially true, courts do not decide what the 'truth' is when being used in this context.

We shouldn't say ID isn't science because Judge Jones ruled it wasn't we should point out that ID isn't science because they don't follow the scientific method etc, no judge required. Otherwise semi bright creationists like plumjam get to use this canard.

I predicted in my first post this will turn into a semantic discussion and I am not pleased it has and that I have contributed so much to it.

[Meadmaker]

Joan of Arc was a witch. The court said so.

[drkitten]

And those factual decisions are open to revision which means they don't necessarily define the 'truth'.

No, I don't think that that was part of the OP at all.

If nothing else, no one was arguing the opposite, and the opposite is trivially and self-evidently false.

Plumjam was arguing that courts could not and should not make factual determinations. Which, although trivially and self-evidently false, nevertheless needs refutation because there are apparently idiots out there that believe it.


I predicted in my first post this will turn into a semantic discussion and I am not pleased it has and that I have contributed so much to it.

You mean in the post where you disingenuously created a straw man and waited for people to bitchslap you around for it?

A little late for displeasure now, I think. As ye sowed, so shall ye reap.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think some of you might be confusing the ruling which did not decide what was science, it decided ID was Creationism in disguise and Creationism had already been ruled religious teaching and not appropriate as it would appear to be state sponsored religion in public schools.

I think if the subject had just been bad science vs good science, there might not have even been grounds to try the case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Daubert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_hearing), though I am not well informed about this legal decision, appears to be ruling on what a judge may consider when deciding to allow evidence in a trial. Judges have always been evidence "gatekeepers" but they also have specific rules or case law precedent to guide their gate keeping. If their decisions were not based on rules and precedent, then what would the judge or an appeals court use to determine the admissibility of evidence?

It isn't that the judge was ruling on the validity of science per se. Rather the ruling set a precedent changing the criteria a judge could use from generally accepted science to more specific criteria found in the decision.

It's not too far of a stretch from that judgment and any other judgment a judge makes on evidence admissibility. There must be some criteria and the judge has to decide if something fits the criteria or not.

Some commentators believe that Daubert caused judges to become—in the phrase used in former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Daubert—amateur scientists, many lacking the scientific literacy to effectively fulfill their role as gatekeeper of scientific evidence.[10] Although “science for judges” forums have emerged in the wake of Daubert in order to educate judges in a variety of scientific fields, many are still skeptical about the usefulness of the Daubert standard in discerning valid science.[11] [12] [13]

To summarize, five cardinal points Daubert asks of every new technique in order to be admissible in court are:

1. Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)? [e.g. fingerprinting has been extensively tested and verified not only in laboratory conditions, but even in actual criminal cases. So it is admissible. Polygraphy on the other hand has been well tested in laboratories but not so well tested in field conditions]
2. Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
3. What is the known or potential rate of error? Is it zero, or low enough to be close to zero?
4. Do standards exist for the control of the technique's operation? [e.g. the use of penile plethysmography for sex offender risk assessment is being used by different workers according to their own standards. Thus penile plethysmography does not meet Daubert criteria]
5. Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community? [this test was earlier the only relevant criteria under Frye]

The Supreme Court explicitly cautioned that the Daubert list should not be regarded by judges as “a definitive checklist or test...” Yet in practice, many judges regularly judge the admissibility of scientific evidence using the "Daubert factors" as a checklist.

[Gazpacho]

plumjam is certainly free to disagree with the court on his own time, but that comes with the responsibility of explaining why the court's conclusion was wrong.

[arthwollipot]

"Having to disguise themselves in the robes of science no matter how badly they fit" is more or less the way Asimov once described the practice.The prosecuting lawyer, Eric Rothschild, said "Intelligent design could not come closer to naming the Designer if it was spotted with the letters G and O."

You're missing plumjam's 'truth' part - what the judge decides has no bearing on reality, one cannot say ID is not science because a judge says so anymore then one could say ID is science because a judge says so. ID isn't science (mainly) because it isn't falsifiable, nothing to do with a judge though fortunately in Dover the judge was an intelligent man who agreed with the facts.

plumjam may often talk a lot of nonsense but this time his statement was correct.I don't believe that is the case. I think plumjam was wrong - not in the statement itself, but in the thought behind the statement.

One thing to remember is that the point was not whether ID was science, it was whether ID was religion. The question of what is and isn't science does not impact on the US Constitution. Teaching non-science may be constitutional, as drkitten pointed out, even if it is poor pedagogy. Teaching religion is not constitutional.

