For the record, this is what was being taught in Dover. Note that the standardized tests students had to take covered only Darwinian evolution. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “Of Pandas and People” was used as a text book in the classroom. It was noted as a book that could be found in the library if the students wished to read it.
Note that ID is only said to be an explanation for the origin of life, not for how life developed after it started. And note that the second part of that statement is factually incorrect since Darwin’s theory does not address the origin of life. In fact, the whole thing is very poorly written. If I were an English teacher, and a student submitted that as part of a paper, I’d give it a “D”.
Read it again. It doesn’t say that teachers are not permitted to criticize or disparage evolution, it just says they can’t be required to do it. Do you think teaches should be required to disparage evolution? If not, then what’s the problem?
More importantly, I think, it cannot make the cut, for approximately the same reason that a recipe for shortcake or rules for tiddlywinks or an Edgar Allen Poe story won’t appear in a scientific publication as a standalone article: it’s not science. It’s the wrong format, it doesn’t have predictive qualities, it’s not testable, it doesn’t involve the formulation of a hypothesis and then a series of activities designed to let you observe whether the hypothesis is accurate.
It’s not like if your recipe for shortcake is good enough it’ll get published as an article in Science. It never will, because Science publishes scientific articles, not recipes, rules for games, short stories, or religious speculation.
But what if an entirely new scientific theory comes about that is different enough from evolution that it cannot be cosidered an update, but a replacement? I know that seems unlikely, but we cannot legally protect any scientific theory from being replaced if new, non-junk-science evidence comes around. It kinda sounds like that’s being done here.
The pessimist in me even wonders if this otherwise fine decision might be in danger of being struck down because of this. The ultra-paranoid in me wonders if this was put in there on purpose for exactly that. But that guy’s kinda nuts, I rarely let him out of his tin-foil bungalow.
To be fair, if there were a district in which a large group of teachers persisted in teaching Lamarckian evolution as fact, would you object to the school board’s issuing an order requiring them to denigrate Lamarckian evolution? That wouldn’t really bother me.
In theory, if, a century from now, the scientific theory of evolution gets a General Theory of Relativity-style overhaul, this order might make it difficult for the Dover school board to require teachers to respect that overhaul and teach it.
However:
Such an overhaul isn’t exactly looming over us, I don’t think; and
If it does come about, I see no reason to worry that Dover high school teachers will be so resistant to teaching it that the school board will need to step in; and
If they are, the court can overturn the order at that point.
So I’m not going to lose any sleep over the prospect :).
It was illegal for the curriculum to direct students to the book as a legitimate science book at all. It was no different than saying they could find more information in the Bible and then providing the Bibles.
There are a bunch of flat out lies in that statement. It is a lie that evolution is “not a fact.” It is a lie that there are “gaps” in the theory and it’s a lie that ID disagrees with “Darwin’s view” as to the origins of life, since Darwinian evolution has no view of the origins of life. It’s also idiotic to refer to evolution as “Darwin’s view,” but I expect nothing better from these people.
Anyway, the judge has ruled on this. He knows both the law and the facts of the case better than we do.
Depends on what is meant by “disparage”. If a new scientific theory comes about, from genuine peer-reviewed science, that contradicts evolution or parts of evolution, would teaching that be counted as “disparaging”? Because of this decision, would this hypothetical theory be prevented from being required material, even if it become accepted by the majority of the scientific community?
The unlikliness of this hypothetical theory is completely beside the point, btw.
If that were to happen, the judge’s decision would not forbid any teachers from saying so. As it stands, they simply cannot be forced to disparage evolutionary theory. Do you they they should be forced to? I don’t understand your objection here?
I don’t see why that would be a problem. there would be nothing preventing any teachers from teaching the new facts. I guess, hypothetically, you could have some teacher who insists on teaching the old facts, but I think the prosepect of evolution is so unlikely- impossible, in fact- that it’s not worth worrying about. If the impossible were to happen, I’m sure the ruling would be changed
Some material in a class, the most important material generally, is considered required material for a class, correct? My concern is that the hypothetical new theory, which would likely be the most important theory in biological science (if it supplants evolution) could not be made required material because it would “disparage” the evolutionary theory it replaces. At the very least, it’d be kind of silly not to be able to make it required material, wouldn’t it? At worst, you can have individual teachers refusing to teach it, even though it would be such an important theory. Much like a fundie science teacher today might refuse to teach evolution.
Not really, I don’t think: the door would be opened because of overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution was no longer scientifically defensible. If that very unlikely event happens, it still won’t open the door for ID folks, because there’s also an overwhelming scientific consensus that ID is not even science.
At any rate, the event is so amazingly unlikely that I don’t see it as worth worrying about: it requires both an overhaul of evolution and an inexplicable unwillingness of Dover science teachers to teach the new theory.
AND (I didn’t mention this before) it also requires that the Dover district have no other remedy, which seems extraordinarily unlikely. For example, right now, North Carolina and (I believe) most other states have Standard Course of Study documents that determine what teachers must teach at various grade levels, and evolution figures heavily into these. A district may fire a teacher who refuses to teach materials from the SCoS, without reference to whether the teacher is denigrating evolution. If evolution ever becomes scientifically outdated, that’s going to be reflected in the SCoS, and the school board may rely on teh state requirement for teachers to cover this material to keep science teachers in line with mainstream scientific thought.
Good points LHOD. I realize it’ll almost certainly never be a real problem, but I still would have preferred that that part of the decision not be there, or be worded differently. Smacks too much of protecting a theory from even genuine scientific criticisms, or at least preventing making the criticisms or genuine scientific alternate theories part of required material.
Hmm. I guess I see what you’re saying. Since the schoolboard doesn’t enter into scientific debates normally, however, I don’t see this prevention from entering into a specific debate to provide the theory any special protection. If the school board were regularly in the business of deciding scientific controversies, I’d have more of an issue with keeping them out of this particular hypothetical controversy.
I don’t know what he’s said about the decision but here is a sampling of his incredibly articulate and incisive commentary on the case in general.
Really…I mean where do you start with this stuff? “Evolutionists worship atheism?” Atheism is a deity now? When did that happen? Evolution is a “cult?” Scientists are “fanatics?” I think Robertson is just descending more and more into raving senility lately. I’m sure he’ll probably wish a hurricane or something on Pennsylvania now.
It raises an interesting contradiction, though. IF ID s not religion then why do so many of its supporters think that opposing it is anti-religious?
Wouldn’t it have been beautiful if the anti-evolution folks called Robertson to the stand and pointed this out? Not sure if that would have helped the case, but it’d be pure entertainment.
