The Blue Voice

«Home | Next: Do lemmings ever ask why?»

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Down from Dover, or, lying for Jesus

The court's opinion in the now-famous "intelligent design" case Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District is available online. (Also here.)

Court opinions have a lot of legalese, of course. But since law is very much about writing and presenting arguments and interpreting the meaning of words, it's not surprising that some court cases make for very informative and literary prose. The Dover decision is one of them.

US District Judge John Jones' 139-page opinion gives a lot of background of the legal decisions over creationism and the scientific status (or rather, complete lack thereof) of "intelligent design" (ID). What especially struck me, and what I want to emphasize here, is how much he focused on what a scam the whole ID hustle is. He was very direct in criticizing the School Board and the defense team representing them for their deceptions and lack of responsibility.

To emphasize the point, he not only found for the plaintiffs contesting the Board policy of presenting ID as a scientific theory in ninth-grade science classes. He also awarded damages, attorneys fees and costs to the plaintiffs. He wrote in the concluding section: "The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." (my emphasis)

The dishonesty factor is an important one to recognize. Because it shows up in a lot of the Christian Right's activism, from phony claims about the harms of abortion to fairy tales designed to terrify teenagers about the evils of sex.

Jones addresses this scam factor at a number of points in his decision.

The strategy of trying to pass off religious creationism as a scientific theory was in part due to the clear decision of the Supreme Court against requiring religious theories to be taught as science, which Jones summarizes:

In 1968, a radical change occurred in the legal landscape when in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down ArkansasÂs statutory prohibition against teaching evolution. Religious proponents of evolution thereafter championed "balanced treatment" statutes requiring public-school teachers who taught evolution to devote equal time to teaching the biblical view of creation; however, courts realized this tactic to be another attempt to establish the Biblical version of the creation of man. Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975).

Fundamentalist opponents of evolution responded with a new tactic suggested by Daniel's reasoning which was ultimately found to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment, namely, to utilize scientific-sounding language to describe religious beliefs and then to require that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution.

Jones didn't buy the argument that ID was a scientific theory. He focused on the reality that it was a fundamentalist religious strategy to discredit the scientific theory of evolution:

The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter "IDM") and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy. (My emphasis)

The dishonesty of the whole ID scam is recalled by Jones' recounting of the legal battles upuntill 1982:

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." ... In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed ArkansasÂs balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legislative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." ... The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. ... The court concluded that creation science "is simply not scienceÂ because it depends upon Âsupernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. ... Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute could have no valid secular purpose or effect,served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. (my emphasis in bold)

One of the interesting and often misunderstood features of Protestant fundamentalism is that the fundamentalism don't simply reject science in favor of Biblical explanations. They also go to great lengths to show that science validates their interpretations of Biblical accounts.

They do take the Bible as authoritative in scientific and historical matters. But they don't do so in a manner that would let them treat science on the one hand their Scriptural interpretations on the other as what Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria", two separate fields of authority. Instead, they insist on interpreations of science that validate their faith-based views on natural phenomena. This is why they can't seem to give up their efforts to undermine the teaching - and practice - of real science.

Jones goes to some length to explain why ID is a religious, not a scientific theory. For instance:

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. ... In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is [the ID textbook] Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy."

Consider, to illustrate, that [pro-ID witness] Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. ... (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific propositionÂs validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor BeheÂs assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Jones' decision discusses the flat-earthers' "Wedge Document", which lays out their general strategy of gradually worming Christian religious theories into the teaching of science. And he emphasizes, in response to arguments in pursuit of that goal in the example of ID, that postulating supernatural intevention is definitely a religious argument:

Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. ... Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs' expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. ... It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

Jones focuses on a newsletter the Dover School Board mailed out to the district in supported of their ID policy, and describes how dishonest it was:

[I]t is notable that the Board sent a newsletter to every household in Dover in February 2005 "produced to help explain the changes in the biology curriculum" and prepared in conjunction with defense counsel, the Thomas More Law Center [a fundamentalist law center]. ... Typically, the Board sent out a newsletter in the Dover area approximately four times a year and in February 2005, the Board unanimously voted to mail a specialized newsletter to the community. ... Although formatted like a typical district newsletter, an objective adult member of the Dover community is presumed to understand this mailing as an aggressive advocacy piece denigrating the scientific theory of evolution while advocating ID. Within this newsletter, the initial entry under the heading "Frequently Asked Questions" demeans Plaintiffs for protecting their Constitutional rights as it states, "A small minority of parents have objected to the recent curriculum change by arguing that the Board has acted to impose its own religious beliefs on students." ... Religion is again mentioned in the second "Frequently Asked Question" as it poses the question "Isn't ID simply religion in disguise?" ... The newsletter suggests that scientists engage in trickery and doublespeak about the theory of evolution by stating, "The word evolution has several meanings, and those supporting Darwin's theory of evolution use that confusion in definition to their advantage." ... The newsletter additionally makes the claim that ID is a scientific theory on par with evolution and other scientific theories by explaining, "The theory of intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that differs from Darwin's view, and is endorsed by a growing number of credible scientists." ... Evolution is subsequently denigrated and claims that have not been advanced, must less proven in the scientific community, are elaborated upon in the newsletter. (my emphasis in bold)

It would be interesting to hear how the individuals who push such scams to advance the Christian religion justify this kind of dishonesty to themselves. I can speculate, but I would be curious to see some kind of systematic study of this.

A long section of the opinion describes the sloppy scholarship (and that's putting it generously!) of the experts who argued at the trial that ID qualified as science.

The section that begins on page 90 of the opinion describes reasons that the court found a religious intention on the part of the school board in their action. It also gives a good picture of just how the ID advocates on the board were willing to dissemble about what their goals were.

This insight into one of the pro-ID school board member's viewpoint is instructive:

Buckingham testified that he had previously said the separation of church and state is a myth and not something that he supports. ... Buckingham also said: "It is inexcusable to have a book that says man descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it." ... Finally, after the meeting, Buckingham stated: "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such."

Jones' description of some of the key board meetings and interchanges is the most entertaining section of the opinion, though what it describes is sad and disturbing.

And were all of these fine Christians straightforward with the court? Not exactly:

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. ...

... [T]he 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 PlaintiffsÂ 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 DarwinÂs 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.(my emphasis in bold)

One board member who did not support the ID policy told the court how his loving Christian fellow school board members responded to him:

I was referred to as unpatriotic, and my religious beliefs were questioned. I served in the U.S. Army for 11 years and six years on the board. Seventeen years of my life have been devoted to public service, and my religion is personal. It's between me, God, and my pastor.

Jones was explicit in his opinion in pointing out the contradiction between the self-righteous religious claims of some of the board members and their shaky relationship to truth in their statements:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy. (my emphasis in bold)

You would think that even some hardline rightwing Republicans would be worried about their Party's reliance on superstitious, lying scamsters like these. I mean, how are we going to keep producing high-tech weapons to allow the US to rule the world forever if the public schools and universities routinely train people in scientific illiteracy? Outsource everything to the United Arab Emirates?

But, here in the reality-based world, even that marvelous Maverick McCain, alleged "moderate" Republican, has endorsed the flat-earthers positions on requiring ID to be taught as science in the public schools. When we think of Maverick McCain's "moderation", we should remember that he's willing to pander to people like this:

In the midst of this panoply, there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the DASD. At the June 2004 meeting, Spahr asked Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated. Jen Miller testified that [school board member] Buckingham responded: "I gleefully watched it burn." ... Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry. ... Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students. ... (emphasis added) (my emphasis in bold)

That's our future, as envisioned by Maverick McCain's friends of the Christian Right.

posted at 5:52:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |