Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: Creationism, Law, BPSDB, Fundamentalism
As a legal gambit, a means of masking creationism in reasonable, scientific-sounding discourse, “intelligent design” has long since failed. Despite the best efforts of organizations like the Discovery Institute, who first settled on the idea of “stealth creationism,” public relations disasters like Ben Stein have insisted on making a “religious” case for intelligent design, spoiling ID advocates’ one hope for subverting American science – deception.
For its part, the Discovery Institute has done its best to push back, desperately struggling to keep ID’s creationist core out of the public eye (“Is intelligent design the same as creationism? No.”). But late last year, cracks started to develop, and on Monday (as PZ Myers acknowledges), the Discovery Institute’s Michael Egnor finally let the truth slip. In a long screed railing against “Darwininsts” and their ilk, Egnor mentioned creationism six times – and “intelligent design” not at all. It’s official, folks, and straight from the DI’s mouth: intelligent design is creationism. Creationism’s Trojan horse is empty.
Why does it matter, you ask, that the Discovery Institute finally fessed up to its animating ideology? From a PR standpoint, it may not matter at all. But legally, it makes all the difference in the world. When a policy is challenged as an “establishment” of religion, the legal question to ask is whether the policy would appear religious to an “objective, reasonable observer.” This is what killed intelligent design in Kitzmiller (from an earlier article of mine):
The Lemon test, as applied by Judge Jones, asked whether an objective, reasonable observer would perceive that a religious message was conveyed by the teaching of intelligent design. Id. at 714-16. Judge Jones found in the affirmative. Id. at 714-730. However, the test is very record-sensitive. If the record does not disclose mentions of religion in the area and time surrounding the adoption of intelligent design as government policy, the Lemon test may result in the conclusion that religious motivations were not in play. Thus, the plaintiff’s job in a suit to enjoin the teaching of intelligent design is to find a “smoking gun,” where religion/creationism and ID are mentioned as inextricable.
By acknowledging its affinity with creationism, Michael Egnor ensures that any lawsuit the Discovery Institute touches will immediately turn to dust. With Egnor’s words on the record, the DI’s involvement becomes instant proof of a “religious motivation” to any challenged policy.
So long, Discovery Institute, and here’s a tip for next time: if you need intelligence and subtlety to make your message work, don’t count on fundamentalist Christians. [bpsdb]
Filed under: Author - ACG,Culture,Religion | Tags: Science fiction, BPSDB
Fantasy and science fiction are all well and good as art forms: as I’ve argued previously, the distance from reality both genres create allows for a certain objective analysis, permitting renewed and unencumbered evaluation of our world and all of its peculiarities. In this model, “magic,” advanced technology, etc., are all literary devices for creating the requisite distance, and changing the human condition to maximize or minimize various issues. The art form breaks down, though, when the artist asserts that the imaginary conditions present in the imagined world actually exist in our world: for example, no-one would fault Gene Roddenberry for dreaming up warp drive, but they might look at him a little askance if he tried to give a lecture at MIT about the effects of the Bajoran wormhole on subspace.
This was the problem with M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening”: he created a universe where (for whatever reason), the laws of physics didn’t seem to apply, but used this universe to argue that, in the real world, science is similarly insufficient to explain natural phenomena. He turned a nice story (I suppose) into a vehicle for pitching the same mysticism joyfully used by creationists to tear down public respect for science. Not cool, man (and PZ Myers agrees!). It’s also the problem with C.S. Lewis’ famous Chronicles of Narnia – and what separates Lewis from his contemporaries like J.R.R. Tolkien, who openly spurned allegory: because the hand of the author is so present, crafting the religious allegory to guide the reader to Christianity, the storytelling suffers.
Sadly, there’s reason to fear that ABC’s hit show “Lost” – a personal favorite of mine – is about to similarly jump the tracks from an enjoyable mystery/horror/fantasy into the realm of proselytizing bad science… or religion.
Warning: remainder of post contains spoilers regarding the 18 Feb. 2009 episode of “Lost”: (more…)
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: BPSDB, Creationism, Law
If you spend some time on the creationist side of the internets (which I don’t necessarily advise), you will come to realize that for creationists, looking back at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), in which Judge Jones handed intelligent design its first major legal defeat, is sort of like King George III looking back on the American Revolutionary War. Namely, they don’t really know how they lost it – how the ID movement went from secret, deeply-planned “Wedge Strategy” to public disgrace so quickly – but they know they lost. Big. [bpsdb]
If I may be so bold, I know why they lost. Essentially, it was a perfect storm of Fail. Intelligent design creationists had to deal with a smart judge, a foolish defendant (Bill Buckingham) who never seemed to realize that the religious origins of ID were supposed to be secret, and a printing agency that made embarrassing typographical errors (“cdesign proponentists”!). Keeping this in mind, their rout seems downright reasonable.
