What if the Dover School board had just put an alternative text in the library?

With respect to the Dover school board's case in general, intelligent design's godfather Phillip Johnson, transcribed here, muses in a recent note,

The Dover board could have placed the ID book in the library, and merely posted a notice that the book was available for any who wanted to know about a different view of the subject. In that case there would probably have been no teacher rebellion, no community commotion, no ACLU lawsuit, and no media circus.

However, that would not have satisfied the enthusiasts on the school board, who thought they had profound thoughts to express, or the lawyer, who wanted to win a test case. If the ACLU hd sued to remove a book from the library, the media might have looked at the case outside the "inherit the Wind" stereotype. It is always self-defeating for local citizens or school board members to write a disclaimer. It just sets up a target.

Johnson's alternative scenario will be easy to test.

The Design of Life, a supplemental textbook that critiques the hype of textbook Darwinism, is about to be released by the same Foundation that published Pandas (the book at the origin of the Dover suit). The official rollout is Monday, November 19.

Will TDOL's placement in school or public libraries trigger lawsuits? Will students be prevented from bringing personal copies to school? To mention anything they learned from the book to anyone on school property? We shall see ...

Right now, Darwinism is the Enron of biology and it is hard to imagine its proponents wanting the books balanced now or ever. So their cause is urgent.

Incidentally, political theorist Paul Marshall (Hudson Institute) told me in a recent note that European secularism in particular is assuming the character of Turkish secularism - that is, not only dogmatic but coercive. If that spreads to North America, I would not be surprised if there is a general purge of non-materialist books and ideas of all kinds and all degrees of merit from the education system, under the Orwellian guise of "avoiding conflict" or "equality" or "human rights" or some such.

What an interesting confluence of cultural events that would be!: Materialist atheism becomes the de facto religion of a school system supported by taxation of a population that overwhelmingly rejects it. Mind you, if the people choose to put up with that, it is their own fault.

Note: I will have more to say about the textbook later. I have seen the published version.

Phillip Johnson on the recent PBS Nova program on the Dover Trial - partial transcript

A friend was kind enough to provide a partial transcript of a podcast of ID lawyer Phillip Johnson talking about the recent PBS Nova episode on the Dover Trial. The interviewer is Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute.

Here are points I thought particularly salient:

Johnson: ... What's going on here is a process of soothing. The scientific establishment has decided that the way to get a reluctant American public to put aside their doubts and believe what they're being told in the mass media, and in the textbooks, and in the museums about evolution is absolutely true is to reassure them that it doesn't threaten [their] religion. Then after they have been talked into accepting the theory, then the types like Richard Dawkins will come out and say, "Well actually now that you've accepted it, we have to tell you that it does destroy your religion."

Luskin: And all this raises a question that I would be very interested in your answer in Professor Johnson, because you have followed this debate for many years. You're aware that for decades the scientific community has been issuing statements to the effect of science and religion do not conflict. They may even say they're totally different spheres that can't even conflict in principle. And yet public skepticism of evolution remains very high. What does this say to you? Why are these attempts to, as you put it, soothe religious people regarding evolution, really seems like it is failing (at least) the public that is largely religious and is still very skeptical.

Johnson: Yes, they are still very skeptical, and they don't believe the reassurances. They know in fact what's going on. The fact is that the public is not as stupid as the experts wish them to be.

Um, no.

Here's the whole of my friend's partial transcript:

Luskin: We can get a little bit of a sneak preview as to what this documentary is going to be about because they have actually been sending out briefing packets to teachers all around the country in public schools regarding how to deal with teaching evolution in schools. And, it's a very one-sided briefing packet (I've read through it) and it very much promotes the view that intelligent design is a religious view, that's not science and so forth. And of course as you said, this is the party line, and this is not too unexpected for them to be taking the party line. What was concerning was when they recommended in the teacher's guide that teachers basically inject religion into the science classrooms by discussing religious denominations that accept evolution. I would like to just read a brief excerpt from the briefing packet to you, Professor Johnson, and get your reaction to it for our listeners. The question asks, "Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?" And the answer goes on to say in part, "Yes, the common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false." And then later on it goes on to give various examples of religious denominations that accept evolution, and of course there is no mention of any religious views that might be skeptical of evolution in this briefing packet. So I guess my question for you is, of course, these people are entitled to whatever view they want as far as if religion conflicts with evolution, and of course, many religious people find no conflict with evolution. But, when they are recommending that public school teachers teach this sort of a view in the science classrooms for instance, does that raise any legal troubles in your mind?

