Lawsuit over intelligent design

[bouch]

Hi folks,

Saw this in my local newspaper this morning:

----

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - The state American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power.

The Dover Area School District was believed to be the first in the nation to mandate intelligent design when it voted 6-3 in October in favor of including the concept in the science curriculum.

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have scheduled a news conference Tuesday to discuss the suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, ACLU spokesman Paul Silva said Monday.

8>< bunch of the article snipped out ><8

The ACLU has said intelligent design is a more secular form of creationism, a Biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God, and may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

----

The question is whether or not the ACLU's argument holds.

While I'm sure the vast majority of the people on this forum would say that intelligent shouldn't be taught in schools, is it really a violation of the separation church and state? I fully understand the "bad science" argument, but I don't see teaching "intellient design" qualify as the "establishment of religion".

Comments?

[Dr Adequate]

Well, if people are teaching made-up science with a religious agenda, I don't see that it's much different from Bible-thumping YECs. If they have any real scientific arguments, of course these should be presented. But so far as I know, they don't.

[hgc]

I wonder what that great defender of Christmas and nemesis of the ACLU, Bill O'Reilly, will have to say about this. Will he become a defender of teaching religion in public school science classrooms?

[Hellbound]

Don't the states have a mandate to provide a proper and correct education? I wonder if a constituational argument could be mounted based ont he fact that ID, being incorrect science and unsupported by evidence, is not proper education but poppycock that can actually cripple the children intellectually later in life?

If this one gets passed, that would be the next step to take. IDers are trying to present a front that is not religious (even though the agenda is pretty easy to see), and I believe there's enough grounds to take them on there...more, in fact. The only problem is you'd have to explain science to those in the court...

[Garrette]

Putting the preacher in a white smock and setting his pulpit in the lab do not make the bible he holds scientific.

Intelligent Design is not science; it is merely dressed up as science and cannot be defended at its root except as an ideology or a faith.

I can forgive the average joe for not knowing about the lack of science in ID, but its major proponents are liars and frauds who know their science is not science.

I also cannot forgive the legislators who propose this idiocy and who support it. While they may not know better, they are duty bound to find out; they simply don't.

I am not a scientist, but I am a well read layman. The literature on both sides of the ID fence is extensive and easy to find; much of it is written for intelligent laymen to read and understand. It does not take much reading to realize the hollow, deceptive nature of ID.

You may think I am being silly to make a point, but I am serious: if ID is allowed then we must also teach the native American creation myths because they have exactly as much science supporting them as does ID.

[crimresearch]

Where does anyone get the idea that legislators have a duty to educate our children to be thinking, skeptical individuals?

That would be the last thing any career politician would want to have grow up into an electorate, or a workforce.

[Garrette]

On a recent Sunday, there was a local radio talk show about ID and Evolution. The first set of callers were pro-ID, with one of them spouting every single ID fallacy there is (violates the 2nd Law of ThermoDy; if we evolve from monkeys why are they still here; Einstein believed in the christian god; there is no fossil record; evolution is only a theory; etc., etc.)

The host retained a semblance of objectivity and tried to hear both sides, but said this, which made me call: "I mean, if someone could PROVE evolution to me, I'd believe it."

I was the first anti-ID caller and gave a quick refutation of the other caller's arguments, but then got on the host for his statement. I asked him what he wanted the scientists to do--come personally to his house and give him a week long demonstration of all the intricate science? Or could he not be bothered to do a little research himself on the topic before he said it hadn't been proven?

Fortunately, the last National Geographic issue about evolution was out and I referred him to it. Don't know if he bought it; I should probably have mailed it to him.

The next few callers were anti-ID, too; I think we came out okay.

[Garrette]

[I]Originally posted by crimresearch:[/]

Where does anyone get the idea that legislators have a duty to educate our children to be thinking, skeptical individuals?

That would be the last thing any career politician would want to have grow up into an electorate, or a workforce.

