Posted on 12/24/2005 10:43:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The verdict [PH here: the journalist means "judgment"] rendered in the Dover case has been echoing around on news and commentary sites for several days now, and a few themes are emerging. Many are upset about the scope of the legal arguments, and there's a smattering of complaints about the social implications. From a science point of view, the interesting thing about the case was that it was the first time that the relative merits of intelligent design (ID) and evolutionary theory were put before a dispassionate observer, who was tasked with evaluting them. Experts, including the most prominent pro-ID biologist, Michael Behe, provided the testimony. The result? An overwhelming win for science. How did this come about?
The first lesson from the ruling is that ID is attempting to be both a social and scientific movement, and that dual role damaged its credibility as science. Its wholesale incorporation of creationism in terms of both literature and followers allowed the clearly creationist text Of Pandas and People to be used against it in the ruling. Even the more scientifically oriented ID proponents were cited in the ruling for some striking language when speaking to non-scientific audiences, such as William Dembski's quote "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." Judge Jones also noted that, "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."
The judge also recognized that there is a difference between these statements and those regarding the philosophical implications of the scientific findings of evolution, such as Richard Dawkin's claim that evolution allows him to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, a quote brought up by the defense. The former places theological considerations as the basis of their proposal; the later is a philosophical conclusion derived separately from the science. The link between ID proponents and creationists in the ruling has come under criticism as "guilt by association" in places such as this blog by a law professor at the U of Chicago, but this complaint seems odd given that even the more scientific of the ID proponents would have to stop associating with themselves to avoid a clear linkage with religion.
A second aspect of the ruling that reflects a clear split between science and ID is in the judge accepting a definition of science that relies on natural and observable phenomena. In making this decision, Judge Jones relied on both the historical development of science and the current definition of science provided by the National Academy of Sciences. Oddly, the pro-ID Discovery Institute claims that the judge's determination that ID requires supernatural intervention is wrong, despite Jones having used the testimony of Discovery Institute Fellows to reach this conclusion. This is especially ironic given that the Discovery Institute also provided input into the writing of the new Kansas science standards, which permit supernatural explanations in science.
In terms of actual science, the testimony at the trial reflected arguments that have been raging in print and on the Internet for years. Irreducible complexity as a recognizable phenomenon that argues against evolution was defended by Behe, and attacked by the plaintiff's lawyers. The difference was that a clear verdict was rendered by a disinterested judge following this argument. The verdict was that ID concepts such as irreducible complexity fell well short of science. Notable indications of this in the ruling include "Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur" and "the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969."
The response to this aspect of the verdict has been to largely pretend that it hasn't happened. Unsurprisingly, press releases from the Discovery Institute continue to trumpet ID as a competing scientific theory. But even legal scholars are making this sort of mistake, refering to the "strong - explicitly scientific - claims put forward by intelligent-design proponents" and claiming that "the champions of intelligent design . . . focus only on where the biological evidence leads." In accusing Judge Jones of getting things wrong after hearing two competing arguments, these commentators assume that he had no reason to find one side or another more compelling and credible.
Forget for a moment that the judge could have reached his decision based solely on the stated opinions of nearly every professional scientific organization regarding ID. The credibility of the pro-ID witnesses wound up having significant problems at the trial. Behe, having claimed that his book was subject to rigorous peer review, was confronted with evidence that one of his reviewers had simply had a 10 minute conversation with a publisher. Behe's cavalier dismissal of extensive peer reviewed literature on the evolution of the immune system, which he viewed as something that "made me feel real good about things," was specifically cited by the judge as an indication "that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof." In short, Judge Jones reached his decision because he found the witnesses supporting ID to have limited credibility relative to the experts who supported evolution.
For now, it appears that the ID community will disparage and ignore the legal judgement against their proposals as completely as they have disparaged and ignored science's judgement against them. In some ways, this is their loss. In pointing out the flaws that prevent their concepts from being taken seriously as science, Judge Jones has provided a roadmap for the correction of these flaws. Paying attention to this ruling might help ID proponents move at least some of its proposals onto a more solid scientifc footing. To their loss, they are choosing to ignore it.
Let us hear it for intelligent redesign. For example, how about 4 legs and 2 arms. An eye in the back of the head would be handy.
The problem with this suggestion is that ID, at its very heart, is anti-science. These jerks will never get their act together because their basic premise is flawed.
Is that Donny Osmond in the middle? My laptop has a smaller viewing screen. LOL!!!
Where's that fish with two mouths?
or
Try this again:
http://home.comcast.net/~phantomworker/two_mouth_fish1.jpg
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/genes2004.htm
The Ars Technica discussion following the article is a fascinating read as well. I have been "on" Ars Technica for years now. Fantastic website.
There's another dynamic at work, here, which is best exemplified by Walt Whitman's famous poem When I Heard the Learned Astronomer.
Whitman sneers at the astronomer's learning, implicitly claiming a higher appreciation in his ignorance by assuming that the astronomer has lost the ability to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the stars. Too high a price to pay for knowledge, sniffs the poet.
I've always felt, though, that Whitman's self-congratulation was a defense mechanism in reaction to his own envy. The astronomer has undoubtedly not lost his appreciation of the night sky as an object of beauty. First, he loved it enough to devote his life's labor to it. Second, he spends much more of his time gazing upon it and contemplating it than any poet. Whitman's envy, born of a very well-placed fear, is that the astronomer appreciates the heavens at a level that is beyond the poet's reach. Any fool can say that something looks pleasant, but it takes a connoisseur--an amateur, in the original sense of the word--to understand it.
So, too, the biologist and the physicist appreciates God's handiwork, whether or not it handiwork be, than the ignorant shamanist possibly can. What matters more to the artist: that the viewer understands his painting's meaning and appreciates his technique, or that the viewer gets his name right?
So a leftist judicial tyrant with an agenda is a dispassionate observer? right.
Damn! There it goes again; Now the GrandMaster at DarwinCentral™ is going to have to pay triple time to get a techie to come out to the Galopagos Islands on a holidy to fix that flakey encryption module I've been complaining about!
NEW Nobel Laureates in defense of evolution.. Thirty-eight Nobel Prize winners write to Kansas Bd. Of Education.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
Well, that certainly didn't work out right.
Maybe the part where he says the dissenters may refer to the decision as being the product of an "activist judge."
By inserting the language concerning activism and judge in the ruling, the judge was indeed editorializing; that is a point separate from the merits of the case.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones is a Conservative, a Bush appointee and a Christian. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the ID Holly Warriors immediately started spreading lies about him. Hey, but any lie that furthers the "cause" is righteous, isn't it?
If you guys keep this up, "AAPatriot" is going show up from the land of banned FReepers to accuse all of us of being NSA agents!
"COLD BUSTED!" indeed...
;-)
I kind of like it. Reminds me of a proof in mathematical statistics! LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
