teaching intelligent design: the scientific, theological, and legal controversy r. machleidt...

Teaching Intelligent Design:

The Scientific, Theological, and Legal Controversy

R. Machleidt

University of Idaho

University of Idaho Physics Colloquium Dec. 3, 2012

R. Machleidt Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

2

Outline

• Historical Perspective and Legal Landscape• The Case: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,

also know as “The Dover School Board Trial”• Scientific Arguments• Theological Arguments• Legal Arguments• Summary and Conclusions


3

The history of theEvolution versus Creation controversy

in public school instructions

Three phases

Phase 1, 1925-1968, Anti-Evolution Phase


4

• 1925 “The Scopes Monkey Trial”, Dayton, Tennessee.

Criminal prosecution of high-school teacher, John T. Scopes, for teaching about evolution in violation of the Butler Act of 1925 which provided

“… that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any … public schools of the State … to teach any theory that denies the story of the Devine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

Scopes is convicted and fined $100 in lower court. State Supreme Court (Scopes v. State [of Tennessee], 1927) overturns fine on technicality but finds Butler Act constitutional because it does not establish a state religion (similar to the Church of England).


5

The Bill of Rights(= first ten Amendments of the United States Constitution)

the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment

Some background:


6

Phase 1, 1925-1968, Anti-Evolution Phase

• 1925 “The Scopes Monkey Trial”, Dayton, Tennessee.

Criminal prosecution of high-school teacher, John T. Scopes, for teaching about evolution in violation of the Butler Act of 1925 which provided

“… that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any … public schools of the State … to teach any theory that denies the story of the Devine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

Scopes is convicted and fined $100 in lower court. State Supreme Court (Scopes v. State [of Tennessee], 1927) overturns fine on technicality but finds Butler Act constitutional because it does not establish a state religion (similar to the Church of England).


7

Phase 1, 1925-1968, Anti-Evolution Phase, cont’d

• 1927/1928 About 13 states consider anti-evolution laws. Arkansas and Mississippi pass such laws.

• 1960’s Interpretation of Establishment Clause changes.

It’s not just a prohibition of a state-sponsored church, anymore. “Wall of separation between church and state” (Jefferson).

• 1968 Epperson v. State of Arkansas, US Supreme Court declares Arkansas’ anti-evolution statue unconstitutional because it violate the Establishment Clause.

Anti-Evolution laws are dead. End of Phase 1.


8

Phase 2, 1970-1987, “Balanced” Phase

• 1970’s, early 1980’s Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana pass “Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution -Science in Public School Instruction Act”

• 1975 Daniel v. Waters, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down the Tennessee law because it violates the Establishment Clause.

• 1982 McLean v. Arkansas, U.S. District Court. The three-pronged “Lemon Test” is applied. Arkansas’ Balanced Treatment Law is struck down.

• 1987 Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Law before US Supreme Court (Edwards vs. Aguillard). The law is ruled unconstitutional.

“Balanced” laws are dead. End of Phase 2.

Justice ScaliaVoted FOR “Balanced”

In 1987


9

Phase 3, 1990-2005, Intelligent Design Phase

• Early 1990’s Intelligent Design

movement starts.

• 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School

District, U.S. District Court,

Pennsylvania


10

The remainder of my talk is about Kitzmiller.

I will follow closely the Memorandum Opinion of the Judge.


11

The Case and the parties involved


12

The Geography

Dover

Pennsylvania

Dover


13

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

The Plaintif

fs

11 parents of students in the Dover district

Kitzmiller received death threats


14

The plaintiffs were represented by

• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),• Americans United for Separation of Church and

State,• Pepper-Hamilton Law Firm, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania (pro bono).• The National Center for Science Education

acted as consultants.


15

The Defendants


16

The defendants were represented by

• Thomas More Law Center (Ann Arbor, Michigan) co-founded in 1999 by Thomas Monaghan, multimillionaire who started Domino’s Pizza.


17

About UsThe Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.Prior to taking on this particular case, a New York Times article revealed that the lawyers of the Thomas More Law Center travelled the country shopping for a school board willing to withstand a lawsuit as a test case for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, forcing the first test case for intelligent design in the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


18



• The Discovery Institute was involved in the early phase, but withdrew from the defense because of differences with the Thomas More Center.


19

The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 in Seattle as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank. In 1998, the Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture drafted the Wedge Strategy which has the following goals:• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Discovery Institute is the

leading institution promoting Intelligent

Design in the US.


20




• The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of the textbook advocating Intelligent Design titled Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit but was denied by the judge.


21

"The primary purpose [of the Foundation] is both religious and educational, which includes, but is not limited to, proclaiming, publishing, preaching, teaching, promoting, broadcasting, disseminating, and otherwise making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of our day.""Our commitment is to see the monopoly of naturalistic curriculum in the schools broken. Presently, school curriculum reflects a deep hostility to traditional Christian views and values and indoctrinates students to a mindset through subtle but persuasive arguments. This is not merely a war over ideas, but over young people and how their lives will be shaped. The current deplorable condition of our schools results in large part from denying the dignity of man created in God's image."


22




• The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of the textbook advocating Intelligent Design titled Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit but was denied by the judge.


23

John E. Jones III,

appointed in 2002 by President Bush,

endorsed by Senator Santorum,

a Republican and churchgoer.

The Judge


24

The Case: Background


25

“The Dover ID Policy”

(ID=Intelligent Design)


26

The Lawsuit


27

The Trial

• United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

• The trial commenced September 26, 2005, and continued through November 4, 2005.

• At this trial, the science of evolution and related issues were discussed more comprehensively than at any similar trial in the history of the US.

• Not a jury trial (the suit sought equitable remedy).

• Judgment was issued on December 20, 2005.


28

Witnesses for the plaintiffs

• Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University; co-author of a series of high-school and college biology textbooks.

• Kevin Padian, Paleontologist, UC Berkeley.

• Barbara Forrest, author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design”.

• … many others …

Kenneth Miller

Author ofFinding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

Barbara Forrest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin's_God:_A_Scientist's_Search_for_Common_Ground_Between_God_and_Evolution








29

Witnesses for the defense

• Michael J. Behe, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; leading intellectual of the intelligent design movement; author of: “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”

• Scott Minnich, Associate Professor of Bacteriology, MMBB Department, University of Idaho.

• … few others ..

Michael J. Behe

Scott Minnich


30

Let’s turn now to the arguments of the trial; recall that the issue is:

Does the Dover ID Policy violate the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?


31

To decide this, the following questions need to be addressed:

• Is Intelligent Design science?

• Is Intelligent Design of religious nature?

Does the ID policy endorse religion?


32

Is Intelligent Design science?

To answer this question, we have to ask two questions:

• What is science?

• What is Intelligent Design (ID)?


33

……

……..

What is science?


34

What is ID?From Pandas:[In the world around us,] we see things resulting from two kinds of causes: natural and intelligent.How do we decide whether something is the result of natural processes or intelligent causes?We see clouds and we know, based upon our experience, they are the result of natural causes. …, we know that a cloud is simply water vapor shaped by the wind and the temperature.On the other hand, we may see something looking very much like a cloud that spells out the words “Vote for Smedley”.We know that, even though they are white and fluffy like clouds, the words cannot be the result of natural causes.When we find “John loves Mary” written in the sand, we assume it resulted from intelligent cause.


35

NaturalCause

IntelligentCause


36What is natural? What is intelligent?

But, is the distinction always so clear?


37R. Machleidt 37

What is ID? Continued, from Pandas

…, when scientists probed the nucleus of the cell, they eventually stumbled upon a phenomenon akin to finding “John loves Mary” written in the sand … The greatest difference is that the DNA text is much more complex.To say that DNA and protein arose by natural causes, as chemical evolution does, is to say complex coded messages arose by natural causes. It is akin to saying “John loves Mary” arose from the action of the waves, or from the interaction of the grains of sand. Whenever we recognize a sequence as meaningful symbols we assume it is the handiwork of some intelligent cause.


38

Naturalor

intelligent?


39

Natural!


40

What is ID? Continued, from Pandas

…, when scientists probed the nucleus of the cell, they eventually stumbled upon a phenomenon akin to finding “John loves Mary” written in the sand … The greatest difference is that the DNA text is much more complex.To say that DNA and protein arose by natural causes, as chemical evolution does, is to say complex coded messages arose by natural causes. It is akin to saying “John loves Mary” arose from the action of the waves, or from the interaction of the grains of sand. Whenever we recognize a sequence as meaningful symbols we assume it is the handiwork of some intelligent cause.What kind of intelligent agent was it?On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy.We should recognize …, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.


41Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

41

Concerns about the (supernatural) intelligent agent

• It’s not Science.

• When in science we do not (yet) know the answer, then a supernatural explanation will stop any further research.

EXAMPLE

Around 1900, the 92 chemical elements were known, but nobody knew why and how they were different. If one had concluded that God designed them, there would have been no further research on the subject. There would have never been any sub-atomic physics.


