But Is It Science?

Posted by jns on February 10, 2006

It is not often that I laugh out loud while reading court decisions. True, I may smile at a clever argument or an adept turn of phrase, or maybe chuckle over displays of willful stupidity; however, cackling is not a common response for me.

Today I’m finally giving a first read to Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v Dover, the case last fall concerning the Dover, PA school-board’s decision to demand inclusion of so-called intelligent-design creationism in the curriculum of the biology classroom.^*

I’ve just gotten through the important first half in which the judge gives his rationale for finding that actions taken by the school board had been in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. Just before he takes up the question of “Whether ID is Science” (section 4, p. 64), he offers the following justification. I think his tone is well indicated by his use of the word “traipse”, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen before in a judicial opinion (in case the reference to judicial waste of time hadn’t been clear enough).

We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants’ conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test. Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an establishment Clause?violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

———-
^* Much useful information, including a copy of Jones’ opinion, can be found on this ACLU web page.

Science as Nuisance

Posted by jns on September 16, 2005

From the beginning, the Bush White House has treated science as a nuisance and scientists as an interest group�one that, because it lies outside the governing conservative coalition, need not be indulged. That’s why the White House-sometimes in the service of political Christianism or ideological fetishism, more often in obeisance to baser interests like the petroleum, pharmaceutical, and defense industries-has altered, suppressed, or overriden scientific findings on global warming; missile defense; H.I.V./ AIDS; pollution from industrial farming and oil drilling; forest management and endangered species; environmental health, including lead and mercury poisoning in children and safety standards for drinking water; and non-abstinence methods of birth control and sexually-transmitted-disease prevention. It has grossly misled the public on the number of stem-cell lines available for research. It has appointed unqualified ideologues to scientific advisory committees and has forced out scientists who persist in pointing out inconvenient facts.

[Hendrik Hertzberg, "Mired", The New Yorker, 22 August 2005.]