Call me an idealist. Kind of like my eternally shattered hope that lawyers will try to seat intelligent, educated juries.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Huntsman
The only problem is you'd have to explain science to those in the court...
It's been done (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html). And it turns out that judges are quite clever, actually (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html).

[JPK]

I really hope the Raelians get to testify for I.D. I'm glad they are on there side!!!

JPK

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
It's been done (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html). And it turns out that judges are quite clever, actually (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html).

*sniff* Huntsman wipes away a tear...

A ray of hope. Nice to see that, Dr A. Thanks for the gift :)

And Merry Christsmas to you, but I didn't get you anything.

[Brahe]

Originally posted by Garrette
I also cannot forgive the legislators who propose this idiocy and who support it. While they may not know better, they are duty bound to find out; they simply don't.There's a term floating around usenet that's appropriate: culpable ignorance. A person who makes some claim while not knowing if it's true or not is guilty of this. While distinct from lying, culpable ignorance is generally considered just as wrong as lying, even if the claim does turn out to be correct.

You may think I am being silly to make a point, but I am serious: if ID is allowed then we must also teach the native American creation myths because they have exactly as much science supporting them as does ID. I'd go even further and say that native American creation myths are even more appropriate to the science classroom. Creation myths at least form a narrative; ID doesn't even do that! As far as I can tell, the "scientific theory" of ID is that at some unspecified place, at some unspecified time, for some unspecified reason, our unspecified intelligence did something to something using some unspecified method. For suitably broad definitions of "something" and "did." :)

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Brahe
...
I'd go even further and say that native American creation myths are even more appropriate to the science classroom. Creation myths at least form a narrative; ID doesn't even do that! As far as I can tell, the "scientific theory" of ID is that at some unspecified place, at some unspecified time, for some unspecified reason, our unspecified intelligence did something to something using some unspecified method. For suitably broad definitions of "something" and "did." :)

I asked my mom to save me the "Was Darwin Wrong" issue of NG and explained to her how some Creationists were passing the magazine out without having read that. We got into a discussion about it and how you'd have to teach every creation myth if you were going to teach creationism.

"No, just the correct one," said Mom.
"Well, which one is that," I replied.
"Oh, the Native American one," the Epsicopal casually uttered.

I didn't pursue which one of those, but I still like that idea.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I asked my mom to save me the "Was Darwin Wrong" issue of NG and explained to her how some Creationists were passing the magazine out without having read that.
Really? Really and truely?

Dr Adequate is happy.

Dr Adequate will do a little dance.

Dr Adequate gloats. Hear him!

You're not pulling my leg are you?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Really? Really and truely?

Dr Adequate is happy.

Dr Adequate will do a little dance.

Dr Adequate gloats. Hear him!

You're not pulling my leg are you?

Not if reports by other posters were correct, my dear. :D

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Not if reports by other posters were correct, my dear. :D
Links... must have links...

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Links... must have links...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47950

Fourth or so post down.

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Adequate finally feels at peace with the world and himself.

Thank you, LA.

[Nex]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I asked my mom to save me the "Was Darwin Wrong" issue of NG and explained to her how some Creationists were passing the magazine out without having read that.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Dang LA, you've made my week!

[Bob Klase]

I first heard about this a few days ago. At the time the pro-IDer's big argument was that "evolution is *just* a theory". What a shame that their knowledge of science is so weak that they don't know that ID doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

[LostAngeles]

You're welcome, but thank cbish, folks. That's who reported it.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by bouch
The question is whether or not the ACLU's argument holds.

While I'm sure the vast majority of the people on this forum would say that intelligent shouldn't be taught in schools, is it really a violation of the separation church and state? I fully understand the "bad science" argument, but I don't see teaching "intellient design" qualify as the "establishment of religion".

I have no legal training, but I think this case is easily winnable based on Edwards v. Aguillard (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html). In the early 80s Louisiana passed a law requiring creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught. In 1987 by a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of church/state separation.

