The Significance of the Dover Decision

_{William Dembski

December 20, 2005

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Judge Jones rendered his verdict in the Dover case today. On September 30th I blogged what I thought would be ultimate significance of Dover — go here. Even though media and bloggers are now analyzing the decision in depth (for the full decision, go here or here), I have little to add to what I wrote in September, so I’ll just leave it there.

Comments

Gumpngreen writes: The mystery is why is Jones now redefining what the experts told him I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see any mystery at all. This is a cultural controversy. Cultural controversies are, in America, supposed to be worked out grassroots, on the street, among the people. Should culture be codified in law, then it must at least proceed from the broadest possible participation (legislative branch) and preferably at the local level. What we have here is cultural change being dictated by a single individual. Expect bizarre and extreme results. Liberals love Federal Police Culture as long as they can shop the Ã¢â‚¬Å“right judgesÃ¢â‚¬Â in the narrowest possible process (judiciary). But here is something that is infallibly predictable. The minute, the second, the nanosecond that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“wrong judgesÃ¢â‚¬Â gain sway and mandate the Ã¢â‚¬Å“wrongÃ¢â‚¬Â cultural changes is the nanosecond liberals will scream absolute blood-curdling murder and demand another forum in another branch of government. Bet the house on it.pmob1_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

In reading Buchanan's article comparing Darwin and Karl Marx I was reminded of my own previous thoughts about the two. As a historian who was taught to completely ignore Marx because of his irrelevance and proven ideological failure, it is my contention that Darwin should be treated the same. Darwinian evolution seems to be a hurdle we (ID community) just drag around instead of jumping over and leaving it behind.tkell03s_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

"So regardless of what the ACLU did or did not do, didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the judge hear a legitimate version of ID from Behe et al?" Indeed he did. Which is why we can conlcude that this judge is thoroughly intellectually dishonest. I'm not sure how he sleeps at night.Bombadill_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: I agree completely. The version of ID in "Pandas and People" goes much further than just Intelligent Design (though I wouldn't go so far as to say "creationism", which implies the priority of a religious text). But that's not the worst part of the case. The worst part is that it appears, at least from some reports that I've heard, that some members of the school board were misrepresenting their case, if not outright lying, in order to prevent their religious views from becoming the focal point. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wish that they didn't have their religious views or motivations, but rather that they be _honest_ about what they are. If you are a Christian, there is no need to hide anything. God will honor you in your setting the example, not in lying to try to push an agenda. I actually think that there is a case to be made for Creationism in the schools (I actually don't care -- I think you should be homeschooling, but I think there is a clear case to be made). Frankly, I think we lucked out. The media is pushing the _decision_, and not the misbehavior of the school board. And I guarantee you, if we had won, the _misbehavior_ would have been the focus. This means that we won't all be painted with the "evil Christians lying to take control" brush, but just the "ID is stupid" brush that we've been painted with for a long time.johnnyb_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Mr. Christopher, From the SF Chronicle: "The inescapable truth is that Bonsell and Buckingham lied," under oath, the judge wrote. From the San Jose Mercury News Jones, clearly angered by some board members' contradictory statements on the witness stand during the six-week trial, accused them of lying to conceal their true motives when they approved the policy. Etc. in a number of press accounts. As far as teaching ID in History class or Modern Culture, fine. But itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s also fine for a school board, should they choose, to teach Darwinism in those classes and teach ID in biology. That is, unless you believe in ultra-orthodox National Science Police. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll go with the people, Mr. Christopher. You obviously despise them. You must be a lawyer. Sooner or later a state or locality is going to simply ignore these rulings in exactly the same way we used to ignore anti-sodomy laws.pmob1_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Hope this is okay, but I wanted to share some thoughts I posted to my website about the problem with ID and the courts and the "scientific establishment" in general. Reading the posts on many other sites today about the ruling, I see WAY too many people claiming that ID says "God did it" or merely that "Evolution could not have done this, so it must be wronng, thus God did it." Or variations of that. The same thing came about when listening to the Dori Monson interview with DI's Stephen Meyer and Peter Ward. Ward kept claiming throughout the entire debate that ID is religion, and that ID says "it's designed, and we cannot figure it out, so let's not even study it." ID says neither thing. He also endlessly claimed that ID is untestable, tho Miller and Matske and others have claimed to refute IC from Behe, tho Behe has responded and neither refutation really holds up. Miller seems to not even grasp Behe's idea of IC and Matske- well, I have zero respect for this guy after seeing 2 TV interviews where he constantly lied about Meyer and others. Anyhow, I wrote up some thoughts on the interview/debate and the constant dishonesty we see among ID critics. http://thebluesite.com/?p=581 Thought you guys might be interested in it. If not, ignore this comment and go about your schedule. :)Josh Bozeman_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Also- the fact remains that Jones said that ID says that life arose supernaturally, when ID says no such thing. Either he wasn't listening to any of the experts on the subject, or more likely- he decided he, as a judge, would form his own definition of ID. His definition was bogus through and through- he claimed many things of ID that ID never claims. He also claimed it was Christian- yet Dembski himself here has posted to Jewish ID supporters who have held conferences as well as Muslim ID sites and supporters. One muslim ID supporter who runs an ID site commented here recently in fact. So, his ruling that ID demands the supernatural is bogus (DaveScot surely doesn' agree with this! We therefore must conclude from the decision that Dave is either lying or ignorant of ID- neither of which can be shown to be true from his comments here). As well as his claim that ID is nothing but a Christian concept. A quick google search for jewish and muslim ID sites disproves this claim. The ruling that ID is creationism is also false- creationism demands a series of supernatural creation events...ID makes no such claim. Most IDers have no problem with common descent, thus that is clearly not a series of creation events, be they natural or supernatural. Jones' decision was an obvious mess and his ruling was based on a total strawman argument of ID. It was a complete disgrace.Josh Bozeman_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

