Dover decision Redux

This will still be pretty long but here is a digest of comments from
the Dover decision for those who are stuffed for time or are still
skimming through it:


First off Jones kicks into touch the argument that ID and the religious
debate are not related:

1.An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism


Jones makes it clear that the ID argument is merely the reassignation
of old creationist diatribes:

The only apparent difference between the argument made by
Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses
Behe and
Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge
that the designer is
God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western
religious
thought would immediately make the association that the tactically
unnamed
designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and
People
(hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly
suggesting a supernatural
deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural
world. (P-11
at 85).

pp.25



Section 2 considers whether students would see ID as a religious
statement (the short answer is 'yes, they would')

After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
we find
that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong
official
endorsement of religion. Application of the objective student standard
pursuant to
the endorsement test reveals that an objective Dover High School ninth
grade
student will unquestionably perceive the text of the disclaimer,
"enlightened by its
context and contemporary legislative history," as conferring a
religious concept on
"her school's seal of approval."

pp.38

I quite liked that on pp.40-41 Jones does address the colloquial notion
of 'theory' and the problems of specifically identifying it in relation
to evolution to the exclusion of all other theories. During the
decision Jones makes numerous references to how Panda's (and the
disclaimer) misrepresent the issues.

Jones also agrees with Padian that the disclaimer makes students
'stupid' on pp.41 and then follows it up on pp.42 where he identifies
the 'contrived dualism' from the Mclean trial as a creationist tactic
that is also being applied in Dover. To top it off the disclaimer
itself can still be seen as endorsing religion:

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
view, a
mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. As the
Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals held in Freiler, an educator's "reading of a
disclaimer that not
only disavows endorsement of educational materials but also juxtaposes
that
disavowal with an urging to contemplate alternative religious concepts
implies
School Board approval of religious principles." Freiler, 185 F.3d at
348.

pp.43

Section 3. deals with whether the defendants conduct can be seen as an
endorsement of religion (pp.50). Again the short answer is 'yes, it
is' but this choice quote is rather nice:

An objective adult member of the Dover community would also be
presumed to know that ID and teaching about supposed gaps and problems
in
evolutionary theory are creationist religious strategies that evolved
from earlier
forms of creationism, as we previously detailed. The objective observer
is
therefore aware of the social context in which the ID Policy arose and
considered
in light of this history, the challenged ID Policy constitutes an
endorsement of a
religious view for the reasons that follow.

pp.56


The fun really starts with Section 4:


4. Whether ID is science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find
that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes
no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different
levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science.
They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and
permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed
creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution
have been refuted
by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below,
it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in
the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it
been the
subject of testing and research.

pp.64


Is ID science? Not a big surprise to TO residents but the answer is a
big fat no. Unequivocally so. In addition the very argument that ID
brings to the table is redundant:

However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just
because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not
mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37
(Miller)).
As Dr. Padian aptly noted, "absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence."
(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and
Padian
provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural
explanations
exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural
explanations have
been identified in the intervening years. also bears mentioning that as
Dr. Miller
stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary
detail does not
undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science
is fully
understood. (3:102 (Miller)).


Jones then examines the scientific case for ID and reduces it to slag
both in its rhetorical sophistry and lack of scientific underpinnings.
Behe and Minnich are deconstructed, including their claims over the
science of ID and Panda's claim to science is similarly dismissed as
being unsuitable for sound scientific reasons.

Jones concludes this section with:

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its
proponents,
as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over
a six week
trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid,
accepted
scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed
journals, engage in
research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.
ID, as
noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of
argument its
proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID
to students will
encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science
curriculum.
Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny
which we have
now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the
controversy, but
not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at
best disingenuous,
and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical
thought,
but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory
with ID.

pp.89


Section F deals mainly with legal issues and the appplication of the
Lemon Test but parts make interesting reading as this section concerns
the conduct and intent of the old school board. No quarter given here
either.

On the integrity of defendants:
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses
denied
the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the
evidence
about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record
reflects that
these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under
oath on several
occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.

pp.105


And again ...

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that
both
Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about
their
knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely
contributed to
Plaintiffs' election not to seek a temporary restraining order at
that time based
upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a
clear and
deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board
President and
the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover
students
received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.
We are
accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and
Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the
ID
Policy.

pp.115


Oh ... and caught lying again ...

Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods
to
the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce
that any
allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID
Policy are
equally insincere.
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board
amount
to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote
religion in the
public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

pp.132



This little comment in the conclusion will no doubt cause some
dissonance in the ID camp as they seek to misrepresent Jones' decision:

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates
of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly
endeavors. Nor
do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and
discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID
as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

pp.137


There you go - hope that helps some. It's worth a read through anyway
from start to finish. It's quite articulate and straightforward.
Jones seems to have a way of cutting to the meat of the matter and has
quite eloquently done so. Personally I wasn't expecting such a wide
ruling - it could have been restricted somewhat from what I understand
but hey, it seems to cover most of the bases.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... the definition of science to the point that the creationists religious ... Because creationism doesn't fit the definition of science. ... I'm saying scientists built functioning virus in a lab. ... science or religion, or what scientists do. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ... there are Creationist and ID scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
Loading