Judge Hands Science a Defeat

(Note: Originally Posted 3-7-06)

In a stunning blow to science, a Federal Court neutered science, rendering the discipline no longer relevant to our understanding of the universe. (See full essay.) The press missed the real story, failing to note the dogmatic nature of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, which prompted the Dover Inquisition drama.

The Court interrogated the Defendants, put their souls and character on trial, and recounted the history of Fundamentalism in a witch hunt seeking religious intent. Swept up in the Plaintiffs’ antipathy for religion, the Court itself exhibited religious prejudice. Fundamentalism, not the statement of the Dover School Board, was put on trial. The Court roamed far from the legal question before it and demonized Fundamentalism.

The Court, delivering a history lesson regarding Fundamentalism, had an equal duty to deliver a history lesson regarding atheism and the ACLU. If the Court sought motive in the annals of history, it had a duty to consider all motives, including the Plaintiffs’ religious viewpoint motive. Incomplete histories are prejudicial. The Court, using selective history, entered bias into the opinion and violated First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

The statement issued by the Dover school board does not establish nor endorse a religion. Impugning the motives of the Defendants was out of bounds. Their motives, their associations, their opportunity, and their character were irrelevant, as no transgression took place. Unless I commit an offense, my motive, my character, and my opportunity are irrelevant.

Essentially, Defendants were accused of committing a concealed thought crime. There was no unlawful act; they were “convicted” on the basis of implied motive, beliefs, and associations. When our religious beliefs become thought crimes, we are on the slippery slope into secular totalitarianism.

When the government transgresses the limits of neutrality and acts in ways that show religious favoritism or sponsorship, they violate the Establishment Clause.” The government violated the prohibition against “conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.”

Plaintiffs presented a case based on their religious viewpoint. Plaintiffs’ argument, in the end, rests upon a metaphysical position, not upon science. When the government conducted an analysis (Inquisition) of the Defendants’ religious views, but failed to conduct an analysis of the Plaintiffs’ religious views, judicial prejudice entered the picture. As there was a religious motive behind the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the court discriminated against one religious view on behalf of another. When the Dover court failed to query the religious motives, views, statements, and history of Plaintiffs, the Court failed to provide “equal protection.” The Court demonstrated bias when it performed “purpose” and “motive” tests on one side, without performing the same tests on the other side.

Plaintiffs argued ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. They argued ID forces science to broaden its ground rules so that supernatural forces have to be considered. Plaintiffs, however, failed to provide scientific evidence that the universe is limited to natural causes. If ID is true, it simply means there are both supernatural and natural causes. That is still science. If the universe consists of both supernatural and natural causes, then that is what science must study. The metaphysical beliefs of the Plaintiffs are irrelevant.

Plaintiffs simply wished to impose their beliefs (aka “ground rules”) on science. If the Court understood the issues, it would have asked, “what scientific event in the 16th, or 17th century, or in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st century determined there were only natural causes in this universe?” Plaintiffs offered no scientific evidence the universe in which we live does not contain both supernatural and natural causes; they offer a metaphysical view that the world contains only natural causes. Scientists cannot arbitrarily decide, based upon their metaphysical views, based upon their religious views, that the universe contains only natural causes. That is religion, not science.

Plaintiffs were cleverly deceptive. They hid their metaphysical and religious belief there are only natural causes—known as philosophical naturalism or materialism. If the Court had investigated Plaintiffs’ beliefs, it would have found Plaintiffs more dishonest than the Defendants the Court chastised. The Plaintiffs’ position is a religious view unsupported by science. They know it, and hide it. Plaintiffs cleverly deceived the Court and gained special treatment for their religious view in the schools.

Science must be unfettered from demagogues who preach philosophical naturalism and insist their religious view deserves a special place in our schools. When the Court ruled, “It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations,” the Court violated the Constitution and endorsed metaphysical naturalism, a religious view.

To discuss this blog, please visit our message board.

Tags: Dover Trial, intelligent design, science, religion, debate, Fundamentalism, Christianity, ACLU, beliefs, supernatural