Cooper, Nelson, Saletan

Jason, your Saletan link leads to the Nelson page.

Otherwise, great analysis.

Blah blah blah.

ID shot its load. It lost. Get used to it.

Sorry to keep gloating.

OK, no I'm not. Heck, I've been fighting these morons for almost **25 years**. I remember celebrating both the Maclean and the Aguillard decisions. So I'm going to gloat as much as I darn well want to.

Gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat.

So THERE.

KiwiInOz-

Thanks for the tip. The link has now been fixed.

If Cooper is right about his conversations not having lawyer-client privilege, then Buckingham, or whoever claimed lawyer-client privilege for that conversation, has got another potential perjury problem I think.

Other than that issue, which would be the Defense's fault and not the Judge's, I don't see why Jones's opinion is being criticized. Oh right, the Discovery Institute did not like this opinion, which they played no role in producing, except for that Icons of Evolution video that inspired Buckingham to new heights of teacher intimidation.

Buckingham testified that *all* communications he had with Cooper and other DI people were priveleged.

Cooper tells us that *some* communications were priveleged and some were not (how should Buckingham tell them apart?).

I would assume that communications between Cooper and Buckingham related to the constitutionality of the Dover policy, the chances of getting sued, legal strategies to avoid legal problems etc. would be considered priveleged by anyone. However, here we have Cooper disclosing, presumably without Buckingham's nor the current DASB permission, the content of this clearly priveleged communications. I sure am glad that Cooper isn't my lawyer.

The prosecutor announced today he is looking in to the appearance of perjury on the part of Mr Buckingham. I only read the Cooper piece so far and it was fascinating reading for me. I must be a real weirdo because I find the trial drama obscenely interesting. IDC porn.

Like reading the exchange between Richard Thompson and whatshisname from the DI. Anyhow, everyone sure wants to distance themselves from Dover. Poor old TMLC lost Rick the Snake as a board member today.

Did anyone catch Behe on Hannity and Colmes tonight? I did but it moved very fast for me, I was watching my 2 month old and two year old while my wife made dinner. Some dude was filling in for Hannity (to my great surprise) I was astonished that the Colmes and whoever was his side kick were on the offensive with Behe from the gate.

They asked a few good questions and missed an opportunity here and there but considering this is Fox I was very pleaased to see them not roll over and let Behe scratch their bellies with tales of Mt Rushmore.

In fact they asked something to the effect of "how is Mt Rushmore like an biological entity?" or something close to that. The appeared to have actually read the ruling in fact Colmes may have had a copy in his hand.

Anyhow, the post trial drama, watching the creationists implode is interesting in a weird way. Cooper's story adds a new twist in an already twisted drama.

Where Judge Jones Was Wrong

No doubt Judge Jones was correct in determining that the Board's action failed to meet the Supreme Court's 1971 Lemon Test by not having a secular reason and fostering unnecessary government entanglement with religion. But his reasons for ruling that ID is not science were erroneous.

The York, Pa. case mirrored McLean v. Arkansas, the 1981 trial in which Federal Judge William R. Overton tossed out Arkansas Act 590, which called for a "balanced treatment for creation-science and evolution-science." In doing so he also went further than simply ruling that the Lemon Test was contravened by lawmakers. He (unnecessarily) also ruled that creation science was not science. For that purpose, Judge Overton had to define science. In doing so he relied heavily on the testimony of eminent philosopher Michael Ruse.

Another eminent philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, objected vehemently to Judge Overton's definition of science. He pointed out that it contained elements that did not represent the consensus of scientists and philosophers of science, especially since no such consensus exists. (The essays by Laudan and other philosophers, including a response by Ruse, can be found in the 1996 Prometheus book But Is It Science? edited by Ruse. A more detailed discussion than I can give here can be found in my 2003 book Has Science Found God?)

In his definition of science, Judge Overton included the familiar criterion that a scientific theory must be falsifiable. However, philosophers now regard this criterion as inadequate---neither necessary nor sufficient for a theory to be science. Furthermore, creation science (as it was formulated at that time) makes all kinds of falsifiable predictions, such as a young Earth. What's more, they have been falsified. In short, creation science should not be presented in science classes as a viable alternative to evolution. But, I see no reason not to mention it as an nonviable alternative, and give the reasons why.

In the meantime, McLean opened the door for creation science to morph into a form that could be called science by the new legal precedent. Sure enough, along came ID, which improved on creation science in at least two ways. It avoided outlandish claims, such as a young Earth, and attempted to give the appearance of not being religiously motivated. If ID proponents had succeeded in both of these goals, then they would have won in York.

Fortunately, they failed in both. Behe and Dembski made their own outlandish claims and the their religious motivation and that of their supporters was obvious from the beginning.

Unfortunately, using McLean as a precedent Judge Jones has made the same mistake with ID as Judge Overton did with creation science. This is doubly unfortunate because he states in his decision that whether or not ID is science was not essential to his holding that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution has been violated. He says he is doing this to prevent further "waste of judicial and other resources" should the subject come up again. As with McLean, we can expect it have the opposite effect, as ID morphs further.

Judge Jones argued that ID is not science because (1) it invokes supernatural causation; (2) the central idea of irreducible complexity is flawed; (2) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been effectively refuted.

But, how do (2) and (3) make ID not science? All they do is show that, like creation science, ID is wrong science.

The Discovery Institute has shot back that ID makes no supernatural claims. But no one takes their proposal seriously that space aliens might be the designers. If the ID movement could ever separate itself from its fanatical religious supporters and be carried out by secular groups, and if it can eliminate the gross scientific errors of Behe, Dembski, and their other researchers, we might find it difficult to keep it out of the schools.