Brennan wrote the majority opinion. The key was that the law did not have any valid secular purpose, causing it to fail a key prong in the courts Lemon test:

The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

Lots of evidence was presented showing that creation science was based almost exclusively on a religious doctrine, that the bill's sponsor, Senator Keith, was motivated by his religious beliefs, and that the effect of the law added nothing of scientific value to the science curriculum.

We have nearly the same circumstances today with Intelligent Design. ID's central proponents, Wells, Dembski, and Johnson, have stated in unambiguous terms that ID is inherently a religious idea. For example, in this interview Johnson said

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science," says the conference's prime mover, law professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley. "It's about religion and philosophy." Mr. Johnson also insists the real issue in the century-old debate isn't even about the early chapters of Genesis. "I turn instead to John 1," says the astute Presbyterian layman, "where we're told that 'In the beginning was the word.'"

http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=374



And then Dembski, in his book "Intelligent Design: The bridge between science and theology," wrote

The Christian tradition plainly asserts that God is the ultimate reality and that nature itself is a divine creative act...The aim of this chapter then is to present a general account of creation that is faithful to the Christian tradition, that resolutely rejects naturalism...

Now within Christian theology there is one and only one way to make sense of transcendent design, and that is as a divine act of creation, specifically on the creation of the world. My aim is to use divine creation as a lens for understanding intelligent agency generally. God's act of creating the world is the prototype for all intelligent agency.

...Indeed all intelligent agency takes its cue from the creation of the world...God's act of creating the world is thus the prime instance of intelligent agency.

ID is not supposed to be about God. It's not even supposed to identify the intelligent designer. Yet, in these two paragraphs I count 9 references to "God," "Christian," or "divine."

The members of the Dover school board have clearly stated their religious motivations for putting ID in the curriculum by asking the dissenting members whether they were really Christians or atheists.

I think it's clear that the Dover board's actions had a religious motivation. But that is okay provided their action also has a valid secular purpose. The textbook they want to make available is "Of Pandas and People." This text is clearly pro-ID and its scientific value has been shredded by experts in the field who have reviewed it .(see here) (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21). Moreover, it has been 10+ years since ID was proposed and yet there are no experiments and nothing in the peer-reviewed science literature to support it. It has yielded nothing of scientific value to warrant inclusion in a science curriculum. Based on the Edwards precedent, this is something the courts will definitely consider in determining the secular value of ID's inclusion in the curriculum.

Let's review the facts relevant to applying the Lemon Test.

(1) The concept of ID and the motivation of the Dover school board are clearly religious.

(2) ID has no scientific value, thus there is no secular purpose to the school board's action.

These two facts cause the board's action to flunk the first prong of the Lemon Test, which is enough to have it ruled unconstitutional.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Flaherty


I think it's clear that the Dover board's actions had a religious motivation.

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

I agree with you, and probably so does the Pennsylvania ACLU, or they wouldn't have brought the suit in the first place. Unfortunately, what I believe and what is provable under the standards of evidence that hold in a court are two separate things, and part of the point of the "Intelligent Design" movement is to provide a fig-leaf of secular justification behind which the religious movement can advance. A Trojan Horse, if you will.

Just as an example, the Dembski quote that you refer to clearly illustrates that Dembski is both a believer in the Christian God and motivated by a desire to use "divine creation as a lens for understanding intelligent agency generally." However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the theory of intelligent agency is inherently religious --- there are a number of well-established philsophical traditions (such as human rights) that are widely established as secular, despite their theological origins and the genuine beliefs of many of their proponents.

Re-read the Dembski quote more closely. He's obviously trying to lay the groundwork for a claim that he is studying "intelligent agency generally," without regard to the divine or mundane nature of that agency. Once he's made that claim, he can then turn around and claim that ID vs. evolution is a legitimate secular dispute within science generally. If this claim is accepted, then there's no problem with any of the three points of the Lemon test.

Obviously, I disagree with Dembski. But I don't think that I could prove that the concept of ID is clearly religious (after all, the proponents explicitly claim that it's not), or that the purpose of the Dover school board was not simply to resolve a secular, scientific dispute. I look forward to seeing how the ACLU's lawyers try to set up and frame the evidence.