The decision in Selman is pretty straightforward. When deciding whether something violates the Establishment Clause, courts apply the Lemon test, which says that something violates the Establishment Clause if it is (1) not adopted for a secular purpose (2) if its operation inhibits or promotes religion, or (3) if it creates an excessive entanglement of government and religion. More recent cases have combined the second and third parts of this test, but that's still the rough outline.
With regard to part 1 of the test, the court finds that the disclaimer was not created solely for a religious purpose (p. 22): "To the contrary, the court found that the School Board sought to advance two secular purposes...to encourage students to engage in critical thinking...[and] to reduce offense to those students and parents whose personal beliefs might conflict with teaching on evolution." Are these, indeed, legitimate secular purposes? The first certainly is--assuming that's what the School Board really had in mind. (And it's not for me to dispute, since that's the judge's call, and he provides a very thorough discussion of that issue.)
But the second one, I'm not so sure. Government may not soothe the irrational fears of the populace in ways that undermine constitutional restrictions. Consider, for example, the days of segregation. In the cases enforcing its decision in Brown v. Board of Ed., the Supreme Court repeatedly rejected appeals by school boards that tried to delay desegregation purportedly to prevent civil disorder. "Private biases," the Court said in another race case, "may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. Public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to the hypothetical effects of private racial prejudice that they assume to be both widely and deeply held.'" Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (quoting Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 260-61 (1971) (White, J., dissenting)). I'm not likening religion to segregation; I'm saying that I am unconvinced that merely reducing offense felt by some religious folks is a legitimate secular interest.
But then, I'm a bit of a hard-liner. The judge is clearly very concerned with giving school districts room to maneuver in a society full of non-specialists and those ignorant of, and hostile to, the concept of evolution:
[T]he School Board adopted a sticker that is not openly religious but served to put students, parents, and teachers on notice that evolution would be taught in a manner that is inclusive rather than exclusive. The School Board sought to show consideration for their constituents' personal beliefs regardig the origin of life while still maintaining a posture of neutrality towards religion. The school Board's decision to adopt the Sticker was undisputably influenced by sectarian interests, but the Constitution forbids only a purpose to endorse or advance religion. (p. 28).
In other words, "cut the Board a little slack."
That being said, the Court goes on to part 2: "[T]he effects prong asks whether the statement at issue in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion to an informed, reasonable observer." (p. 31) The Court finds that the sticker violates this part because the history of religious hostility to evolution education, combined with the controversy that led up to the adoption of the sticker by the school board,
The critical language of the Sticker that supports the conclusion that the Sticker runs afoul of the Establishment Clause is the statement that "[e]volution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." This statement is not problematic because of its truth or falsity, although testimony from various witnesses at trial and the amicus brief submitted by the Colorado Citizens for Science, et al., suggest that the statement is not entirely accurate. Rather, the first problem with this language is that there has been a lengthy debate between advocates of evolution and proponents of religious theories of origin specifically concerning whether evolution should be taught as a fact or as a theory, and the School Board appears to have sided with the proponents of religious theories of origin in violation of the Establishment Clause. (pp.33-34)
(I'm proud to say that I wrote the amicus brief for the Colorado Citizens, et al., with the help of Georgia attorney Lynn Fant, and you can read it here. It even cites Panda's Thumb entries!) In addition, the Court notes that "encouraging the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than as a fact is one of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." (p. 35) These facts and more support the Court's conclusion that a reasonable, informed observer would interpret the sticker as an endorsement of a religious viewpoint, and therefore a violation of Lemon's part 2, and therefore a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The decision is thorough, well-reasoned, and entirely consistent with the law of the First Amendment. We should be grateful to Judge Cooper for his careful attention to detail and his very thoughtful opinion. Congratulations also to the Colorado Citizens for Science, Kansas Citizens for Science, Michigan Citizens for Science, Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education, New Mexico Academy of Science, New Mexicans for Science and Reason, New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education, and Texas Citizens for Science, for having the guts to stand up and speak in court. Good for you folks!
55 Comments
Great White Wonder · 13 January 2005
I second Mr. Sandefur's congrats to the amici, and extend my thanks and congrats to him as well.
And thanks for this nice overview, too!
Ed Brayton · 13 January 2005
And Congratulations to you, Mr. Sandefur. Thanks for the hard work you put in on that brief, I know it was a bit of a scramble to get done in time. In fact, as it turned out, it didn't get done in time, but the judge obviously read it and thought it contained important information anyway. Great work. I'm sure I speak not only for the Michigan group but for all the other state science organizations who signed on to that brief in saying thank you for doing such a terrific job with it.
Reed A. Cartwright · 13 January 2005
DaveScot · 13 January 2005
Tim,
I echo your sentiments about a society full non-specialists.
