![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsThe Discovery Institute, which is dedicated to the scientific study of creationism Intelligent Design, has posted their response to the Dover ruling today.
I present a dialog, with some side comments. Bold is Discovery Institute, with all quotes coming from their response page. Italic are quotes from the legal ruling [page numbers will be in brackets]
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea... This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. [137] (According to what I've seen online, this judge was appointed by George W Bush in 2002.)
He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board
The Court has taken under consideration the following... (2) Revised Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Discovery Institute [7] Dramatic evidence of ID's religious natiure and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture represents from an institutional standpoint the [Intelligent Design Movement]'s goals and objectives. [28] The Discovery Institute... acknowledges as "Governing Goals" to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" [68, with cited reference noted] Page 100 begins an entire section entitled Early 2004 - Buckingham's Contacts with the Discovery Institute. And so on; in this section, searching for the term "Discovery Institute" becomes tedious as it is cited every other sentence.
He totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it
He totally quotes Behe and Discovery Institute material, with citations.
Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution.
Behe testified, as did the Discovery Institute in filing Amicus Curie documents. The judge has every right to rule on the evidence presented to him.
Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about... Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory
We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide* and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvery that ID should continue to be studied, debated and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom [137]
*emphasis original
this decision will be of minor significance
I doubt it, but time will tell. The precedent has been set, especially as Discovery Institute also admits: The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling.
Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools
Smart, considering what a wipeout this landmark case was.
We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution... The scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection
We find that while ID arguments may be true, 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 not 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 1980s; 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 communition, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. [64, starting long section]
Say goodnight, Gracie. The party's over.
I present a dialog, with some side comments. Bold is Discovery Institute, with all quotes coming from their response page. Italic are quotes from the legal ruling [page numbers will be in brackets]
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea... This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. [137] (According to what I've seen online, this judge was appointed by George W Bush in 2002.)
He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board
The Court has taken under consideration the following... (2) Revised Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Discovery Institute [7] Dramatic evidence of ID's religious natiure and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture represents from an institutional standpoint the [Intelligent Design Movement]'s goals and objectives. [28] The Discovery Institute... acknowledges as "Governing Goals" to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" [68, with cited reference noted] Page 100 begins an entire section entitled Early 2004 - Buckingham's Contacts with the Discovery Institute. And so on; in this section, searching for the term "Discovery Institute" becomes tedious as it is cited every other sentence.
He totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it
He totally quotes Behe and Discovery Institute material, with citations.
Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution.
Behe testified, as did the Discovery Institute in filing Amicus Curie documents. The judge has every right to rule on the evidence presented to him.
Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about... Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory
We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide* and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvery that ID should continue to be studied, debated and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom [137]
*emphasis original
this decision will be of minor significance
I doubt it, but time will tell. The precedent has been set, especially as Discovery Institute also admits: The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling.
Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools
Smart, considering what a wipeout this landmark case was.
We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution... The scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection
We find that while ID arguments may be true, 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 not 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 1980s; 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 communition, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. [64, starting long section]
Say goodnight, Gracie. The party's over.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 09:38 pm (UTC)Except, of course, when the "some idea" is evolution. Then they're all for it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 01:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 09:58 pm (UTC)He had every intention of having this work be referenceable in the same manner that he himself referenced the conclusions of McLean, which was also merely a district-level decision that technically did not set a precedent that he had to acknowledge.
Even when precedent for the conclusions isn't applicable, his findings of fact in this matter are likely to be referenced in both the Cobb County Appeal and the looming Kansas case that the DI *really* wants to win.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 03:25 pm (UTC)If DI loses the Kansas case - which is suddenly a lot shakier than they wanted it to be - then that's it. They're finished. (Finished in this context meaning "go underground, lick their wounds, slap a new coat of paint and a new name on creationism, and get their people back on school boards in a decade" but still.) As it is, they lost Behe as an example from the moment he admitted that his "standards" for science admit astrology.
Jones has done brilliantly in creating a readable, researched legal document, and despite the Institute's howling, it has come from a conservative justice picked by His Holiness Bush himself.
I do fear what I said yesterday, though. Having been rebuffed twice on attempts to take over science, they're going to go after history next, in the hopes of shattering the notion of church/state separation. Once that inconvenient hurdle is gone, they can sweep in anything they want.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 03:34 pm (UTC)Thing is, until we actually get some judgments, its hard to know where Roberts will go. All his record shows is that he's willing and able to argue (and win) in favor of whatever his bosses want him to. Does he consider Bush to be his "boss", or does he now have an independent mindset. If the former, as a toadie he'll vote for ID. If he actually does have his own personality behind the jobs that he's done, he'll see the argument much like Jones has and vote against it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 03:58 pm (UTC)I think it's hard to be *that* much of a toadie, even on the SC. Arguing a case for your employer is one thing; judging a precedent is another. I take heart in the fact that when things start to get really outrageous, even the most conservative judges start going "I don't THINK so!" in the face of overwhelming religious right pressure. Jones was a Bush appointee; the judge in the Shiavo case was a Goldwater conservative from everything I could find.
The Kansas case is going to have an uphill climb, for the very reasons laid out in the Dover decision. Even if they get away with redefining science, they're also going to have to overcome the lack of testing and results, the inability to articulate a theory, and the overwhelming evidence, from the Discovery Institute and others, that ID really is another form of religious creationism.
And the SC doesn't like to dirty its hands with that sort of thing. Kansas may *want* to take their case up to the Supreme Court, but actually *getting* it there is problematic. Winning even moreso, since it looks like the pendulum will at long last start swinging back left before O'Connor's seat is filled.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:43 am (UTC)Hmmm... I could almost agree with you were it not for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000. "That" much of a toady got GW in office in the first place.