DaveScot said: "Have more faith, Bill! This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d win. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pigÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves. Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. BushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Santorum LanguageÃ¢â‚¬Â that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children. The courts have been the last bastion of liberal power for 5 years. It was just a matter of time. The adults are firmly back in charge. The few wilted flower children that refused to grow up will have to satisfy themselves by following the likes of Cindy Sheehan around ineffectually whining about this, that, and the other thing. TheyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been marginalized." What happened? This is bad, bad news for the whole movement. ID needs to re-group and re-define itself. The judge is obviously an Aetheistic chance-worshipper. The Kansas board could've done better at defining the REAL ID. I'm beginning to suspect that the original Dover board members who chose to persue this may in fact have been evolutionists in disuise and intended to run ID into the ground from the start. Just think about it: All the off-hand comments about "creationism", "God", "Jesus" etc. in meetings and interviews were all designed to provide the evolutionists with the ammon they needed to bring down ID in court. Then they were gone without so much as a whimper -having done the devil's work. Then they had to insist on punting Pandas as the seminal peak of ID theory, when it is in reality nothing more the ramblings of creationist looneys like Gish, Hovind and Ham. It may be their honest interpretation of the Bible, but not of ID.Aardvark_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Evolutionnews explains the term "creation and "intelligent design" in yesterday's postings. They talk about how Walter Bradley heard the term "intelligent design" used by someone at NASA (I think it was someone at NASA)...and that before they had that term, there was no perfect term to use, so they used "creation." Clearly this wasn't creation in the sense of creationism, so the judge's claims that the board lied is dubious. No doubt, this stuff affects worldviews, but NDE does as well- so NDE should be tossed aside because many atheists use it to support their idea of there being no God? Dawkins' famous comment about Darwin and being an atheist come to mind. There was no problem in using the words they used...back in the 80's, they simply didn't have the best terms to describe what they wanted to describe. Design and creation seem very similar to me- creation in the sense that something came about via design. Not creation as in- biblical creationism as put forth by some.Josh Bozeman_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

The decision changes nothing, really. The cat's already out of the bag. The inevitable gloating and arrogant humorlessness we'll see from some of Darwin's academic champions (to say nothing of the problems with the theory) virtually insures that they'll continue fighting for their lives to no avail. It's important to not make too much of so little (this applies even if the decision had gone the other way). lpadronlpadron_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Mr Christopher From Judge Jones decision
An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About Ã¢â‚¬Å“GapsÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“ProblemsÃ¢â‚¬Â in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism
So Judge Jones with one fell swoop of his pen declares that pointing out any unexplained phenomenon in the history of life is an automatic failure of the effect prong of the Lemon Test and cannot be done in a public school. So even if there are legitimate unexplained things in the evolution of life (gaps) it's unconstitutional to mention them in public school. Only evidence in support of the theory may be introduced to students. Incredible. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?DaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