It is quite distressing to me that biologists who do not specialize in the design of complex machines pretend to be experts in design.
Most of my 25 year professional career has been a computer hardware and software design engineer. I recognize an intelligent design when I see one. It's too bad most biologists do not, but why should they, since they're not design specialists?
Mike · 13 January 2005
Dave, biologists do recognise design. They just realise that natural selection et al was the "designer". They understand life evolved the way it has due to selective pressures, amongst other things. Just because you don't know what you're talking about, or understand biology, doesn't mean that they are wrong.
Timothy Sandefur · 13 January 2005
I'm very sorry, Mr. Cartwright. I certainly didn't mean to demean anyone's contribution. You and Dr. Pallas did indeed help write it, and several other people proposed changes that we incorporated. It was a big, fast-paced project, and everyone was very helpful. In fact, Mr. Cartwright was the leading client among the amici curiae.
DaveScot's attempt at wit falls pretty flat, in my view. Evolutionary biolgoy is the study of design, rightly understood, and it has revealed a thorough, fascinating, brilliant, exhaustively proven explanation of the apparent design around us, that is genuine science. It's called evolution. ID proponents, by contrast, parade about with a childish, unscientific sham argument which they dress up in a lab coat and call "design theory." It just ain't so.
DaveScot · 13 January 2005
No, biologists don't recognize design. If they did they wouldn't cling for dear life to the materialist dogma. Perhaps if you were a designer you'd understand.
Mike · 13 January 2005
I am a designer. I'm an electrical engineer. I understand perfectly: you don't know what you're talking about.
Jeremy Mohn · 13 January 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 13 January 2005
Tom · 13 January 2005
To DaveScot: Please enlighten me about design, and what it is about design that makes biologists unable to recognize it. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm seriously interested.
Douglas Theobald · 13 January 2005
Wayne Francis · 13 January 2005
DaveScot do you use GAs? The only way you'd say some of the programs that are created by one of my systems are "designed" is that you can't imagine a system that wasn't designed. The scheduling component of my system was not designed by me but rather evolved over generations with random mutations.
It also makes me annoyed when people that don't know biology say biologists don't know about math or statistics or design or even computer programming. All it does is show a massive ignorance on your part.
Reed A. Cartwright · 13 January 2005
The interesting thing is that engineers are beginning to use random mutation and natural selection as enginerring techniques to solve their design challenges. The results are often better and more creative than anything that human, "intelligent" designers that they are, could come up with. IIRC, evolution was used by NASA to design light-weight trusses for the space station.
I'm curious how DaveScot defines "design" such that "materialistic" mechanisms are excluded.
Steve · 13 January 2005
Among the logical fallacies, I believe DaveScot's argument would be classified as begging the question. To extrapolate from his claim to be able to recognize an intelligent design when he sees one, I take it he would claim that if something appears to have been designed by an intelligent agent, then it necessarily was designed by an intelligent agent. But the whole point of evolutionary theory is that it demonstrates, in great detail and with a gigantic amount of evidence to support it, how life on earth can have the appearance of design without any directing intelligence behind it. In effect, DaveScot seems to be claiming that evolution is false because the appearance of design is always a reliable indicator of an intelligent agent, when in fact the reliability of that appearance is precisely what's in question.
I would also note that the rather condescending statement that "perhaps if you were a designer you'd understand" combines an ad hominem ("You're not a designer so your views are worthless") with an appeal to (his own) authority. The evidence is what matters, not how many years you've been designing things.
My apologies to DaveScot if I've misrepresented his views.
Douglas Theobald · 13 January 2005
DaveScot · 13 January 2005
DaveScot · 13 January 2005
Wayne,
Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files. Let me know when a random change makes it work better. Better yet, let Bill Gates know.
LOL!
Great White Wonder · 13 January 2005
A Texas Republican software engineer creationist-apologist who claims to be agnostic?
And I thought Charlie Wagner was a fish out of water.
DaveScot · 13 January 2005
Wayne Francis and others that think complex machines can be made better by mutation/selection:
Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files.
If the change does no apparent harm, keep it and repeat the process. If there's harm then kill that version and go back to the previous iteration.
Y'all are trying to sell me on the concept that this will eventually fix bugs and add features to Windows.
Sorry, I ain't buying what you're selling.
To demonstrate that I'm not a mean guy I strongly suggest you back up your disk one time at the beginning of this experiment and keep the backup handy because I know what the nature of the results will be.