But that doesn’t stop the Discovery Institute from reliving the defeat in painful detail. Today, we’ll examine one example, from a while back. In this remarkable article, Casey Luskin, of Discovery Institute infamy, argues that the Kitzmiller decision runs afoul of separation of powers. In his words:
During lawsuits alleging violations of the Establishment Clause in school curricula, courts are allowed to determine if the curriculum establishes religion, but that’s it….
Whether ID’s claims constitute good science or bad science would be a question for the legislative branch to address; addressing such matters is not the Court’s job, nor is it even the Court’s right.
Luskin imagines that Judge Jones’ conclusion that intelligent design was “bad science” was the pivotal element of the opinion, and that evaluations of the quality of academic material are for the legislature. In this argument, Luskin misunderstands both the Kitzmiller holding, and the essential nature of the judicial task in a democracy.
Clearly, whether or not intelligent design is “bad science” does not trigger any constitutional rights: legislatures can teach “bad science” if they want. So if Jones threw out ID just because it was bad science, he would, indeed, have potentially transgressed beyond the limitations of the judicial branch. But the pivotal allegation of the Kitzmiller plaintiffs – consequentially the key holding of Jones’ opinion – was not that ID was bad science, but that it was a thin pretext for religious indoctrination.
Further, Jones’ in-depth analysis of the “science” of intelligent design does not go beyond the permissible role of the judiciary. In the most elementary model of the separation of powers, the legislature is entrusted with policy enunciation, and the judiciary with the application of laws to facts (the “particularization” of abstract policy). In giving intelligent design a “hard look” to determine whether it violated the First Amendment, Jones merely curiously & zealously performed the judicial task of particularization: judges are required to make conclusions of law & fact to resolve discrete disputes, and this practice does not amount to policy enunciation.
The phrase “separation of powers” is not a talisman against judicial decisions that conservatives don’t like. It seems that Luskin practices law just like he practices science: by statement of a conclusion and invocation of “magic words,” without any thought to the meaning of the words invoked.
Filed under: Asides | Tags: BPSDB, Conservapedia, Creationism, Politicized Science, Religious politics
Andy Schlafly’s letter to the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science, excoriating them for practicing science that potentially undermines his single-minded commitment to ridiculous dogma, is now under review by PNAS for publication. Forecast: sunny, with isolated thunderstorms of rage over the Eagle Forum, and a 90% chance of hilarity. [bpsdb]
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: BPSDB, Creationism, Law, Politicized Science, Religious politics
The second in a three-part series on Anonymous Discovery Institute Legal Intern’s (ADILI), attempt to defend the legality of teaching ID in public high schools. The second of ADILI’s rants, at the Discovery Institute’s Ministry of Truth, can be found here. [bpsdb]
Pota-toe, pota-toh.
Intelligent design: why not? This is the focus of the second of ADILI’s three book reports, as s/he argues against Martha McCarthy’s “Instruction About the Origin of Humanity: Legal Controversies Evolve” (203_WELR 453). Specifically, ADILI takes issue with the argument that teaching ID in public schools might be too “controversial,” or otherwise inappropriate for high school students. ADILI makes three central arguments worth rebutting. ADILI argues that:
- Teaching ID is not confrontational: students are already “confronted” by sex ed, which is arguably more shocking.
- ID is not mere belief: McCarthy herself concedes that it can be critiqued scientifically. If it can be critiqued scientifically, it can clearly be supported scientifically?
- Teaching ID does not improperly single out evolution for controversy: federal case law currently allows schools to single evolution out for criticism.
Each of these points is embarassingly wrong. This shouldn’t take long: let’s go through them point by point. (more…)
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: BPSDB, Creationism, Law, Politicized Science, Religious politics
This post is the first in a three-part series reviewing the writings of Anonymous Discovery Institute Legal Intern (ADILI), ((Could it be Guillermo Dekat, student at St. Mary’s Law School?)) published at the Discovery Institute’s (DI’s) Ministry of Truth, “Evolution News and Views.” The three published rants take the form of page-long rebuttals of fifty to one hundred page law review articles. The first of ADILI’s posts, the focus of this rebuttal, can be found here. [bpsdb]
Blurring the lies.
Despite the fact that the Discovery Institute seems wholly incapable of keeping its own fellows “on message,” DI still apparently pays its legal interns to try to convince the public of the legality, and scientific nature, of teaching intelligent design (ID). I have to say, when your own fellows admit that ID isn’t a scientific theory, your credibility becomes a problem… but moving on…
ADILI spends the ten paragraphs of his first post attempting to tear down a 34-page law review article, “Teaching Against the Controversy: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Public School Solution to the Origins Debate,” which argues that “recent demands to ‘teach the controversy’ of intelligent design are nothing more than variations on the balanced tactics ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Edwards.” Sadly, ADILI’s rebuttal amounts to little more than “no”: the entirety of his (her?) argument against the classification of ID as religion is,
Again, Mr. Shih’s arguments are misplaced. Design theory is not based upon religious views. Those who have fairly researched the theory will realize that it is actually a secular view that can be taught as a secular school subject alongside evolution without violating the Establishment Clause.