I just had a thought...does anyone know what US law says about the government promoting religious views that are held by all religions?Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Gumpngreen, one final comment and I'll hush up :-) I am not trying to argue one way or another, I guess my point is I see all these people in the media and internet, talk show hosts, reporters, etc., all commenting today feverishly...And I don't think a single one read this ruling in its entirety (or at all). That really bothered me today. The media on both sides seem so distanced from the real meat of this case and they instead thrive on wild assumptions and heresay. And I was really dissapointed in the DI press release. They made claims that were not supported by reading the actual ruling. They avoided any substance or evidence to prove the ruling wrong. And this was on both sides of the political spetrum. So if I seem hyper maybe its because I am. To reach an informed conclusion about this ruling I think you must read it yourself. And then go read and listen to the pundits on both sides if you will. And by doing so come to an informed conclusion. I feel the media in general is spinning for wild claims and ratings and enjoys hysteria. Wild titles sell copy. So, do the homework and be an informed citizen. Anyhow, I will totally shut up now. ChrisMr Christopher_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Mr. Christopher "the judge heard from what I thought were leading experts on ID - Michael Behe, Fuller, etc." The judge heard too much is what happened. One needs to ask "What are the students at Dover actually being taught?" They are being taught there are hypotheses regarding the diversification of life not included in the standard biology text, and one called intelligent design is among those other hypotheses. The students are then directed to the text "Of Pandas and People" for further information on what ID is all about and the teaching of ID halts there with that extra-curricular reading recommendation. The problem is that "Of Pandas and People" *is* creationism in a cheap tuxedo. It is NOT a leading text on ID in my opinion. It's an old creation science text lightly reworked to replace creation with design and creator with intelligent agent. Here is an excerpt from the book: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing." Dembski's most recent work defining ID states nothing of the sort. ID restricted to complex specified information only means that some structures found in nature exhibit complex patterns that cannot be formed without intelligent direction. The focus is on nanometer scale structures - the digital encoding of information in the DNA molecule, the complexity and interdependencies of protein based nanomachinery such as centrioles, ribosomes, and flagella among others. What was given to Judge Jones to evaluate included but was not limited to that. He also got all the old creation science baggage that religious pundits have tacked onto ID. There is a subset of everything that passes for ID that is solidly scientific. It may turn out to be wrong but science never comes with a guarantee of being correct. Dembski and his most recent work is pretty much what in engineering we call a "sole source" for scientific exposition of ID. What is being taught to students regarding ID has be made clear and explicit in the future and it can't be an old creation science book with the names changed to protect the constitution. Santorum may distance himself from ID but the president of the United States doesn't. The Santorum language is still attached to the NCLB legislation regardless of whether not Santorum voted for ID before he voted against ID. Maybe he's been hanging around John "Hanoi" Kerry too much lately... :-)DaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

"It had more to do with promoting a religious view and if that is done in a public school you have the argument that a school (government) is promoting a religious view." Since ID doesn't preclude any specific religion (even variants of atheism which rely on non-standard ideas) I still don't see how that could be considered unconstitutional. Anyway, I'll eventually find time to read it in its entirety. I've only briefed scanned it a bit.Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Judge Jones has ruled on the nature of science and has declared that neither Darwinism nor its premises, arguments, or evidence may be questioned. This is actually rather entertaining. A press release from the Discovery Institute comments, Ã¢â‚¬Å“This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.Ã¢â‚¬Â I would suggest that poor judge Jones is suffering not from delusions of grandeur, but from delusions of adequacy. Someone who suffers from delusions of grandeur thinks he is great, but is not. Someone who suffers from delusions of adequacy is much worse. The latter thinks he is up to the demands of a task, but has no awareness that he is completely out of his league.GilDodgen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Gumpngreen said "Since youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve read the entire document several times could you please point out to me the section where he describes why teaching ID in a science class would equate to congress (or the state) establishing a religion?" Gumpngreen, I don't think it is that simple, but maybe I am not that smart :-) No where did I see where he wrote that ID was an attempt to establish a religion. It had more to do with promoting a religiuous view and if that is done in a public school you have the argument tha a school (government) is promoting a religios view. But hey man, don't rely on my conclusions, I would suggest you download the pdf file and read it at your liesure from your computer versus trying to read it from a web site and take your time. The Pandas and People book is examined, ID theory is examined, the actions of the Dover board is examined, there are many things that are tied to the ruling. And I am not saying the ruling is right or wrong, I am saying it is fascinating and history in the making and well worth having a deeper than USA Today understanding. I do agree with the Discovery Institute that ID is nowhere near ready to be taught in public science class and that the Dover board really set themselves up. I believe the DI advised the Dover board against their policy.Mr Christopher_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

I've read the transcripts from the expert witnesses. Behe did indeed give a good accounting. The mystery is why is Jones now redefining what the experts told him?Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