If you want to waste even more time & money, since it's now possible to introduce random changes into the DNA of critters, try making one fitter for its environment through random change to its DNA. Please use a lower animal for this as I'm something of a PETA sympathizer and, as with the computer experiment, I know what the nature of the results will be.
shiva · 13 January 2005
Dave Scott says, "Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files. If the change does no apparent harm, keep it and repeat the process. If there's harm then kill that version and go back to the previous iteration." Design something that can produce offspring or atleast spontaneously divide and then call me with the evidence. Maybe we will agree that living things are "designed"!
RBH · 13 January 2005
frank schmidt · 13 January 2005
Timothy Sandefur · 13 January 2005
DaveScot is priceless. "A Clinton appointee during the time when the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats rubber-stamping all Clinton's judicial nominations," he says. "That sure explains the decision." I suppose. Or the decision could be explained by reference to the law and controlling precedent. The latter interpretation has the added benefit of explaining why a person such as myself--hardly a defender of the Clinton administration and its ideological current--agrees with the judge. But then, DaveScot's fondness for ad hominem has already been noted.
Tom · 13 January 2005
Tom · 13 January 2005
Nick (Matzke) · 14 January 2005
Alex Merz · 14 January 2005
What's not funny about Dave Scott entering a discussion of legal issues in evolution and in essence saying, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it..."?
On a more serious level, the random mutagenesis experiment that Scott suggests has been done many times, with precisely the results he thinks won't be found. That he is unaware of this suggests that he knows vastly less about biology than he thinks that he does. And that's not funny; it's just sad.
steve · 14 January 2005
Using evolution to do what engineers can't is already big business. One can't help noticing that their products appear messy and irregular and positively biological compared with the products of intelligent, that is to say human, design.
Bayesian Bouffant · 14 January 2005
For DaveScot: Avida
You can read about it in the February 2005 issue of Discover magazine.
Adam Marczyk · 14 January 2005
If DaveScot refuses to believe that changing bits in code randomly can produce functional results, then he clearly isn't well informed on the research within his own field. For his edification, here is a partial listing of some of the things that have been produced by such a technique:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples
Wayne Francis · 14 January 2005
DaveScot · 14 January 2005
DaveScot · 14 January 2005
Wayne,
You have absolutely no clue how commercially saleable computer hardware and software is designed if you think genetic algorithms play any part whatsoever in the design process. I'm not going to argue with you about it further. I've worked in the computer industry as a hardware and software design engineer my entire adult life. You are simply full of crap about any role that GA plays.
Orbital Mechanic · 14 January 2005
Hmm...someone's getting a mite touchy that his professionalism is being impugned. I'd call it irony, except that combining stupidity with hypocrisy doesn't really count....
repo · 14 January 2005
Sure he does, DaveScot.
He spent a day studying it in college.
You have no idea how fast his brain works.
Great White Wonder · 14 January 2005
DaveScot · 14 January 2005
Adam,
The GA you reference is not modifying either the hardware or the software that comprises the computing platform. That simply is not done in the computer design business.
Evidently you're failing to distinguish between application software and computer hardware, firmware, and operating systems which host the applications.
GA is being employed to help discover unique and unexpected solutions in various applications but those applications do not include modifying the platform which supports the application software. Fixing a bug in Windows or adding a new feature to it via random bit flipping is preposterous and will get you laughed out of any shop involved in platform development.
Random searches through solution spaces is not a new concept and it is sometimes applied as an adjunct to directed design, but not as a replacement for design. In my experience it's employed usually as a result of sloth. It's easier to design an algorithm that simply tries and tests all possible solutions than it is to think up intelligent restrictions which reduce the size of the set to search and test, trading off brain power for computer power.
Be that as it may, evolution does not posit some design and some random searching through solution spaces. It posits no design and nothing but random searches through solution spaces. Complex machines simply don't come about through completely random mechanisms. At least not any complex machine I've ever seen where the origin of the machine can be determined.
Bayesian Bouffant · 14 January 2005
Timothy Sandefur · 14 January 2005
DaveScot says that the flaw in the Selman decision is in the notion that the disclaimer "sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This, he says, is a problem because "[t]he fact that evolution is being presented in the textbook without criticism or mention of opposing theories sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community and sends a message to those who question evolution that they are political outsiders."
But the Constitution does not require the government to remain neutral with regard to science, or to avoid stepping on the toes of people who have secular differences with others. It can, for instance, unequivocally state that vaccination is valid, legitimate science and that magnetic bracelets are quackery. Likewise, it can say that creationism is quackery so far as its scientific claims are concerned. The only thing it cannot do is send a message to those who believe in religion that their views are specifically disfavored by the state (or vice versa). In other words, official sanctions are not allowed only in the religion context.
This gives rise to two problems. First, it stymies ID creationists, because they want to portray their beliefs as science. But when they do so, the state can legitimately refuse to teach it, since it's fake science. On the other hand, if ID creationists portray their views as religious, the state can refuse to teach it, since the state's not allowed to teach religion.
The more serious problem is that some people believe that official sanctions are their constitutional right. That is, they believe that their right to Free Exercise of Religion includes their right to use the state make religious pronouncements, or teach religion, or even tell us how to pray or what to read or what to do in the bedroom. These people feel ]an entitlement to things like the disclaimer sticker, and they feel that they are having their rights violated when the court says "no, you may not endorse religion through the state."
It is this sort of thinking that underlies DaveScot's statement that"Justice sic Cooper clearly got it wrong in sic who is being favored." Note the unspoken premise that the state must stay neutral between (1) science, and (2) whatever crackpot "alternative theory" a person comes up with and slaps the label "Religion" on.
If "fairness" requires the state to avoid "sending a message to those who those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community," then it also would require the state to remain neutral with regard to the medical efficacy of magnetic bracelets, or the flatness vs. the roundness of the earth, or whether cigarette smoking causes cancer. Every governmental pronouncement would have to be accompanied with some sort of disclaimer: "Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking is known to cause cancer. However, the First Church of Ooglethorpe in Snodgrass, Alabama, disagrees. Citizens are encouraged to exercise critical thinking...." The First Amendment simply does not require this. Cf. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885 (1990) ("To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling'---permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,'---contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.")
The state is not allowed to endorse religion. It is allowed to endorse science. That simple fact is not changed by the fact that some people, for religious reasons, refuse to believe in that science.
neo-anit-luddite · 14 January 2005
DaveScot, you are obviously a part of the priveleged coder conspirisy, unwilling to accept new ideas that threaten your dominant position even though you know that Wayen Francis is absolutely correct. You dont keep an open mind, you just ignore the evidence and keep repeating your mantra. Why are you so scared, trying to keep evolution out of the computer field?
DaveScot · 14 January 2005
Great White Wonder (whatever that is) says:
[qoute]
No, it just sends a message that those who question evolution are outside the scientific community, as a matter of fact.
By that do you mean that skepticism isn't allowed in science anymore?
I guess science has changed a lot while I wasn't looking. When did this paradigm shift occur?
Mike · 14 January 2005
You are such a gigantic tool DaveScot. The Theory of Evolution has been scrutinized for over 150 years. It has withstood the rigors of scientific scrutiny and skepticism and been modified accordingly. It will continue to be scrutinized, just as it always has been. Why do you think that high schoolers, who barely get any evolutionary biology education in the first place, need stickers on their textbooks. Have you even seen the textbooks in question?
Great White Wonder · 14 January 2005
Tracy P. Hamilton · 14 January 2005
Bayesian Bouffant · 14 January 2005
Ed Hessler · 14 January 2005
Mr. Sandefur:
From a chilled and getting chillier Minnesota, thanks to you and all others involved. Thank goodness, this view of life, a science as a way of knowing view, has been upheld.
Cheers.
Ed Hessler · 14 January 2005
Mr. Sandefur:
From a chilled and getting chillier Minnesota, thanks to you and all others involved. I'm glad to know that this view of life, call it science as a way of knowing, has been upheld. It is what we learn and teach in science classrooms; based on evidence, too or especially.
Cheers.
Pastor Bentonit · 14 January 2005
Ralph Jones · 15 January 2005
DavScot,
Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution "just a theory." There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution. Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word. Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism. Scientific facts are not absolute truth. They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative. It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.
Ralph Jones · 15 January 2005
Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution "just a theory." There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution. Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word. Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism. Scientific facts are not absolute truth. They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative. It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.
Ralph Jones · 15 January 2005
Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution "just a theory." There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution. Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word. Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism. Scientific facts are not absolute truth. They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative. It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.
ArtK · 15 January 2005
Larry Bishop · 21 January 2005
My comments are in regard to Mr. Jones' comment #13926. You said, "Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism." I apologize for not being readily familiar with the term "heliocentrism", but in regard to the other, the fossil record shows no macroevolutionary transition, but just the opposite. Most scientist believe in the "Cambrian explosion" or Big Bang theory (approximately 540 million years ago. I respectfully submit that Darwin's Tree of Life represents his theory and it is not supported by the physical evidence scientist have found in fossils to date. I believe Darwin said, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down." He acknowledged that major groups of animals--he calls them divisions, now they're called phyla---appear suddenly in the fossil record. That is not what his theory predicts. His theory predicts a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor; with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger unil you get the major differences we have now. The fossil evidence, even in his day, showed the opposite: the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in what's called the Cambrian explosion." If you are aware of any fossil records which support his theory or contradict the sudden appearance of much more complex animals during the Big Bang, please let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Bishop
Great White Wonder · 21 January 2005