[RenaissanceBiker]

How does the Pope get to decide who is a saint? Aren't saints given special status in Heaven? They get to grant prayers. Yet this special status is determined by a human on Earth?

Science, sainthood; it's hard to know who has jusrisdiction over what.

[arthwollipot]

How does the Pope get to decide who is a saint? Aren't saints given special status in Heaven? They get to grant prayers. Yet this special status is determined by a human on Earth?

Science, sainthood; it's hard to know who has jusrisdiction over what.Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand - can you elaborate?

[Tumblehome]

when did matters of truth in life/evolution/intelligent design become decidable in a court of law?


It's disingenuous of Plumjam to suggest that the court decided the truth. Judge Jones did not validate evolution as "the truth". He simply determined that ID is religious in nature, does not qualify as science, and therefore does not belong in a public school science class. It had nothing to do with evolution or ID being true or false. If the issue had been ID vs. Alchemy, he probably would have judged in favour of alchemy, even knowing alchemy is wrong.

And if anyone ever tries to force science into church services, the court would likely, and rightly, come down equally hard on science.

[drkitten]

How does the Pope get to decide who is a saint? Aren't saints given special status in Heaven? They get to grant prayers. Yet this special status is determined by a human on Earth?

Science, sainthood; it's hard to know who has jusrisdiction over what.

My understanding is that most theologians accept that God decides who is and is not a saint, and that the Pope (or whoever, depending upon your tradition) simply reads the memos and publicizes them.

[shadron]

How does the Pope get to decide who is a saint? Aren't saints given special status in Heaven? They get to grant prayers. Yet this special status is determined by a human on Earth?

Science, sainthood; it's hard to know who has jusrisdiction over what.

Somehow, I don't really see any stress over this particular dichotomy.

And, BTW, the Pope doesn't get to decide. In Catholic theology a saint is anyone who made it into heaven, thus giving All Saint's Day a meaning. The saints, by name, are those who, through miracles, have proven that they are saints, that they have a conduit into the power of god to show they made it, the cardinal's being shy of ouija boards and the like. Knowing the hysteria surrounding mystical things (cheese sandwiches, for instance) it is no wonder that those with small scruples and king-sized motives can weigh such judging; witness the horse trading surrounding the sainthood of Pius IX and John XXIII. While quieter, it is persistent over enough years to put the US presidential race to shame.

Ah, but the Pope does get to read the proclamation. He can also speak ex cathedra "about faith and morals" and be error free, though that is rare, and reserved for the real beauts, like Mary's Assumption into heaven (i.e., she didn't croak).

[Mercutio]

The courts decide whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit.

Scientists decide whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit.

They disagree. Both win.

Tomatoes are taxable as vegetables, and taxonomically are fruits. (ok, I don't know if that is the right word, but the play on "tax" was too good to pass up.)

The courts do not determine reality; they do determine a whole bunch of stuff we have to pay attention to if we wish to avoid fines/incarceration.

[arthwollipot]

And if anyone ever tries to force science into church services, the court would likely, and rightly, come down equally hard on science.Actually I don't think so. What is "taught" in a church service is not mandated by the US Constitution. There is no clause or amendment that state that "the church shall make no law establishing science" or "no scientific test for religious office". In essence, they are free to preach whatever they like from the pulpit. Public schools in the US are bound by the Establishment Clause, because they're an arm of the government. The two situations are not parallel.

[Tumblehome]

I agree with that, but I meant forcing science into religion without the church's consent, a la The Wedge. If, say, the NCSE suddenly flipped its lid and tried to force the teaching of evolution in church services, it would have no legs to stand on. The Spoiled Brats Of The Immaculate Deception who whine that Judge Jones was biased don't seem to realize that.

The idea of trying to force science into the church does appeal to me, though, if only to make a statement.:)

On second thought, it might be a constitutional issue. If religions are free to worship as they choose, and the NCSE tried to somehow force its agenda on them, wouldn't the churches be protected by the constitution? Still not a completely parallel situation, and maybe it's a clumsy example, but it's a hypothetical reversal of the situation to show that the courts will rule against science if it's called for.

[arthwollipot]

I agree with that, but I meant forcing science into religion without the church's consent, a la The Wedge. If, say, the NCSE suddenly flipped its lid and tried to force the teaching of evolution in church services, it would have no legs to stand on. The Spoiled Brats Of The Immaculate Deception who whine that Judge Jones was biased don't seem to realize that.

