Federal judge in Pennsylvania rules against "intelligent design" in the classroom, saying "it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

From the decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III: "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."

Comments

[David Wharton]

Which is worse: (a) the local school board mandating the teaching of ID, or (b) the federal judiciary deciding what is or is not science, and what must or must not be taught in local schools?

On the principle of subsidiarity, I believe (a) is the less bad option, since the board's decision is relatively easily overturned at the local level by democratic processes. (b) involves the federal government in micromanaging local school curricula.

What a nightmare.

[Ed Cone]

Why would it be preferable to have local schools mandate the teaching of non-science and religious belief as science in public schools, rather than having a thorough adjudication of the question in an objective forum?

[David Wharton]

Because when a local school board is wrong or stupid, it is wrong and stupid on a small scale, and its wrongs and stupidities are relatively easily corrected.

When the federal judiciary steps in, its potential wrongs and stupidities are many orders of magnitude greater, and much harder to undo. The potential scope of the "law of unintended consequences" is also much greater.

Why is a federal judge a more competent authority on the distinction between science and religion than a school board? Does he have a stronger background in the philosophy of science?

[Joe Killian]

A more competent authority? Up for debate.

But he does have authority.

A stronger background in the philosophy of science? Can't say.

But he does seem to...I dunno...give a damn about the difference between science and not science. Which, it seems to me, is an important factor.

As neither side seems willing to back down on this it was going to have to come to the federal level at some point. Is the argument that we should drag it out as far as is humanly possible, over the longest period of time, affecting the most number of children and their education and instigating the most possible controversy, political manuevering and acrimony before it comes to that point? Would the arguments be different then or would there be a radically different outcome?

[Ed Cone]

The job of the courts is to uphold the law. When a local school board uses public money to push religious teachings at the expense of science education, the state has an obligation to get involved.

Does the judge have a better understanding of science than the school board in this case? It would seem so.

Then again, this was not really about science. One of the principal architects of ID testified in the trial that it is the intellectual equivalent of astrology. (If the Guilford County board pushed astrology into the science class, would you be ok with that?) Board members injected religious language into the public debate over a science curriculum. And the judge says board members’testimony "was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath."

The people of Dover did indeed turn that board out of office. That was the process at work. So is a legal finding that upholds the separation of church and state, and the teaching of science in public school science classes.

[Daniel]

Gravity's just a theory. Break out the warning stickers.

[David Boyd]

Where was this guy when they were teaching New Math?