[2005/09/16] Both Sides Fear Court Ruling on Intelligent Design
Both Sides Fear Court Ruling on Intelligent Design 09/16/2005
“The
stakes are high,” said Constance Holden in Science,1 and
both sides in the Dover, Pennsylvania case would probably agree – with
equal trepidation. The ACLU is representing 11 parents who sued the
Dover school board for ruling that intelligent design should be taught as
an alternative to Darwinian evolution in their public high schools.
(This decision was later reduced to having administrators read a
one-minute statement to students in their classrooms.)
The ACLU is arguing that “teaching ID is an unconstitutional establishment
of religion,” and is supported by Americans United for Separation of
Church and State and the National Center for Science Education.
Why would the secular scientific establishments fear the outcome,
after a long string of successes in the courts? Holden quotes ACLU
lawyer Witold Walczak: “If we prevail, it’s not going to be a knockout
punch... if we lose, ... you’re going to see intelligent design taught in
schools all across the country.” To try to prevent a loss that
“could be a disaster,” according to Holden, the ACLU has lined up 25
witnesses, including “experts in philosophy, theology, science education,
and mathematics as well as two veterans of the ID wars, Brown University
biologist Kenneth Miller and paleoanthropologist Kevin Padian of the
University of California, Berkeley.” ID proponents also
have reason for concern. The leading ID think tank, the Discovery
Institute, does not advocate mandating the teaching of intelligent design,
and tried to pre-empt the situation by advising the Dover school board
against it. “...they’re worried about a big court defeat,” in the
words of a plaintiff counsel quoted by Holden. Now that the suit has
come, it puts them in a difficult position of defending the right for
students to hear alternatives but not endorsing the action of the Dover
board. On advice of counsel, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski
dropped out of the defense, leaving only Michael Behe and Scott Minnich to
testify. Miller senses the defense strategy is to try to present as
small a target as possible.
1Constance Holden, “ID Goes on Trial This Month
in Pennsylvania School Case,” Science,
Vol 309, Issue 5742, 1796, 16 September 2005, [DOI:
10.1126/science.309.5742.1796].
It is indeed lamentable that a
scientific dispute, one that should be aired in the open marketplace of
ideas, may come down to the decision of one or a few judges.
Because courts do not generally have the kind of knowledge about these
subjects to rule wisely, it becomes almost a matter of luck for either
side, depending on which judge winds up on the bench. Will the
court be swayed by the sheer numbers of alleged experts, or by the force
of the arguments? If a judge rules that “ID is not science” will
that make it so? Scientific positions are supposed to be evaluated
on the preponderance of evidence, not by majorities of experts or
judges. Any parents, school board members, public
officials, activists or writers interested in giving ID a chance should
learn to be very careful in their approach. Charging out with
well-intentioned but misguided enthusiasm can do more harm than
good. The strategy that is likely to succeed in these matters is
defensive, not offensive. No one wants to hear authorities
“mandating” anything – certainly not a position on a controversial
issue. What makes sense to courts, politicians, and the public is
defending students’ rights against indoctrination. The Darwinists
have had unrestricted power to pour their philosophy into student heads
without challenge. A large majority in the public feels that is
wrong. Science is not supposed to be about indoctrination, but
about critical thinking. That is the strong point of the “teach
the controversy” approach to the origins issue. Progress in that
strategy will bring much-needed fresh air into one of the most important
issues facing the country. It is likely to garner the most
supporters willing to fight past the Darwinist gestapo to open the doors
and windows. Fresh air has tremendous healing potential.
Food for thought: Based on their actions and proposals, which
side is apparently the most confident that an open and fair examination
of the evidence will lead to vindication of their
views?
[2005/09/16] Both Sides Fear Court Ruling on Intelligent Design
