1 / 63

Teaching Intelligent Design: The Scientific, Theological, and Legal Controversy

University of Idaho Physics Colloquium Dec. 3, 2012. Teaching Intelligent Design: The Scientific, Theological, and Legal Controversy. R. Machleidt University of Idaho. Outline. Historical Perspective and Legal Landscape

goodwing
Download Presentation

Teaching Intelligent Design: The Scientific, Theological, and Legal Controversy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University of Idaho Physics Colloquium Dec. 3, 2012 Teaching Intelligent Design: The Scientific, Theological, and Legal Controversy R. Machleidt University of Idaho

  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 Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  3. The history of theEvolution versus Creation controversy in public school instructions Three phases Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  4. 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). Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  5. Some background: The Bill of Rights(= first ten Amendments of the United States Constitution) the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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). Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Justice Scalia Voted FOR “Balanced” In 1987 “Balanced” laws are dead. End of Phase 2. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  9. Phase 3, 1990-2005, Intelligent Design Phase • Early 1990’s Intelligent Design movement starts. • 2005Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, U.S. District Court, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  10. The remainder of my talk is about Kitzmiller. I will follow closely the Memorandum Opinion of the Judge. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  11. The Case and the parties involved Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  12. Pennsylvania Dover Dover The Geography Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  13. DRAMATIS PERSONAE The Plaintiffs 11 parents of students in the Dover district Kitzmiller received death threats Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  15. The Defendants Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  17. About Us The 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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  18. 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. • The Discovery Institute was involved in the early phase, but withdrew from the defense because of differences with the Thomas More Center. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  19. The Discovery Institute is the leading institution promoting Intelligent Design in the US. • 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 thetheistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  20. 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. • The Discovery Institute was involved in the early phase, but withdrew from the defense because of differences with the Thomas More Center. • 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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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 andunderstanding 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." Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  22. 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. • The Discovery Institute was involved in the early phase, but withdrew from the defense because of differences with the Thomas More Center. • 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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  23. John E. Jones III, appointed in 2002 by President Bush, endorsed by Senator Santorum, a Republican and churchgoer. The Judge Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  24. The Case: Background Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  25. “The Dover ID Policy” (ID=Intelligent Design) Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  26. The Lawsuit Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  28. Kenneth Miller Witnesses for the plaintiffs Author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution • 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 … Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012 Barbara Forrest

  29. Michael J. Behe Scott Minnich 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 .. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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? Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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? Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  32. Is Intelligent Design science? To answer this question, we have to ask two questions: • What is science? • What is Intelligent Design (ID)? Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  33. What is science? …… …….. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  34. What is ID? From Pandas: [In the world around us,]we see things resulting from two kinds of causes: naturalandintelligent. 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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  35. Intelligent Cause Natural Cause Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  36. But, is the distinction always so clear? What is natural? What is intelligent? Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. R. Machleidt Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012 37

  38. Natural or intelligent? Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  39. Natural! Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Intelligent 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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012 Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012 41

  42. Testimony in court on “What is ID?” Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  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. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  44. The conclusion by the judgeconcerning “What is ID?” In short: ID is not science. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  45. Is Intelligent Design of religious nature?Does the ID policy endorse religion? • Theological arguments • Legal arguments Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  46. Thomas Aquinas ANNO DOMINI 1225-1274 Theological Argument Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  47. More Theological Arguments Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  48. Conclusion The Intelligent Agent is God; and, in fact, not any god; it’s the God of Christianity. Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  49. Other legally relevant facts and arguments Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

  50. The evolution of an anti-evolution book • 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 seven drafts of Pandas Intelligent Design UI Phys Colloq 3-Dec-2012

More Related