Johnson: Well it raises legal troubles if you want to see them. The problem is that some our federal judges like Judge Jones in this program have decided to take on a role of protecting the science establishment from criticism of their most sacred doctrine. And so they don't want to see any legal problems and they won't. What one sees in this kind of approach is that when you teach evolution in the schools, you are bringing religious issues into the classroom, because when you're talking about how all forms of life came into existence, or God created, that is a religious issue. And if you say it was by unintelligent material forces only and God had nothing to do with it, which is the party line in the evolutionary science world, that is their consistent position, the fact that they're putting out a pamphlet with a statement like that just illustrates that when you're teaching evolution in the public schools, and you're teaching Darwinian evolution and the official line of the evolutionary science community, you're teaching religious questions. You're getting into those and then you have to sort out good religion from bad religion, which is what they're doing. They want to talk about the denominations that accept the evolutionary story that they're saying, that's good religion, that's the clear implication of what they're saying.

Luskin: True.

Johnson: So it could involve a legal issue I would think, yes, if you want to see it. If you try to get that in front of Judge Jones and get him to see the legal issue, he's not going to see it because he doesn't want to see it.

Luskin: And of course the briefing packet is actually following Judge Jones' approach quite closely. Judge Jones ruled that it was "utterly false" to say that religion conflicts with evolution and so forth. So…

Johnson: Legal question or not, that's very misleading language. That's why I object to it mainly is [because] it's misleading. What would be more accurate to say is that there is a dispute about whether the theory of evolution implies the non-existence of God as a creator. It's a matter that's in dispute, not something that is obviously settled the way that Judge Jones and the scientific establishment have decided that it ought to be settled. And in fact, one of the phenomenon that's in the news today, is that there is a big surge, just as we have a surge of troops in Iraq, there is a surge of scientific atheism in the scientific community. It is headed by Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor, who is the world's most prominent promoter of Darwinism, and also the world's most prominent promoter of atheism. Now if you ask Dawkins whether the Darwinian theory implies atheism, he's not going to answer "No," he's not going to answer like Judge Jones and the pamphlets you're quoting answer. So, it's no coincidence that the world's most prominent Darwinist is also the world's most prominent promoter of atheism. It's true that there are other people who take a different implication from Darwinism. People like Francis Collins, the head of the US government's human genome project. Collins is an outspoken evangelical Christian who says there's no conflict between Darwinian evolution and his religion. Collins is much publicized for this view, but when you read a news story about Collins, or a review of his book it will generally point out how remarkable a thing it is that Collins doesn't see a conflict between the scientific theory he is endorsing and his religious position. He is an exception. He's a remarkable person. So it's in dispute. It isn't clear. It isn't that everybody agrees that Darwinism does lead to atheism, or that it doesn't. There is a dispute about that matter. That makes it an important religious question. An accurate statement would be telling the students that the connection between Darwinism and atheism is in dispute. Not that it's been settled, that there's no connection. So, this is very typical that information is put out by the Darwinian establishment and its allies that is very seriously misleading. And then this is presented as absolute truth to the students in the schools, with that official endorsement. So, the students are being taught very misleading information, even outright lies. What's going on here is a process of soothing. The scientific establishment has decided that the way to get a reluctant American public to put aside their doubts and believe what they're being told in the mass media, and in the textbooks, and in the museums about evolution is absolutely true is to reassure them that it doesn't threaten [their] religion. Then after they have been talked into accepting the theory, then the types like Richard Dawkins will come out and say, "Well actually now that you've accepted it, we have to tell you that it does destroy your religion."

Luskin: (Laughs.)

Johnson: That's the one-two punch. First you soothe them into accepting something, then you hit them with the other shoe. These kinds of statements and materials that come out cannot be trusted. They are not honest. They attempt to give a very one-sided and hence misleading description of the situation. Many parents understand this and this is why they're so upset with what the schools are doing. These things get into the media and the reporters will ask the official scientific organizations for what they should print about it, and they'll say "Oh these people are religious fanatics that were completely unreasonable because they're seeing something we don't want them to see."

Luskin: And all this raises a question that I would be very interested in your answer in Professor Johnson, because you have followed this debate for many years. You're aware that for decades the scientific community has been issuing statements to the effect of science and religion do not conflict. They may even say they're totally different spheres that can't even conflict in principle. And yet public skepticism of evolution remains very high. What does this say to you? Why are these attempts to, as you put it, soothe religious people regarding evolution, really seems like it is failing (at least) the public that is largely religious and is still very skeptical.

Johnson: Yes, they are still very skeptical, and they don't believe the reassurances. They know in fact what's going on. The fact is that the public is not as stupid as the experts wish them to be.

Luskin: And do you think also that there are scientific doubts that the public has?

Johnson: Yes, there are. The public knows that the theory of evolution can be demonstrated or tested by experiment only at a relatively trivial level. When you ask an evolutionary scientist to come up with an example of how their theory has been demonstrated, they'll always come back to the same examples of things like insect populations becoming resistant to insecticides. They don't have any examples of insects changing into something fundamentally different as they would have to be able to do if the theory is true in a general way. So the situation that the public realizes is that evolution can be demonstrated or tested scientifically only at the trivial level of what's often called microevolution. Microevolution isn't really evolution at all. A better term for it would be adaptive variation. You do see some minor changes going on in populations or species. You do not see one kind of plant or animal evolving into something fundamentally different. The public knows this. They know something is being sold to them that's kind of like the way used cars are sometimes sold.

Luskin: Well, Professor Phillip Johnson, it has been wonderful having you on our show. This has been very enlightening. Thank you very much for sharing your insights with us today.

In the past, Johnson has referred to the strategy described above as the "two-platoon strategy". The first platoon, including various Jesus-hollering biology profs, assures people that mud-to-mind reasoning poses no threat to their faith. Once they have swallowed the bait, ... well if it does destroy their faith, they’re stuck with it now. Haw haw.

Darwinism and academic culture: Nature moves into an alternative reality

A friend writes to say that a recent book review in Nature on the now-famous Dover case (a "teaching evolution" controversy) claims that the Discovery Institute lobbied the Dover school board to adopt the policy (when in fact Disco strongly opposed it).

Now, I know for a fact that Disco was in institutional catfits about the unbelievably stupid Dover policy ever since they first heard about it. There wasn't anything they could do to prevent the subsequent meltdown, though they did try. (Their own recommendations to school boards are much more carefully crafted.than Dover was.)

My friend wonders how the Nature aficionados can live in such a counterfactual world. Well, first, we can safely say that, insofar as the Naturalizers invited an American Darwin lobbyist like Kevin Padian to explain it all for us, that was because the aficionados want to hear their worldview (same as his) confirmed, and they did. So what if it is an alternative reality?

Those interested in Disco's actual position will find it in this Montana law review article, or they can listen to this podcast.

Padian also says,

Conspicuously absent from the trial was William Dembski, the other pillar of intelligent-design 'research', who holds advanced degrees in maths and theology but none in science, and believes that intelligent design is the Logos of the Gospel of John restated in the language of information theory. His notion of 'specified complexity', a probabilistic filter that allegedly allows one to tell whether an event is so impossible that it requires supernatural explanation, has never demonstrably received peer review, although its description in his popular books (such as No Free Lunch, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) has come in for withering criticism from actual mathematicians. Plaintiffs' attorneys were eager to take him apart, but Dembski exited the proceedings in a suspicious eleventh-hour dispute about having his own lawyer represent him in deposition.

Dembski defends his impressive qualifications here.

Now, I didn't follow the Dover case much. I was busy writing The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (as co-author), so I couldn't have followed it even if I was interested. But as it happens, I wasn't interested. American school board fights bore me and historically, they change nothing.

Again, for those interested in what actually happened, there was nothing especially suspicious about Dembski withdrawing. Not only was he justifiably skeptical of the management of the case, but the manuscript for his own textbook, Design of Life was seized during the proceedings. It just wasn't a team he could be on.