Furthermore, why is science eternally forbidden from considering supernatural causation? Scientists look at the data and normally seek natural explanations for any observation. So far, this has sufficed. All scientific observations to date are consistent with a model of a universe of matter and nothing more.

However, why should we dogmatically exclude the possibility that someday, some observations will be made that defy all possible natural (material) explanations?

Indeed, we can think of a phenomenon whose observation under carefully controlled circumstances could only be explained supernaturally: the successful demonstration of the healing power of distant, blinded intercessory prayer. Despite spineless statements by several national science organizations that science does not deal with supernatural causes, experiments on prayer which do just that have been going on right under their noses, carried out by highly reputable institutions such as Duke University and the Mayo Clinic, and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Some positive claims have been made in these publications, but a careful look at the papers reveals that the results are either statistically insignificant or the experiments flawed. None have been replicated. The best experiments have so far proved negative.

Lawyers and judges have no business defining science. Science is what scientists do. And scientists are doing experiments with supernatural implications. Some of the people doing ID are scientists. So far what they have claimed to find has been refuted. But why shouldn't't this fact be mentioned in science classes? And why shouldn't the negative results of prayer studies be mentioned? Are the people pushing ID willing to have their beliefs tested empirically and evidence against the existence of God (or for) be considered by science?

DI has been awfully busy this week, it seems like. There's a USA today article which, while explaining the science position well, approaches being something like half quotes from the Discovery Institute-- including quoting Dembski's blog at some length. Since this is an article about the aftereffects of Dover it makes sense to present the creationist side, but it's fascinating how someone not paying attention could read that article and easily see a groundswell of support for ID when in fact it's just multiple quotes from members of the same institute. A tiny group of extremists has managed to pass themselves off to the media as a movement...

Furthermore, why is science eternally forbidden from considering supernatural causation?

Lawyers and judges have no business defining science

Another eminent philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, objected vehemently to Judge Overton's definition of science. He pointed out that it contained elements that did not represent the consensus of scientists and philosophers of science, especially since no such consensus exists.

Another eminent philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, objected vehemently to Judge Overton's definition of science. He pointed out that it contained elements that did not represent the consensus of scientists and philosophers of science, especially since no such consensus exists.

Judging by the email address in the name tag above, the Victor Stenger who posted above is President of Colorado Citizens for Science.

Can we have an IP check on aisle 5, please?

RBH

the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's;

— Judge Jones

Where Judge Jones Was Wrong

Furthermore, why is science eternally forbidden from considering supernatural causation?

lenny: "Gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat."

that's about how I'm feeling. all this other commentary is very nice, but secondary. a gloaty christmas to everybody.

I agree, Snacksalot. I kind of feel like Jack Haley on the 95-96 Chicago Bulls. I just sit on the bench and talk smack while my team beats the other team like a rented mule.

If all the people who replied to my post took the trouble to read the whole thing they would see that I agreed with the primary decision. And a look at my previous writing (see my website) will show that I have been an outspoken opponent of ID. I believe I was the first to publish that Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information was provably wrong.

If they read what I wrote they would see that I did not say that ID should be recognized as science. I said that Jones unnecessarily declared it not to be science, and this then required him to define science. That was where he went wrong. He did not have to do it. Declaring it religion was enough. It is very bad law to go beyond the minimum that is needed to decide a case.

The Judge has left the door open for ID to morph into something that will meet his standard. This was precisely what happened with creation science when it morphed into ID after McLean. If ID had not been so blatantly wrong and so obviously religious it might have won this case.

It does not matter if both sides agreed on the definition of science. It becomes Jone's definition when he puts it in his decision. He could have simply left it out.

The commentators also do not seem to have read my point that statements that science does not deal with supernatural causes are already refuted by the fact that prayer studies are being performed by reputable scientists and published in reputable journals.

And Lenny Flank should search out "supernatural" in Jones decision and see how many time it appears. He is the "nut job" who brought it up, not me.

For your information, I am the president (and founder) of the Colorado Citizens for Science. I am also professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. I have been a visiting professor at the universities of Oxford, Heidelberg, and Florence.

I have 40 years of research experience in elementary particles and astrophysics. I was involved in many experiments that helped establish the standard model of quarks and leptons. I collaborated on the experiment which showed that the neutrino has mass. I have hundreds of published papers, five published books and two more under contract.

I think I know what I am talking about when I talk about science.

And Lenny Flank should search out "supernatural" in Jones decision and see how many time it appears. He is the "nut job" who brought it up, not me.

If they read what I wrote they would see that I did not say that ID should be recognized as science. I said that Jones unnecessarily declared it not to be science, and this then required him to define science. That was where he went wrong. He did not have to do it.

I think I know what I am talking about when I talk about science.

The commentators also do not seem to have read my point that statements that science does not deal with supernatural causes are already refuted by the fact that prayer studies are being performed by reputable scientists and published in reputable journals.

It does not matter if both sides agreed on the definition of science. It becomes Jone's definition when he puts it in his decision. He could have simply left it out.

The Judge has left the door open for ID to morph into something that will meet his standard

The Judge has left the door open for ID to morph into something that will meet his standard

more power to em!

Perhaps Vic should visit the DI and encourage them to actually DO research rather than lie and obfuscate?

Indeed, we can think of a phenomenon whose observation under carefully controlled circumstances could only be explained supernaturally: the successful demonstration of the healing power of distant, blinded intercessory prayer.

— Vic Stenger