The idea of trying to force science into the church does appeal to me, though, if only to make a statement.:)

On second thought, it might be a constitutional issue. If religions are free to worship as they choose, and the NCSE tried to somehow force its agenda on them, wouldn't the churches be protected by the constitution? Still not a completely parallel situation, and maybe it's a clumsy example, but it's a hypothetical reversal of the situation to show that the courts will rule against science if it's called for.I'm not an expert on the US Constitution (heck, I don't even live there), but as far as I know, churches would not be protected by it. After all, the constitution makes no law respecting the establishment of religion, and putting in clauses protecting religion would violate that. Or so it seems to me.

[slingblade]

I'm not an expert on the US Constitution (heck, I don't even live there), but as far as I know, churches would not be protected by it. After all, the constitution makes no law respecting the establishment of religion, and putting in clauses protecting religion would violate that. Or so it seems to me.

I get what Tumblehome's proposing, but it could only be a hypothetical because of the valid point you make, Arth.

So, hypothetically, ID proponents would likely not appreciate a court telling them that whenever they taught the creation story in Sunday School, equal time had to be given evolution so the kids would be exposed to the various theories out there.

I've always wanted to ask an ID proponent about that, in fact. If he wants to bring his "alternative theory" into the classroom, why can I not then bring my evolutionary theory into his Sunday School class? But I doubt my asking that would get the response I desire. :cool:

[shadron]

I agree with that, but I meant forcing science into religion without the church's consent, a la The Wedge. If, say, the NCSE suddenly flipped its lid and tried to force the teaching of evolution in church services, it would have no legs to stand on. The Spoiled Brats Of The Immaculate Deception who whine that Judge Jones was biased don't seem to realize that.

The idea of trying to force science into the church does appeal to me, though, if only to make a statement.:)

On second thought, it might be a constitutional issue. If religions are free to worship as they choose, and the NCSE tried to somehow force its agenda on them, wouldn't the churches be protected by the constitution? Still not a completely parallel situation, and maybe it's a clumsy example, but it's a hypothetical reversal of the situation to show that the courts will rule against science if it's called for.

TH, the NCSE is a non-profit org. It has no power to force itself on anyone, any more than, say, United Way or the Boy Scouts does. It can try persuasion, but if you're not tuned into their commercial, then you'll not be affected. Church's are nearly non-profit orgs; there are some other rules, but in general they are governed according to their own internal bylaws. No one can coerce them to do something other than through the processes that their ByLaws require. As long as they commmit no illegalities or civil faults, the government on all levels is hands-off, by virtue of the disestablishment clause, in addition to simple common practice of the law. If the NCSE insisted on crashing a church service, then it is not the constitution that would protect the church, but rather state and local statutes concerning disturbing the peace.

Any corporation is treated in the law just as any other individual is treated; that is the definition and derivation of the word "corporate". You aren't protected from assault by the constitution, but rather by statute law. The constitution, besides setting up the federal gov's ground rules, essentially is a list of what the fed can do and what they cannot. Individual citizens are not a factor in it at all except as voters; that is why several states and statesmen pressed for the adoption of the Bill of Rights. In the beginning, the Constitution passed all law making ability concerning individuals (even corporate individuals) to the states, and that is why there is (or, at least, used to be) no such thing as federal murder/theft/rape/banking/tort law, federal driving laws or federal building codes.

The first amendment binds actions of the federal government only. Somewhere in the 1800's (Wikipedia would have the details) court decisions and other amendments extended the coverage to state and local governments. These, and these alone, are possible recipients of a suit based on the first amendment. The Dover School District is such an arm of the State of Pennsylvania, and thus could be sued. the church in Dover that abetted the purchase of the books and provided support is not mentioned.

[drkitten]

I'm not an expert on the US Constitution (heck, I don't even live there), but as far as I know, churches would not be protected by it. After all, the constitution makes no law respecting the establishment of religion, and putting in clauses protecting religion would violate that. Or so it seems to me.

The Establishment Clause is actually part of a pair of clauses; its partner is the "Free Exercise" clause. The actual wording is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Free Exercise clause prohibits the government generally from making policy that interferes with religion as the church and believers see it. So a law requiring that businesses stay open on Sunday would be at best questionable if someone's religion required that they refrain from work on the Sabbath. Similarly, a law requiring that all churches teach such-and-such as part of their Sunday School would be out and out illegal.