I should add, in the interests of full disclosure, that I blog with Dembski (though I didn't back then). I helped Dembski collect a debt re Dover by making a noise about it. I also did some editorial work on Design of Life. But that was one of several jobs I had to quit, due to the demands of The Spiritual Brain. However, I have promised Dembski I'll write the index for Design, and will shortly do so. There, conspiracy freaks - that's plenty enough for you! Go to town on it!

In the end, neither Nature nor the U.S> Supreme Court can make Darwinism do what its proponents claim, though they can prevent productive discussions of the problem for as considerable time. Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution explains why. See my summary of his key arguments here. I have also been regularly updating my post on Stuart Pivar's struggles to get his non-Darwinian evolution theory heard.

Note: Prof. Peter Irons asks me to note that he published an article contra Disco in the same edition of the Montana Law Review. Noted!

Attacking books vs. seizing manuscripts

I rarely respond to comments, but this one, in response to the post on the seized manuscript for Design of Life may be worth making an exception for.

The group preventing open discussion of a manuscript is acting in the interests of an open society; and the group that is trying to bring this manuscript into public view is acting as an enemy of open society?

Peer review 101. Pronouncements are examined and discussed by scientists. Here's the chance that the proponents of a new "theory" have been asking for. How about welcoming it?

Yes, indeed, in an open society, published books are attacked. But the reader seems to have lost track of the fact that, in this case, the manuscript was seized from the publisher. That is a typical closed-society tactic. It also signals that Darwinism is a bankrupt ideology.

After thirty-four years in publishing, the comfort I can offer publishers is that those who engage in such tactics have no moral certainty of their own position. And indeed they should not.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar. )

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

Publisher compelled to turn over manuscript of ID-friendly textbook

When analyzing the conflict between two groups of ID advocates in the Dover school board case, which involves the ID-friendly textbook, Of Pandas and People. I noted that ID theorist Bill Dembski, who was fired as an expert witness because he insisted on bringing his own lawyer, was probably trying to protect the successor to Pandas from hostile publicity about an early stage of the manuscript. Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the Pandas publisher, has written a letter to its supporters that supports my interpretation:

On its face, the suit seeks a change in school policy and the removal of the library copies of Pandas. But more important than the censorship of Pandas to the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is the plan to abort the book that will succeed Pandas, The Design of Life. Now think of it: The Design of Life isn’t even published yet, and they have seized it! FTE, its Academic Editor, Dr. William Dembski, and the book’s authors have been working on The Design of Life for several years. Our plans were for a 2005 or 2006 copyright date. So, we were forced to hire an attorney of our own.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar. )

In a move that I have certainly never heard of before, editor Dembski was apparently forced to turn over his manuscript to the ACLU:

The ground is shifting beneath us. In spite of a Motion for Protective Order filed for us by Jeff Mateer of Mateer & Shaffer, the Court upheld the ACLU’s subpoena of this work-in-progress. To comply with the protective order, FTE had to turn over the manuscript of this forthcoming textbook to the ACLU, which, in turn, gave it to FTE’s other adversaries, including the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE has kept a file on FTE for decades. It is this vigilante-style advocacy group out of Berkeley, CA that instigated the attempt to censor these books, and militantly opposes even the most basic freedoms for proponents of intelligent design.

They are, of course, too smart to try to censor The Design of Life outright. But having copies of the manuscript will give the ACLU and its allies a huge advantage as they work to intimidate science teachers who otherwise would consider using the book once it’s published. Yet FTE has invested much time and drained significant resources to develop the book, and could, itself, be destroyed, if its market is carpet-bombed by hostile media across the country upon its release.

Somehow, I don’t think carpet-bombing will work. I predict a showdown instead, between the ID theorists and groups that have clearly begun to act as enemies of the open society.

The ACLU and their allies have more than a dozen lawyers on this case. Thankfully, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has approved a grant for $100,000 to help finance an expanded legal team on our side through The Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, Texas. (None of these funds will come to FTE). Both sides in the lawsuit predict the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I sense the frustration the publisher feels. The Supreme Court could go either way on the open society. Many judges are elitists. But a court cannot stop people from knowing that there are serious problems with Darwinism and with the religion of naturalism that it upholds. Meanwhile, a publisher naturally worries most about the fate of his own books.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.