Why Darwin Matters_ The Case Against Intelligent Design - Michael Shermer [47]
Theories. This “special dignity” is called a “theory” that, when it “explains a large and diverse body of facts,” is considered “robust,” and, if it “consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed,” is deemed “reliable.” Facts and theories are not to be used interchangeably or in relation to one another as more or less true. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other nontestable statements are not a part of science. “An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science.”
Conclusions. It follows from this process that no explanatory principles in science are final. “Even the most robust and reliable theory . . . is tentative. A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and—as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy—may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viability. In an ideal world, every science course would include repeated reminders that each theory presented to explain our observations of the universe carries this qualification: ‘as far as we know now, from examining the evidence available to us today.’”
Explanations. Science also seeks only naturalistic explanations for phenomena. “Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations; without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith.” Any body of knowledge accumulated within these guidelines is considered “scientific” and suitable for public school education; and any body of knowledge not accumulated within these guidelines is not considered scientific. “Because the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited to the search for naturalistic principles, science remains free of religious dogma and is thus an appropriate subject for public-school instruction.”
This case was decided on June 19, 1987, with the Court voting 7–2 in favor of the appellees, holding that “the Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose” and that “[t]he Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” Predictably, Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist dissented, arguing that “so long as there was a genuine secular purpose,” the Christian fundamentalist intent “would not suffice to invalidate the Act.” Recalling the academic freedom issue that was argued more than sixty years before in the Scopes trial, Scalia and Rehnquist note, “The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it.” The majority of the Court disagreed, stating that regardless of the religious intent of the creationists, there is no science in creation-science; there is strong evidence that their opinions were shaped by the amicus curiae brief that demonstrated so plainly why creationism is not science by clearly explaining what science is.
The ongoing court cases and curriculum battles being fought over Intelligent Design creationism involve the same issues that were settled in the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision. But Intelligent Design creationists are repackaging their wares, appealing to our human natures, and taking advantage of a larger attack on science. There is no more science in Intelligent Design theory than there is in creation-science; but the point of the movement is not to expand scientific understanding—it is to shut it down. Case in point: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, the first evolution-creationism trial of the twenty-first century.
Design in Dover
In the legendary debate over evolution at Oxford University in June 1860,