The Dover ruling

I finally made it through Judge John E. Jones’s ruling in the Dover intelligent design (ID) case (large PDF). It’s an incredibly detailed ruling, hitting the creationism proponents on multiple fronts; it seems clearly designed not only as a ruling in this case, but as a precedent-setting decision on the entire creationism/creation science/ID movement.

In the 139 pages, Judge Jones — a conservative, G.W. Bush appointee, by the way — rules on whether the argument was about religion in the first place; if so, whether the school board was endorsing a religious viewpoint; whether ID is science; and what the motives of the school board were.

As you probably know from reading news reports, Jones concluded that yes, it was about religion; yes, a reasonable observer would take the disclaimer teachers were supposed to read as an endorsement of a religious view; that ID isn’t science; and that the members of the school board lied to and otherwise attempted to deceive the court about their motives.

Many news sources are quoting the same passages from the decision — ones that tend to come from the beginning and the end — but I wanted to point out some of the more interesting ones in the middle.

(Style note: I use [...] to indicate that the paragraphs aren’t contiguous, but are part of the same section. If you see a capital letter in brackets — [L]ike this — it means that what I’m presenting as a sentence is part of a longer one.)

On whether ID is religious:

[W]e conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

[...]

Although proponents of the IDM [intelligent design movement] occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, [Lehigh University biologist and ID proponent] Professor [Michael] Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (emphasis added).

As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

[...]

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

[...]

This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.

Judge Jones made several comments about problems he found with the disclaimer teachers were supposed to give students.

Paragraph three of the disclaimer proceeds to present this alternative and reads as follows:

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

Students are therefore provided information that contrasts ID with “Darwin’s view” and are directed to consult Pandas as though it were a scientific text that provided a scientific account of, and empirical scientific evidence for, ID. The theory or “view” of evolution, which has been discredited by the District in the student’s eyes, is contrasted with an alternative “explanation,” as opposed to a “theory,” that can be offered without qualification or cautionary note. The alternative “explanation” thus receives markedly different treatment from evolutionary “theory.”

What I think is the most interesting section of the ruling is where Jones tackles the question of whether intelligent design is science. Lots of people testified, and Jones found a clear conclusion.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

[...]

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

[...]

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.

[...]

Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science.

[...]

[W]e believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

One of the foundations of ID is the idea that some organisms, or parts of them, are “irreducibly complex,” meaning that the individual parts cannot function alone, but only as part of the whole. Some examples often cited (incorrectly, as it turns out) are the human eye and the immune system.

Prof. Behe made this argument for the court, and Jones found it, well, wanting. In a big way. (He had plenty of biting criticism for Behe and his flawed arguments, as well as for the book Of Pandas and People, which Dover students were directed to read.)

Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present.

For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.

[...]

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

[...]

Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students [Of Pandas and People] contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.

Jones goes on to show how ID is simply, clearly, and provably not science.

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory… The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.

[...]

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

[...]

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

[...]

Jones has plenty more to say; he’s particularly critical of the lies (his word) told by members of the school board who were promoting creationism. But I’ll end with this quote:

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.