Of course, the NCSE is not part of the government, but by the same token the NCSE can't "force" anyone to do anything, so it's largely irrelevant in this case.

[arthwollipot]

The Establishment Clause is actually part of a pair of clauses; its partner is the "Free Exercise" clause. The actual wording is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Free Exercise clause prohibits the government generally from making policy that interferes with religion as the church and believers see it. So a law requiring that businesses stay open on Sunday would be at best questionable if someone's religion required that they refrain from work on the Sabbath. Similarly, a law requiring that all churches teach such-and-such as part of their Sunday School would be out and out illegal.Okay. But it has to be a recognised religion, right? The right to sacrifice newborn babies to Baal is not protected under the Free Exercise clause is it?

Anyway, given that, DrKitten is right. The churches have the right to practice their religion according to their doctrines, so I suppose that they would be protected by the constitution if any branch of the government tried to dictate to them what they should and should not teach. I stand corrected.

[drkitten]

Okay. But it has to be a recognised religion, right?

Actually, no. For the government to make a list of "recognized" and "unrecognized" religion would inherently "establish" the ones on the list and "disestablish" the others, so that would be blatantly unconstitutional.

The right to sacrifice newborn babies to Baal is not protected under the Free Exercise clause is it?

No, it's not --- but for a different reason. The right to "free exercise" is not an absolute right; nothing is absolute in the Anglo-American frame of law, basically. But the government has the right to make regulations that impact religion as long as the regulations have a compelling secular purpose. So the protection of babies and the prevention of murder are compelling secular reasons to make infanticide a crime whether done for religious reasons or not. (It's the same argument that says that churches need to have the same fire escapes that theaters and schools do, and for the same reason.)

As a more realistic example, the right to practice Fundamentalist LDS doesn't trump Texas' interest in protecting children from abuse. But there's no compelling state interest in teaching evolution in Sunday School.

[arthwollipot]

Okay, I think I get it now. Thanks, DrKitten.

I wonder where Plumjam is?

[Wildy]

Not really no, he decided whether it was lawful to teach ID in science classes in the United States. A US judge does not decide what is and what isn't science, merely what the US law is.

I never said that he decided what is and isn't science. Was saying that he decided whether ID could be considered science under US law.

Beyond US law it means nothing.

[arthwollipot]

I never said that he decided what is and isn't science. Was saying that he decided whether ID could be considered science under US law.

Beyond US law it means nothing.Except that the arguments which led him to make the determination are just as valid in other countries - the bacterial flagellum and the type 3 secretory system, and the early drafts of Pandas in particular. These can be referred to as support for an argument in any country, even if the specific legal precedent cannot.

[Tumblehome]

Just to be clear, I wasn't proposing a specific situation, but any hypothetical case where science would try to force itself on religion in the same way that ID tries to force itself on science. It doesn't have to be the NCSE. It doesn't matter who or what, it doesn't matter if it isn't possible. It's hypothetical. It's the idea of religion coming under attack from science which a judge, if it hypothetically went to trial, would properly rule against science, just as Judge Jones ruled against ID in Dover.

Again, to relate this to the OP, the hypothetical ruling would obviously not be determining what is actually true or false, just as Judge Jones did not determine that in his decision.

The judge didn't say, "I'm ruling in favour of science because it's right and ID is wrong." He simply said, "ID is religious and therefore does not belong in the science class." For whatever reason, Plumjam is misrepresenting the judge's ruling.

[Meadmaker]

I never said that he decided what is and isn't science. Was saying that he decided whether ID could be considered science under US law.

Beyond US law it means nothing.

Obviously, a court ruling is only applicable as a legal standard. However, Judge Jones left that part of his reasoning implicit. In his actual words, he said, "Having so
concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional
issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science." (From the opinion in Kitzmiller.)

He had already gone into a great deal of length about whether previous court precedents had said it could be ruled science under US law, and he very specifically did not say, "which is whether ID is science under US law." He then devotes a fair amount of time to discussing whether or not ID is science, never using the disclaimer about US law. He concludes, for a variety of reasons, that ID is not science.

I won't say he was wrong. I would agree that ID, as presented in, "Of Pandas and People", is not sciennce, and as presented anywhere else is at best very poor science. However, I think Judge Jones went beyond his jurisdiction in making that part of his ruling.