42

Testimony in court on “What is ID?”


43

Anecdotal remark by Professor Miller, witness for the plaintiffs

99.9% of the organisms that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. An intelligent designer who designs things, 99.9% of which didn’t last, certainly wouldn’t be very intelligent.


44

The conclusion by the judgeconcerning “What is ID?”

In short: ID is not science.


45

Is Intelligent Design of religious nature?

Does the ID policy endorse religion?

• Theological arguments

• Legal arguments


46

TheologicalArgument

Thomas AquinasANNO DOMINI 1225-1274


47

MoreTheologicalArguments


48

Conclusion

The Intelligent Agent is God;and, in fact, not any god;

it’s the God of Christianity.


49

Other legally relevant facts and arguments


50

• Creation Biology (1983)• Biology and Creation (1986)• Biology and Origins (1987)• Of Pandas and People (1987, version 1)• Of Pandas and People (1987, version 2)• Of Pandas and People (1989, published 1st edition)• Of Pandas and People (1993, published 2nd edition)

The evolution of an anti-evolution book

The seven drafts of Pandas


51

The evolution of an anti-evolution book, cont’d

June 19, 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard, US Supreme Court: Teaching creationism violates the Establishment Clause.


52

Example

• Early draft of Pandas: “Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinct features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, …”

• Published version of Pandas: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinct features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, …”


53

The Judge’s conclusions


54

Purpose Inquiry

• Discussions at School Board meetings

• The donation of 60 copies of “Of Pandas and People” to the School District


55

Discussions at School Board Meetings, 2002-2004


56

From theSchool BoardMeeting ofJune 14, 2004


57

On October 4, 2004, the Board President, Alan Bonsell, announced that the School District

received an “anonymous” donation of 60 copies of “Pandas”

• Buckingham (Chair, Curriculum Committee)) made a plea for donation to purchase “Pandas” at his church, the Harmony Grove Church, on a Sunday before services and a total of $850 was collected as a result.

• Buckingham gave a check for $850 (drawn on Buckingham’s account) to Alan Bonsell (Board President) who passed it on to his father Donald Bonsell.

• With the money, Donald Bonsell purchased 60 copies of “Pandas” and donated them “anonymously” to the School District.

However, the true story of this donation is this:


58

The JudgeOn the donationOf “Pandas”


59

Summary of the findings of fact by the judge• ID is not science, since it is predicated on supernatural causation.• ID proponents distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in

making their anti-evolution arguments. • Even if ID proponents’ scientific arguments against evolution were

correct, then they only show that there are open questions with evolution; they do not prove that ID is right.

• ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data, or publications.

• Classical theological arguments (Thomas Aquinas) imply that the “intelligent agent” or “intelligent designer” is God. Leading advocates of ID have freely admitted that, for them, the designer is God of Christianity.

• ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents (cf. history of Pandas drafts).

• The Dover School Board had the intention to put religion into the school curriculum (cf. discussions at School Board Meetings).

• The alternative biology text book Pandas that advances ID was financed by church donations. Proponents of the ID policy purposely suppressed this fact in under-oath depositions.

ID is not scie

nce

ID is religious in nature

Religious purpose and effect


60

The Ruling

John E. Jones III

The Dover School Districtpaid $1,000,000

in legal fees.

• Judge Jones received death threats and he and his family had to be protected 24/7 for several months after the trial.

• Tammy Kitzmiller also received death threats.

• Bill Buckingham (Chair of the Curriculum Committee that introduced the ID policy) called Judge Jones a Jack Ass is a public interview (this was covered by the First Amendment).

• In the November 2005 elections, none of the members of the Dover School Board who voted for the ID policy were re-elected.

• Pat Robertson: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected Him from your city,”

• However, Hurricane Sandy did not strike Dover!R. Machleidt Intelligent Design

UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-201261

Aftermath


62

Intelligent Design school policies are dead. End of Phase 3.

What’s next?“Teaching the Controversy”,

“Critical Analysis” of evolution,or “A Theory in Crisis”.

But so far no school board has dared to put this into the curriculum.

The Federal Court decision by Judge Jones has, de facto, gained the relevance of a

Supreme Court decision.


63

The End

teaching intelligent design: the scientific, theological, and legal controversy r. machleidt...

Documents

state of tennessee

antievolution phase

state of arkansas

state supreme court

antievolution laws

state jefferson

statesponsored church

state religion similar