Thumpalumpacus wrote:Seth wrote:The failure is the fault of science for not being very, very careful in using precise terminology in arguments against creationists so that the distinction is always made between actual "intelligent design" science, which does exist and is both real and a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and pseudo-ID creationism as purveyed by the DI. Image is important, and so is precision in the use of language.
Wrong. The invention of "Intelligent Design" as a concept was clearly as a Trojan Horse to inject the topic into public schools. Are you aware of the
Cdesign Proponentsist issue? It is pretty clear from that trail of evidence that ID was invented to facilitate the insertion of theism into public schools.
ID is an infinitesimal possibility, so far as evidence speaks nowadays. Cling to it if you wish.
Yes, I'm well aware of the specific intent of creationists to use intelligent design as a wedge. I've read the Kitzmiller decision quite carefully, and the judge was absolutely correct in rejecting the Dover School Board's attempt to inject creationism into the schools on the basis of that subterfuge alone. The evidence is absolutely clear in that regard; that those behind the Dover School Board had a creationist agenda masked by science and pseudoscience. That's why I prefer the term "neo-Creationism," which is what the judge essentially said the defendants actions were.
But I think he went too far in saying that "Intelligent Design" is not science without specifying exactly what he was talking about, which was, specifically, Discovery Institute/Dover School Board neo-Creationism. As I've been saying, the concept of intelligent design is much broader that what the DI is suggesting, and the judge was WRONG in stating that intelligent design of either living organisms on earth, or even potentially the design of the physical laws of this universe REQUIRE resort to supernaturalism.
His exegesis on methodological naturalism to the exclusion of the potential for intelligent design as "supernatural" is flawed because it demonstrates a poverty of imagination and ignorance of the idea that intelligence can exist that is beyond our present understanding that is not "supernatural" at all, but may be entirely natural, but merely not yet understood.
In his ruling he, like many others, engaged in fallacious reasoning using the Atheist's Fallacy by taking as fact the beliefs of theists in the supernaturality of God, which he then conflated with science to conclude that intelligent design could not be science because the beliefs of the defendants in the Kitzmiller case held that God is a supernatural being. In other words, he allowed the flawed and irrational beliefs of theists to determine the boundaries of legitimate science, and that was wrong of him.
As I've demonstrated, advanced intelligence capable of manipulating genes on this planet is NOT an inherently theistic or supernatural concept. It is fully possible to postulate such intelligence as having come into existence or evolved through "natural" causes, but in ways which to us might appear to be magic, or miraculous, or which might be perfectly consistent with Darwinian evolution over vastly longer periods than our universe has existed.
Therefore, while I heartily agree with the judge that the specific attempt by the Dover School Board to inject creationism into the schools using a mix of science, pseudoscience an deliberate, mendacious misdirection we can accurately label "neo-Creationism," I heartily disagree that either the notion of intelligent design, or for that matter the question of irreducible complexity as a concept (and not necessarily as presented to the court) are not valid scientific ideas. I think the judge went far beyond his mandate to rule on the facts of the case, which were clear, and he improperly decided to render legal opinions on matters of science, and of school curricula, he is not competent to judge.
It's perfectly acceptable for him to rule against the Dover board because they came to the table with dirty hands and mal intent, as was conclusively proven by the evidence of the "wedge strategy" presented in court. The fact that the Board intended to create and inject neo-Creationism into the science classroom was sufficient justification to rule against them. But I wish he had not gone beyond that legitimate First Amendment argument and delved into the scientific legitimacy of intelligent design or irreducible complexity, which he ruled to be "not science" when both are clearly scientific propositions, even if they have been refuted by other scientists. The ruling does not make either "not science," it states, in essence, that the DI proponents and the Dover board have fatally tainted scientific propositions by attempting to use them as a smoke screen for neo-Creationism. But this is not, I think, within the purview of the court, because the question before the court was whether the statement that the board mandated be read to students is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in
Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution
including, but not limited to, intelligent design.
Note: Origins of Life is not taught.
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.
In his ruling, the judge discussed at length the "endorsement test," which holds that government may not endorse or favor religion in its official acts. The court then found that the evidence showed that the Dover board was intentionally favoring "creation science," which has been previously ruled to be proscribed in public schools, with its statement. He is correct where he points out the record of the "IDM" (Intelligent Design Movement) and the basis of their beliefs being founded in theistic concepts. Even Behe's supposed scientific pose was revealed by his own words to be rooted in reformulating creationism to sound scientific.
But where the judge goes awry is in section 4 of the ruling, where he asks the question "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.
What's important to note here is that "ID" means "the version of intelligent design arguments put forth by the Dover School Board and the Intelligent Design Movement," and not the idea of intelligent design as a concept.
The Behe/DI/IDM version of ID does indeed fail because it invokes "supernatural causation," but that's merely a fallacious presumption by that group, and is not determinative of whether a non-supernatural intelligent designer does, or can exist, which is an inherently scientific question. The judge resorts to the Atheist's Fallacy here in taking as valid the erroneous beliefs of the IDM group to reject the notion of intelligent design as a scientific concept. This is a logical fallacy because the erroneous beliefs of the IDM group do not change the nature of the question, which is a matter of science. Certainly the root beliefs of the IDM movement weigh against the LEGAL legitimacy of their argument as weighed against the Establishment Clause, but such beliefs DO NOT change the fundamentally scientific nature of the "arguments." The judge admits this in the first sentence, and yet he goes on to do precisely what he says he does not do. He renders opinion on science.
He says, "we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position..." and then he reverses himself and goes entirely off the rails by saying, "...ID is not science." This statement, upon which he predicates the rest of his opinion, is all but incoherent, and it's a slender reed upon which to make judicial determinations about matters of science that the courts have absolutely no jurisdiction over.
Preliminarily, it must be noted that even the mighty Richard Dawkins confesses that the question of whether God exists or not is quintessentially a question for science to resolve.
Specifically, however, the judge says the following as the justification for his examination of the science involved:
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
...
ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and
as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96 (Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62
(Alters)). ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a
natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. (5:107 (Pennock)).
He is correct insofar as the Behe/DI/IDM proponents are concerned, and it is true that THEIR VERSION of intelligent design resorts to supernatural causation, and is therefore inherently theistic and religious in nature.
But it is not true that all versions of intelligent design hold that supernatural causation is necessary. For example, my version has nothing whatever to do with supernatural causation, which fact disproves the judges claim as it applies broadly and beyond the specific form of "neo-Creationism" that carries the overly broad descriptor "ID" or "Intelligent Design."
While the specific version if "ID" presented to the court may be fatally tainted by religious and theistic concepts, the broad question of whether intelligent design had some part in the creation or advancement of life on earth is not inherently religious or theistic, but rather is a valid scientific proposition.
Thus, in this regard, the judge is wrong, and ID is "science." It may be bad science. It may be thoroughly refuted science. It may not be science that ought to be taught in public schools, but it's every bit as much science as any other refuted theory of science. Pre-Copernican cosmology is deeply founded in religion, but it can be taught in public schools as a demonstration of the scientific process and how theories are tested and refuted. ID is, or should be no different. Behe/DI/IDM version neo-Creationism should be taught precisely in order to demonstrate its methodological flaws, which enhances the strength of evolutionary theory.
More importantly, even if the core idea of an intelligent designer is not accepted science because it is at present untestable, it's not inherently religious either, once the impermissible motives of the Dover proponents are removed. And if it's not inherently religious, then the court is in error in declaring it "not science," because it doesn't matter if it's "not science," what matters, and insofar as the complaint is concerned, is that it's "not religion."
This is the error that takes the ruling beyond its legitimate judicial boundaries. The court was hearing a complaint that the Establishment Clause was being violated. The evidence was clear that the Establishment Clause WAS being deliberately violated by attempting to repackage creationism as "Intelligent Design," thereby creation neo-Creationism, and the intent was to inject this "wedge argument" into the classroom. That being determined, the judge needed go no further and could have, and should have ended his ruling right there.
By delving into the actual scientific controversies, however weak they might be, he went beyond his mandate under the Establishment Clause and undertook a judicial review of what comprises "proper" science curricula in the public schools. That's reversible error because that was not the question before him. Whether a particular argument is adequately "scientific" or not to meet with his approval is not something he was permitted to determine, because the scope of the case before him was limited to the question of whether the statement that the Dover board required to be read to students violated the First Amendment. His judicial duty was to resolve that question, and ONLY that question. By going further, he engaged in judicial activism, probably to suit his own personal preferences and beliefs about intelligent design, but in doing so he likely committed reversible error, at least insofar as his determination that ID, as a general proposition, is "not science."
The reason I object to his excursion from legitimate judicial boundaries is because his judicial determination that ID is "not science" is both unauthorized and harms the legitimate scientific intelligent design arguments, which the judge himself said he was not going to render judgment upon, but did.
By not referring specifically to the MOTIVES of the defendants in MISUSING legitimate scientific debate to bolster their theistic intentions, he has improperly suppressed legitimate lines of scientific inquiry by making it illegal to teach children how to think critically about the arguments on both sides of the debate. Because children can not even be told about ANY theory of intelligent design, because a single judge has "determined" that it's "not science," scientific exploration and examination has been damaged and suppressed.
We do not teach children how to think critically by suppressing information. That's just wrong.
As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to separate the theistic motives and intents of the Behe/DI/IDM proponents from the actual questions of science, and to present intelligent design in an manner that in no way violates the Establishment Clause because it makes no reference to supernaturalism or religious beliefs.
The discussion of intelligent design as a scientific proposition we've had here is a way of demonstrating critical thinking on the issue that would have value to students, as would presentation of the facts of the Kitzmiller case, as an examination both of legal reasoning (good and bad) and as a demonstration as to why the Behe/DI/IDM version is scientifically flawed. But because of the judge's expansion of his ruling beyond that which was actually necessary to resolve the case, and his determination that "ID is not science," all of those debates and teachable moments are lost, because schools have been prohibited from even bringing the subject up for fear of being sued. I think that's most unfortunate and unnecessary.
Knowledge is never advanced through the suppression of information, and I would think that liberal and rational thinkers would agree that more information is always better than less information.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