…and how’s that? Well, ADILI doesn’t bother to tell us (making an argument: ur doin it wrong). He makes a brief appeal to other DI documents – explaining how ID is scientific because it tests for “complex and specified information” – before concluding, “[t]he last time I checked, science is not about clinging to one view and ending the investigation.”
Yes. Science is about more than “clinging to one view and ending the investigation.” But that is precisely intelligent design’s problem. Intelligence design amounts to a negative inference – “golly, that’s so complicated, it must be designed” – and stops there, inquiring no further. The paper (nominally) being rebutted makes precisely that point, but elegantly and at length: ((PDF pages 4-5, legal citation 2007 Mich. St. L. Rev. 533, 542-43.))
In practice, design theorists never attempt to discover the identity of the intelligent designer. Its existence is inferred but never proven, and its methods of creation are never scrutinized. Instead of searching for the identity of the intelligent designer, design theorists are primarily concerned with formulating a reliable method of strengthening their inference of design…
[T]he argument in favor of design theory involves the combination of two basic lines of reasoning. The first line points to gaps in the current body of scientific knowledge as proof that the theory of evolution is incorrect. The second line states that if the theory of evolution is incorrect, design theory must be correct by default. Since the intelligent designer can never be directly observed through scientific methods, the viability of the argument in favor of design is completely dependent upon the scientific accuracy of the first argument and the logical soundness of the inference between the first and second propositions.
A damning indictment, and one that goes unanswered. Just like intelligent design, ADILI makes no attempt to grapple with the substance of the opposing argument. He simply looks at it, and says “no: my dogma tells me otherwise”…
And ends.
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: BPSDB, Conservapedia, Religious politics, Site News
I recently made the mistake of trying to engage Andy Schlafly in civil conversation. As I boasted earlier, I’m undefeated in debating against Schlafly: the problem is, I’d forgotten just how unpleasant an experience debating with the man actually is. And this time, we were just debating… about a debate.
You see, Andy made a boast on his user page, on Conservapedia, the “trusworthy encyclopedia.” His exact words follow – “I’d be happy to debate any evolutionist and/or atheist and/or liberal, including PZ Myers. But beware: liberals often are not willing to debate conservatives, because often the liberals lose.”
Right. Liberals often lose. Except in academia. And in the (pre-Roberts) Supreme Court. And anywh… well, you get the point. Andy only “wins” debates on Conservapedia by deleting the account of anyone who challenges him. Determined to show Conservapedia for what it is – a vainglorious attempt by Schlafly to make creationists look smart by erasing all memory of those smarter than them – I doggedly pursued the chance to debate Andy. This was a mistake. Andy is a bad, bad man. He brings out the worst in people, and setting foot in his territory, even with purest intentions, was a fool’s quest. I emerge victorious from my debate with Schlafly – a debate about debating, to prove that Andy’s the one who chickens out – only after having been forced to stoop to his level by the sheer force of his idiocy. Mission accomplished, but I consider it a Pyrrhic victory. As John tried to remind me in the comments to my first post on this subject, talking to this man is like slamming your head against a brick wall. Victory, but at what cost?
Ow. My head.
Below the line, please find the juicy parts of our back-and-forth on his user_talk page, but I’ll close the above the line section with a reminder to normal people (lib’ruls, conservatives, all who don’t fall into the union of “jerks” and “creationists”). We’re better than people like Andy. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. Since that fact is known – quae cum ita sint – the price of the proof is worth more than the reward.
[bpsdb]
In his latest attempt to defray the prospect of liberals debating him on neutral ground – and therefore winning – Schlafly demands that liberal debaters put up a “down payment” before the event. Charging for debate hasn’t been a viable means of silencing dissent since the poll tax. Apparently Andy hasn’t gotten the memo.
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion | Tags: BPSDB, Conservapedia, Creationism
Good news, everyone! Andy Schlafly, of Conservapedia “fame,” has offered to debate any “evolutionist” or “liberal” who’ll have him – including PZ Myers. Schlafly chalks his hitherto unbooked debating schedule up to the cowardice of us lib’rul scum: after all, we apparently lose every debate we get into with him.
Actually, that’s not quite true. I’ve debated Schlafly numerous times, and my record is unblemished by defeat, as my block log on Conservapedia ought to prove. You see, being blocked on Conservapedia, especially if the block is accompanied by a snarky explanation, is the highest honor a liberal can receive, because it means you’ve hit too close to home, or too nearly debunked an element of their craziness. After all, they can’t keep around anyone who exposes the foolishness of Fearless Leader.
Accordingly, if Andy’s serious about his willingness to debate freely, I’ll be happy to debate him either here (comment back and forth on an open thread – I’ll verify his IP and approve, unedited, all of his comments) or on Conservapedia, on any issue of substance he chooses. Consider the glove thrown. Andy, I await your reply.
In other relevant news, Conservapedia’s letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, objecting to biologist & PNAS author Lenski’s use of biology to disprove creationism, should as we speak be speeding through the tubes to its destination, the recycling bin of the publication’s letters department.
Update: Andy hasn’t responded, but another challenger has emerged.
