9/29/2007 Republic columnist article "Intelligent Designed Smok= ed in Court"

‘Intelligent Design’ smoked in court

   LONG before Charles Darwin was born, a minister named Wil= liam Paley wrote that life is complicated, like a watch. Therefore a divine watchmaker, namely God, must have created it — after all, a watch doesn’t get made unless someone makes it. As a young man, Charles Dar= win agreed. After decades of observing nature, though, he decided the process w= as more interesting than that.
   Paley’s claim is called the “argument from design,” and was old even then. But it has problems. For one, it̵= 7;s what’s called a “false analogy,” comparing two things that aren’t really alike. Life is way more complex than any watch. Watches don’t breathe or reproduce or pass inherited characteristics from par= ent to offspring. Argument from design is also circular reasoning: “We we= re created by God. That proves God created us. In just the way I say and no ot= her. Including evolution.” This seems arrogant = to me, telling God how to do God’s work. Finally, a smart designer keeps thi= ngs simple. Watches are as simple as they can be and still do the job they̵= 7;re made to do. Life’s religious argument from design= , in scientific clothing.
   In 2004, the school board in Dover, Pa., ordered biology teachers to read a notice in class that claimed evolutionary theory didn’t work. (Funny, real biologists, anthropologists and paleontolog= ists hadn’t noticed that.) The statement advised students to read an Intelligent Design textbook called, “Of Pandas and People,” 60 copies of which had mysteriously turned up in the high school library.
   The school board members had pushed their religious opini= ons on teachers in other ways. Teachers and parents got fed up and filed a laws= uit in Federal Court. Judge John E. Jones III, a Bush-appointed, conservative Republican of the Christian faith, presided.
   Both sides agreed that “Of Pandas and People” typified Intelligent Design thinking. Then the plaintiffs showed how the bo= ok was just a rewrite of earlier “creation science” literature. The only changes were that such words as “God,” “creationism” and “Genesis” got replaced by “designer” and “Intelligent Design.” There was no r= eal science to it, the plaintiffs proved, just a str= ategy to get amazing complexity is an argument against design, not for it.
   In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed court evidence t= hat the only people pushing creationism were biblical (or Islamic) fundamentali= sts — and they were pushing it purely for religious, not scientific, reas= ons.
No evidence
   In Edwards v. Aguillard, no o= ne produced a bit of real scientific evidence for so-called “creation science.” Therefore, the court held, forcing public school science classes to teach it was a violation of the Constitution’s bar against government support of any one religion.
   So a creationist think tank, the Discovery Institute, cam= e up with what it called “Intelligent Design,” to sneak around the Supreme Court’s decision. Basically, it was the same old around the Supreme Court decision.
   Their whole defense fell apart. The plaintiffs won on eve= ry point. The Dover School Board’s blunders had wasted a lot of taxpayer money and the voters threw them out of office in the next election.
   In every school, there are kids who don’t ever stud= y or hand in homework then blame the teacher when they get failing grades. Creationist pundits acted the same way. They condemned the judge and the voters. But if you throw a shameless smoke screen at the judge and the public — and get caught — don’t complain wh= en you lose your case and your job.
   Creationism and Intelligent Design lose in court because = they have nothing to do with science. Their “experts” don’t ev= en try to get published in peer-reviewed scientific journals because they know their stuff won’t hold up under knowledgeable scrutiny.
   So Intelligent Design isn’t science. But is it even good religion? I’ll go into that in my next column.
Members lie
   What’s more, Dover School Board members lied through their teeth about how those books got into the high school library in the f= irst place. On the stand, the board president and curriculum chairman denied kno= wing anything about it. But others testified, both men had gone to their churches for donations, used the money to buy the 60 copies and then donated them to= the school library. Plaintiffs produced a copy of the library’s receipt f= or the books and a payment check signed by the curriculum chair. Both men had = lied under oath.
   If they were on God’s side, why were they lying?    Judge Jones probably wondered the same thing.
   But the trial got even worse for the creationists.
   Plaintiffs’ witnesses refuted every so-called “scientific” claim Intelligent Design proponents made.
   The Discovery Institute even withdrew their witnesses, ra= ther than let them face expert cross-examination. When the chips were down and it came down to cold, hard facts, creationist theories went up in smoke.
The Rev. Dennis 3D"http://hneolive.therepublic.com/archive/Images/Common/HitArrowSelect= M= cCarty is a Unitarian Universalist minister in Columbus. His opinions are his own, and not necessarily shared by members of his church. He can be reached by e-mail at columnists@therepublic.com =

3D"http://hneolive.therepublic.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=3DTRP/2=

Dennis 3D"http://hneolive.therepublic.com/archive/Images/Common/HitArrow.gif" M= cCarty Community Columnist