DaveScot I am curious, the judge heard from what I thought were leading experts on ID - Michael Behe, Fuller, etc. So regardless of what the ACLU did or did not do, didn't the judge hear a legitimate version of ID from Behe et al? And is not of Pandas and People a leading ID textbook? It's not like there was no defense, Behe and others testified at length and in detail. I mean the ACLU can make fun of someone all day long but reason is going to stand or fall on its own, regardless of the punch line or caricatures made. And Santorum now distances himself from ID. Finally, engineers do not teach biology and that is where the friction lies so I think your engineers idea shows good intention but it mistaken. Anyhow...Oh well...Mr Christopher_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

I was addressing Mr. Christopher, BTW.Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Since you've read the entire document several times could you please point out to me the section where he describes why teaching ID in a science class would equate to congress (or the state) establishing a religion? I only have had time to do a quick search on the word "Christianity" and saw this: "ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity." Going by that Jones probably believes Christianity is the religion being established but I'd like to know how that would be considering there are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, agnostics, humanists, Deists...and even atheists who support ID (See www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/188 At least in the case of this atheist he doesn't "support" it especially but he does accept it as being valid). So unless the Dover school board was establishing a universal religion I'm not sure how he can claim this.Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

The trial was like a comedy of errors. The ACLU structured their suit so the defendants couldn't request a trial by jury. The book, "Of Pandas and People", is a thinly edited version of the older creation science edition. The word "God" was replaced by "intelligent agent" and "creation" with "design". The school board members perjured themselves trying to hide their fundamentalist Christian connections, connections which were so intimate as to make it practically assured that they would fail the Lemon Test. The ID that *I* subscribe to will not fail the Lemon Test. The ID that Judge Jones labeled "religion not science" was a straw man. Fortunately this decision only applies to the Dover School district policy and no other school district. The next trial needs be carefully crafted by OUR side so that 1) The ID being taught at the school needs to be rigorously defined and explicitely exclusionary of any material not included in the school syllabus to prevent the ACLU from introducing straw men (caricatures) of ID into the trial. 2) The expert witnesses on our side should be industrial design engineers not biologists. What are biologists doing testifying about design? I never understood that. Biology is a cross between pipetteing and stamp collecting. Biologists wouldn't recognize digitally programmed factory automation if it bit them on the ankle. But the trial isn't about science. ID doesn't need to be science. It needs to be NOT religion and that's all it needs to be. It could be zen basket weaving as long as it isn't religion. The constitution doesn't prohibit the government from making laws regarding the establishment of basket weaving. What we should really do is pan the science experts altogether and just use doctors of theology to testify that the ID in question is not religion. 3) The school board's decision to include ID hypothesis in the evolution section of biology needs to be based solely on the "Santorum language" in "No Child Left Behind" legislation and on the urging of President George W. Bush who, when asked if ID should be taught in public school, said (paraphrased from memory) "I think it should be taught so that people can understand what the controversy is all about". A purely secular decision at the urging of the man holding the highest office in our land will be difficult to impugn. 4) It needs to be a trial by a jury of peers. Giving the decision to a single person whose extensive education and legal experience puts him as far from being a peer of parents and local school board members as one can get.DaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

pmob1 said "Judge Jones said ID was unconstitutional partly because school board members lied about their motives. Would teaching ID be constitutional if school board members declared their motives truthfully?" That's not what Jones said at all, pmob1. You'd probably enjoy actually reading what he wrote from his own pen and not from some press release or news article. Mr Dembski posted a link to the ruling. By all means use that link and get informed. And I don't think Jones said ID cannot be taught at all, I believe his ruling had to do with teaching it as science in a science class. In fact I believe he said it would be a worthy subject for classes other than science. You might also enjoy reading the trial transcripts to get a better idea of what was actually presnted at the trial. Of course reading the ruling and the trial transcripts *could* lead to an informed conclusion.Mr Christopher_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Judge Jones rejected any suggestion that evolution was somehow at odds with religion: "Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption that is utterly false," he wrote. "Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." Sounds like establishment of religion to me.Jack Golan_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

It is now fair to ask: If ID canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be taught in secondary schools, how can it be allowed in colleges and universities? ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t judicial savants such as Jones III be included on peer review panels? When will the ABA and leading judicial organizations put out a complete list of Official Sciences? Judge Jones said ID was unconstitutional partly because school board members lied about their motives. Would teaching ID be constitutional if school board members declared their motives truthfully? Would it be permissible for atheist board members to hide their motives? Would it make a difference if atheist board members truthfully declared their motives? Are there federal judicial criteria for motive truth-detection? What are the rules for hearsay and cross-examination?pmob1_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

1) The devolution of Darwinism to mere Ã¢â‚¬Å“court scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â is both the symptom and the means of its ultimate demise. 2) If the courts can independently proscribe religion in classrooms, then the courts can also independently require religion in classrooms.pmob1_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply