THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND K12 SCIENCE EDUCATION

1

• THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND K-12 SCIENCE
  EDUCATION

2

• CREATION SCIENCE IS, IN FACT, NOT SCI-
• ENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED
• AS SUCH. THE CLAIMS OF CREATION
• SCIENCE LACK EMPIRICAL SUPPORT AND
• CANNOT BE MEANINGFULLY TESTED.
• -- NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
• SCIENCES (1998)

SCIENTISTS WHO CALL THEMSELVES CREATION
SCIENTISTS ARE PROFES-SIONALS . . . WHO ARE
GENERALLY IN-VOLVED IN THE SAME TYPE WORK AS THE
AVERAGE SCIENTIST. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT
CREATION SCIENTISTS HAVE A WORLD VIEW OR
MODEL FOR THEIR SCIENCE WHICH IS BASED ON THE
BELIEF AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER (GOD) EXISTS WHO
CREATED OUR UNIVERSE AND ALL THE NATURAL THINGS
IN IT.
--http//emporium.turn- pike.net/C/cs/index.htm
3
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• DEBATE OVER THE TEACHING OF CREATION SCIENCE
  (CS) AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID) IN K-12
  SCIENCE CURRICULA
• DOES THE INCLUSION OF CS AND ID IN SCIENCE
  CURRICULA CONSTITUTE STATE-SUPPORT OF RELIGION IN
  VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE?

4
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATIONISM REFERS EITHER TO
• A BELIEF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WAS SPECIALLY AND
  INSTANENOUSLY CREATED BY A SUPREME BEING OR
• LITERAL INTERPERTATION OF RE-LIGIOUS WORKS
  REFERRING TO A SUPREME BEING CREATING THE
  UNIVERSE IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER (E.G., THE OLD
  TESTAMENT CREATION STORY)

5
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATION SCIENCE OVERVIEW
• REFERS TO ATTEMPTS BY CREATIONISTS (ESPECIALLY
  THOSE ARGUING THE EARTH IS RELATIVELY YOUNG
  ABOUT 10,000 YEARS OLD) TO USE THE METHODS AND
  EMPIRICAL PRACTICES OF SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR
  ARGUMENTS

6
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATION SCIENCE (CONTD)
• DISPUTES THE UNIFORMITARIAN MODEL OF GEOLOGY IN
  FAVOR OF FLOOD GEOLOGY ARGUING FOR THE HISTORICAL
  ACCURACY OF THE STORY OF THE GREAT FLOOD AND NOAH
• UNIFORMITARIAN MODEL THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE
  SAME PROCESSES THAT SHAPE THE UNIVERSE OCCURRED
  IN THE PAST, OCCUR NOW, AND WILL APPLY IN THE
  FUTURE AND THE SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS APPLY TO ALL
  PARTS OF THE KNOWABLE UNIVERSE
• GREAT FLOOD OLD TESTAMENT STORY OF NOAH AND THE
  GREAT FLOOD THAT DESTROYED ALL LIFE ON EARTH
  EXCEPT THOSE CREATURES WHICH NOAH SAVED AND KEPT
  WITH HIM ON THE ARK

7
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATION SCIENCE (CONTD)
• DISAGREES WITH THE THEORY OF COMMON DESCENT OF
  LIFE VIA BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AND CLAIMS THAT
  EVOLUTION IS PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC
• FAVORS CREATION BIOLOGY WHICH ASSUMES A SUPREME
  BEING CREATED ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET AS DESCRIBED
  IN THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION, IN A FINITE
  NUMBER OF DISCRETE KINDS OR BARAMINS

8
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATION SCIENCE (CONTD)
• WORKS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EXTANT SCIENTIFIC
  EVIDENCE BEST SUPPORTS A LITERAL INTERPRETATION
  OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION
• REJECTS CURRENT SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATES ON THE AGE
  OF THE UNIVERSE
• ARGUES INSTEAD FOR CREATIONIST COSMOL-OGIES THAT
  BASE THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE AS LESS THAN 10,000
  YEARS OLD

9
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATION SCIENCE (CONTD)
• IS OFTEN REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF EVANGELICAL
  CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS SUBSCRIBING TO THE TO
  DOCTRINE OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY
• the doctrinal position that in its original form,
  the Christian Bible is totally without error and
  free from all contradiction including the
  historical and scientific parts (Geisler Nix,
  1986)
• FAVORS THE INCLUSION OF CREATION SCIENCE IN
  PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CURRICULA

10
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CRITICISMS OF CS
• NOT FALSIFIABLE
• THEISM IS NOT FALSIFIABLE SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF
  A SUPREME BEING OR BEINGS IS TYPICALLY ASSERTED
  WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS TO ALLOW A
  FALSIFYING OBSERVATION
• CANNOT BE VERIFIED USING EXPERIMENTS OR OTHER
  METHODOLOGY

11
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CS VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF PARSIMONY
• ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION
  TENDS TO BE THE BEST ONE BECAUSE MANY OF ITS
  EXPLANATIONS ARE MORE COMPLEX THAN ARE THE
  ALTERNATIVES
• PARSIMONY FAVORS EXPLANATIONS THAT MAKE THE
  FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS AND POSTULATE THE FEWEST
  HYPOTHETICAL ENTITIES
• CS FAILS TO ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS OF THE
  SCIENTIFIC METHOD
• CS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SCIENTIFIC IN THE WAY THE
  TERM SCIENCE IS CONVENTIONALLY UNDERSTOOD AND
  UTILIZED

12
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CS IS NOT CORRECTABLE, DYNAMIC, TENTATIVE, OR
  PROGRESSIVE
• CREATION SCIENCE PROFESSES TO ADHERE TO AN
  ABSOLUTE TRUTH -- THE WORD OF GOD INSTEAD OF
  A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF DATA WHICH CAN CHANGE
  WHEN NEW DATA ARE DISCOVERED
• THE IDEA OF PROGRESSIVE GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC
  IDEAS IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN PREVIOUS DATA AS
  WELL AS FUTURE DATA AND IS USED AS A
  JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NATURALISTIC BASIS OF
  SCIENCE.
• IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE OF THE CONCEPT CREATION
  SCIENCE IS NOT PROGRESSIVE IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN
  OR EXPAND UPON WHAT WENT BEFORE IT AND IS NOT
  CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED ANCILLARY THEORIES.

13
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CREATION SCIENCE IN THE COURTS
• EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD (1987)
• FACTS
• IN 1982, LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE PASSED THE
  BALANCED TREATMENT FOR CREATION-SCIENCE IN THE
  PUBLIC SCHOOL INSTRUCTION ACT THAT DID NOT
  REQUIRE TEACHING EITHER CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTION,
  BUT DID REQUIRE THAT WHEN EVOLUTION WAS TAUGHT,
  CREATION SCIENCE HAD TO BE TAUGHT AS WELL.
• CREATIONISTS HAD AGGRESSIVELY LOBBIED FOR PASSAGE
  OF THE ACT AND ITS PASSAGE CAME ON THE HEELS OF A
  CASE FROM ARKANSAS WHERE THE COURT HAD RULED THE
  TEACHING OF CREATION SCIENCE VIOLATED THE
  ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. SUPPORTERS FELT THE
  BALANCED TREATMENT OF THE TWO ORIENTATIONS
  WOULD MAKE THE ACT ACCEPTABLE TO THE SUPREME
  COURT.
• ISSUE
• IS A STATE THAT REQUIRES THE TEACHING OF CREATION
  SCIENCE WHEN EVOLUTION IS TAUGHT IN PUBLIC
  SCHOOLS IN VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
  OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT?
• HELD
• THE SUPREME COURT RULED (7-2) THE STATUTE FAILED
  ALL THREE PRONGS OF THE LEMON TEST AND WAS,
  THEREFORE, IN VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
  CLAUSE

14
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• INTELLIGENT DESIGN
• PROPOSES THAT CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE UNIVERSE
  AND OF LIVING THINGS ARE BEST EXPLAINED BY AN
  INTELLIGENT CAUSE, NOT A UNIDIRECTIONAL PROCESS
  SUCH AS NATURAL SELECTION
• INVESTIGATES EXISTING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO
  DISCOVER LIFE MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY AN
  INTELLIGENT AGENT OR AGENTS

15
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• INTELLIGENT DESIGN
• LOOKS FOR EVIDENCE OF SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE
  PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF AN OBJECT THAT POINT TO A
  DESIGNER
• THE MOST COMMON CITED SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE
  INCLUDE

16
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
• AN ARGUMENT THAT CERTAIN BIO-LOGICAL SYSTEMS ARE
  TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE EVOLVED NATURALLY FROM
  SIMPLER, LESS COMPLEX PREDECES-SORS

17
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY
• PRESENT IN A CONFIGURATION (E.G., A LIVING CELL)
  WHEN IT CAN BE DESCRIBED BY A PATTERN THAT
  DISPLAYS A LARGE AMOUNT OF INDEPENDENTLY
  SPECIFIED INFORMATION AND IS ALSO COMPLEX (WHICH
  HAS A LOW PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE)
• FOR EXAMPLE THE LETTER OF AN ALPHABET IS
  SPECIFIED WITHOUT BEING COMPLEX A LONG SENTENCE
  OF RANDOM LETTERS IS COMPLEX WITHOUT BEING
  SPECIFIED A SHAKESPEREAN SONNET IS BOTH
  SPECIFIED AND COMPLEX

18
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• ID PROPONENTS ARGUE THAT LIVING SYSTEMS SHOWING
  THESE CHARAC-TERISTICS (IRREDUCIBLE
  COMPLEX-ITY/SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY) CAN THEN BE
  INFERRED TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY A CREATOR

19
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• WHO IS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER?
• ID PROPONENTS FORMULATE THEIR ARGU-MENTS IN
  CAREFULLY CRAFTED SECULAR TERMS AND INTENTIONALLY
  AVOID POSITING THE IDENTITY OF THE DESIGNER
  (I.E., THE DESIGNER IS NOT DESIGNATED AS GOD OR
  OTHER SUPREME BEING)
• CULTIVATING AMBIGUITY VIA SECULAR LANGUAGE AVOIDS
  OVERTONES OF THEISTIC CREATIONISM, A NECESSARY
  STEP BEFORE REINTRODUCING THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT
  OF GOD AS THE DESIGNER

20
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• TWO LEADING ID PROPONENTS, PHILLIP JOHNSON AND
  WILLIAM DEMBSKI, CITE THE NEW TESTEMANTS BOOK OF
  JOHN AS THE FOUNDATION FOR ID

21
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CRITICISMS OF ID
• PROPONENTS OPENLY EMBRACING CONSERVATIVE
  CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHAT ID
  IS REALLY ABOUT
• PROPONENTS HAVE NEVER HAD A SINGLE PAPER
  PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
• ID LACKS CONSISTENCY, VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF
  PARSIMONY, IS NOT FALSIFIABLE, IS NOT TESTABLE,
  AND IS NOT CORRECTABLE, TENTATIVE, DYNAMIC, OR
  PROGRESSIVE, ALL OF WHICH ARE TRAITS OF TRUE
  SCIENTIFIC THEORY

22
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• CRITICISMS (CONTD.)
• ID FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR SCIENTIFIC
  EVIDENCE USED BY THE COURTS, CALLED THE DAUBERT
  STANDARD
• THE DAUBERT CRITERIA INCLUDE
• THE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE METHODS USED
  MUST YIELD TESTABLE PREDICTIONS BY WHICH MEANS A
  THEORY COULD BE FALSIFIED
• THE METHODS SHOULD PREFERABLY BE PUBLISHED IN A
  PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
• THERE SHOULD BE A KNOWN RATE OF ERROR THAT CAN BE
  USED TO EVALUATE THE RESULTS
• THE METHODS USED SHOULD BE GENERALLY ACCEPTED
  WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

23
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE CLASSROOM AND IN THE
  COURTS
• TAMMY KITZMILLER, ET AL. v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL
  DISTRICT, ET AL. (2005) (FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
  HARRISBURG, PA)

24
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• FACTS
• IN 2004, THE DOVER AREA SCHOOL BOARD, CONCERNED
  OVER THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION IN HIGH SCHOOL
  SCIENCE CLASSES, PASSED A NEW POLICY REQUIRING
  THAT TEACHERS READ A DISCLAIMER TO STUDENTS IN
  9TH GRADE BIOLOGY CLASS AS FOLLOWS

25
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require
  students to learn about Darwins theory of
  evolution and eventually to take a standardized
  test of which evolution is a part. Because
  Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being
  tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory
  is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which
  there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a
  well-tested explanation that unifies a broad
  range of observations. Intelligent design is an
  explanation of the origins of life that differs
  from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas
  and People, is available for students to see if
  they would like to explore this view in an effort
  to gain an understanding of what intelligent
  design actually involves. As is true with any
  theory, students are encouraged to keep an open
  mind. The school leaves the discussion of the
  origins of life to individual students and their
  families. As a standards-driven district, class
  instruction focuses upon preparing students to
  achieve proficiency on standards-based
  assessments.

26
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW

• ISSUE DOES THE SCHOOL POLICY CONSTITUTE A
  VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE 1ST
  AMENDMENT?
• HELD YES.
• U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JOHN JONES III RULED
  THAT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE REVEALED A SIGNIFICANT
  ASPECT OF ID IS THAT PROPONENTS IDENTIFIED IT AS
  A RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT WITH THE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY
  AS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER
• THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL ESTABLISHED
  THAT ID IS A RELIGIOUS VIEW, A MERE RE-LABELING
  OF CREATIONISM, AND IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY