Speculation on the Panda Trial
The Dover Panda Trial is expected to end tomorrow. So it’s about time for some barely-informed speculation about what presents Hizzoner Judge Jones will bring the good girls and boys (aren’t you glad I didn’t say anything about jonesin’ for a decision?).
Obviously, the thing that we on the science side would like would be a ruling from the bench that ID is just creationism in a new lab coat, that per previous decisions creationism is religion, and therefore ID may not be taught in public school science class. That, and a few righteous smackdowns, and maybe even some Pink Floyd lyrics:
The evidence before the court is
Incontrovertible, there’s no need for
The jury to retire.
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law.
Okay, but the defense has given the judge plenty of rope to hang them with. So might Judge Jones rule on the defendants’ behavior, rather than on the statement read to the students?
No, because the original complaint does not say that the Dover Area School Board is a bunch of incompetent fundie nutbars; it says that the effect of the statement was to “compel public school science teachers to present to their students in biology class information that is inherently religious, not scientific, in nature” in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. If he pisses on Buckingham and Bonsell, that’ll be great, but what he really has to rule on is whether ID is religious or not.
Presumably his decision will be based on two factors: the Lemon test, and whether ID could be scientific.
The Lemon test says that a law does not violate the separation of church and state if:
- It has a secular purpose.
- Its principal or primary effect neither advances nor hinders religion.
- It does not foster an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
I’m not entirely sure what constitutes “entanglement”, but in this context, ID is so content-free that I’m not sure it applies. Unless, of course, the Pastafarians sue to add a statement that ID is just one theory, and the kids should be made aware of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If the judge finds that ID is religious and not scientific, then naturally it violates both the second and first prongs of the Lemon test.
But what if Judge Jones finds that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis? (Indulge me for a bit; in biology, he’s a layman; he hasn’t read the reams of research papers on the subject.) Then it wouldn’t violate the first prong, since it’s quite proper to talk about the problems with scientific theories, and talk about competing theories, in science class.
However, I think it’s been conclusively established that ID is not a scientific theory on a par with evolution. Per Behe’s own testimony, ID is (at best) a hypothesis. Telling the kids that there are people who support ID is like talking about Holocaust deniers. It’s not a legitimate controversy among the relevant experts; it’s just thrown in to cause confusion and uncertainty. So the intent — and presumably the primary effect in the second prong — is to promote religion. Certainly the defendants’ lies and half-assed attempt at money-laundering support that.
I assume that Judge Jones will want to rule narrowly, on the general principle of not unduly abridging any freedom, and because it might help reduce the odds of being overruled by an appeals court. So he’ll address the terms “compel”, “public school”, “science class”, and possibly “teachers” in the original complaint.
Meaning that it’ll be legal for schools to talk about ID in science class, but not as part of a mandated curriculum. Private schools can continue to do whatever the hell they want. ID can be discussed in, say, social studies class. And students can write papers about ID if they want to; just that teachers can’t assign a paper on ID as homework.
I can live with that. Creationists and IDists will continue using the argument that you can talk about ID in school (but will,of course, omit the qualifying phrase “in science class”, and will blur the distinction between preaching ID and talking about it as a social or political phenomenon). Maybe a few years from now there’ll be a case where a school starts teaching ID as science in social studies class. We’ll see.
In the meantime, we’ll have another powerful argument: Look, we’ll say, you had your day in court, just like you wanted. You got to present your case at length. And even leaving aside the school board’s shenanigans, you blew it big time. What’s your excuse?
Both sides have said they’ll appeal if they lose. I’m sure the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center would like to mulligan. I’m not so sure about the school board members, though; not after the way they’ve been shown to be incompetent buffoons. On one hand, they may decide that they’ve been humiliated enough and won’t appeal. On the other hand, they may feel that they’ve been persecuted by the ACLU and that it’s their divine obligation to fight godless evilutionism all the way to the Supreme Court.
But unless they come up with some better evidence, and manage to get the existing evidence stricken from the record, I’d say the only thing that’ll happen is that they’ll get shat upon by a different court.