Thursday, March 01, 2007
Science is Undemocratic - Thankfully
Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute has an blog entry commenting favorably on a First Amendment Law Review article (no point in linking; you can't read it online) by Arnold Loewy titled, "The Wisdom and Constitutionality of Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools," (First Amendment Law Review 82, 88 (2006)).
Loewy writes:
"I believe that teaching intelligent design in public schools is consititutional (outside of the Kitzmiller situation). First, under Establishment Clause doctrine, States may not disapprove of religion. And, a fortiori, courts cannot disapprove of religion. Of course, I am not arguing that a State must teach intelligent design. States are free within quite broad parameters to set their own curricula. As important as the question of intelligent design is, failure to teach it hardly constitutes disapproval of religion. But when the Court invalidates teaching a theory of origin because of its partial congruence with religion, that is disapproval."
First, how is the "Kitzmiller situation" different from other attempts to force religion into the classroom? Second, both Loewy and Luskin (of course) ignore the fact that teaching an unscientific doctrine in a science classroom was as much of an issue as religion. Even a summary of Kitzmiller case highlights this:
Holding: Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Loewy also writes:
"[I]nvalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles...If the Supreme Court ever gets a case, unlike Kitzmiller, where the School Board or Legislature's apparent motive for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court should uphold the provision."
Well, that's Loewy's opinion. But, as Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller case wrote, "[Intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedent." And not many people object to teaching intelligent design in a philosophy or history class, as long as other non-fact-based origin theories are also discussed ("It's turtles all the way down!").
And does the right to freedom of speech give school boards or legislatures the right to teach a non-fact-based "theory" in a fact-based science class? The Bible doesn't substitute for empirical evidence, and "ID theorists" have offered no other scientifically acceptable evidence.
It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans (or anyone else) accepts intelligent design over evolution: scientific knowledge isn't based on a democratic vote. It is based on evidence as evidence is defined by practioners of science.
Thankfully, science is undemocratic!
Loewy writes:
"I believe that teaching intelligent design in public schools is consititutional (outside of the Kitzmiller situation). First, under Establishment Clause doctrine, States may not disapprove of religion. And, a fortiori, courts cannot disapprove of religion. Of course, I am not arguing that a State must teach intelligent design. States are free within quite broad parameters to set their own curricula. As important as the question of intelligent design is, failure to teach it hardly constitutes disapproval of religion. But when the Court invalidates teaching a theory of origin because of its partial congruence with religion, that is disapproval."
First, how is the "Kitzmiller situation" different from other attempts to force religion into the classroom? Second, both Loewy and Luskin (of course) ignore the fact that teaching an unscientific doctrine in a science classroom was as much of an issue as religion. Even a summary of Kitzmiller case highlights this:
Holding: Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Loewy also writes:
"[I]nvalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles...If the Supreme Court ever gets a case, unlike Kitzmiller, where the School Board or Legislature's apparent motive for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court should uphold the provision."
Well, that's Loewy's opinion. But, as Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller case wrote, "[Intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedent." And not many people object to teaching intelligent design in a philosophy or history class, as long as other non-fact-based origin theories are also discussed ("It's turtles all the way down!").
And does the right to freedom of speech give school boards or legislatures the right to teach a non-fact-based "theory" in a fact-based science class? The Bible doesn't substitute for empirical evidence, and "ID theorists" have offered no other scientifically acceptable evidence.
It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans (or anyone else) accepts intelligent design over evolution: scientific knowledge isn't based on a democratic vote. It is based on evidence as evidence is defined by practioners of science.
Thankfully, science is undemocratic!
