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.

Originally Posted by plumjam

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 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:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

[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]

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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...

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]

Originally Posted by Wildy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by martu

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.

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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 (equal time for Creationism and Evolution) plus 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]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

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 (equal time for Creationism and Evolution) plus 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]

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeMD

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.

Originally Posted by HawkeyeMD

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:

Originally Posted by plumjam

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

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, 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]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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:

Originally Posted by plumjam

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

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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:

Originally Posted by plumjam

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]

Originally Posted by martu

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.

Quote:

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, 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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeMD

"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."

Originally Posted by martu

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand - can you elaborate?

[Tumblehome]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.