And I think Plumjam's point was that a court ruling is not a very good source for determining what is and isn't science.

[Tricky]

Just to be clear, I wasn't proposing a specific situation, but any hypothetical case where science would try to force itself on religion in the same way that ID tries to force itself on science.
That would be hard to imagine, since science does not have any dogma. However, I can imagine a situation where a certain scientific interpretation (based either strongly or loosely on science) would attempt to force its interpretation upon a religion's adherants. Scientology comes to mind. But of course, Scientology is a religion.

[Tricky]

And I think Plumjam's point was that a court ruling is not a very good source for determining what is and isn't science.
He may be right that it is not the best, though there are other reasons besides science that this had to be decided in court. However, the best source for determing what is and isn't science would be scientific journals and associations. I can assure Plumjam that if the question of ID were put to them, the reputation of ID would be excoriated a great deal more harshly than it was in the Dover trial.

[Tumblehome]

That would be hard to imagine, since science does not have any dogma. However, I can imagine a situation where a certain scientific interpretation (based either strongly or loosely on science) would attempt to force its interpretation upon a religion's adherants. Scientology comes to mind. But of course, Scientology is a religion.


Agreed, a hundred percent, that it's hard to imagine. I never meant to suggest that it would happen, could happen, or was even remotely possible. It was strictly a hypothetical scenario to make a point.

[Tumblehome]

I get what Tumblehome's proposing...


Thank you, thank you, oh thank you! :D


...but it could only be a hypothetical because of the valid point you make, Arth.


Which is all I meant it to be, nothing more.


So, hypothetically, ID proponents would likely not appreciate a court telling them that whenever they taught the creation story in Sunday School, equal time had to be given evolution so the kids would be exposed to the various theories out there.


The courts can't mandate that, of course, but it's a sweet thought to ponder and makes a valid logical point, as hypothetical and unlikely as it is. ;)


I've always wanted to ask an ID proponent about that, in fact. If he wants to bring his "alternative theory" into the classroom, why can I not then bring my evolutionary theory into his Sunday School class? But I doubt my asking that would get the response I desire. :cool:


Go ahead and ask, I say. You'll never get the response you want from them, but there's the remotest possibility that it might make them start thinking.

[arthwollipot]

And I think Plumjam's point was that a court ruling is not a very good source for determining what is and isn't science.Again: the court was not determining whether or not ID was science, it was determining whether or not ID was religion. If ID is religion, then it is unconstitutional to teach it in public schools. The court concluded that ID is religion (...cannot be uncoupled from its religious antecedents...).

The court is absolutely the appropriate body to determine whether a particular course of action is constitutional or not. The fact that the Decision Memorandum concluded that ID is not science is completely immaterial. A red herring, if you like. The court decided that since ID is a religious proposition, it is unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Tell me how that decision is inappropriate.

Um, sorry - that last sentence was directed at the absent Plumjam, not at you, Meadmaker.

[Meadmaker]

Again: the court was not determining whether or not ID was science, it was determining whether or not ID was religion.

Judge Jones, in his opinion, spent a lot of ink on the subject of whether or not ID was science. He addressed that topic specifically, and with no disclaimers. He didn't say, "We find it incumbent upon the court to determine whether ID is science, as used in a legal sense for constitutional purposes addressing inclusion in a science curriculum required by Pennsylvania statute number 272."


One can debate whether it was a good idea for Judge Jones to address that topic, or whether he addressed that topic appropriately, but one cannot deny that he did in fact address it. He did use his court and the opinion issued by his court to determine that ID is not science. It's right there in his opinion.

[arthwollipot]

Judge Jones, in his opinion, spent a lot of ink on the subject of whether or not ID was science. He addressed that topic specifically, and with no disclaimers. He didn't say, "We find it incumbent upon the court to determine whether ID is science, as used in a legal sense for constitutional purposes addressing inclusion in a science curriculum required by Pennsylvania statute number 272."


One can debate whether it was a good idea for Judge Jones to address that topic, or whether he addressed that topic appropriately, but one cannot deny that he did in fact address it. He did use his court and the opinion issued by his court to determine that ID is not science. It's right there in his opinion.Oh, absolutely. But that's not the point of the ruling. Whether or not ID is science does not affect the constitutional validity of the school board's policy. The fact that it is not science means that it is religion, and that's the constitutional question.