N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
It's probably worth quoting the post by Dembski to which Bill was responding:
| Quote | Life After Dover
William Dembski
Before the Dover trial concludes, I want to offer some remarks about what I take will be its long-term significance. I want to do this now so that critics wont be in a position to accuse me of spinning or rationalizing the outcome of the trial once it is reached (of course, theyll still find fault, but thats par for the course).
As I see it, there are three possible outcomes:
1. The Dover policy, in which students are informed that the ID textbook Of Pandas and People is in their library, is upheld.
2. The Dover policy is overturned but the scientific status of ID is left unchallenged.
3. The Dover policy is not only overturned but ID is ruled as nonscientific.
For what its worth, my subjective probabilities are that outcome 1. has about a 20% probability, outcome 2. has about an 70% probability, and outcome 3. has less than a 10% probability. (Part of what prompts these numbers is that the ACLU is completely outmanning the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the Dover policy. When I was an expert witness in the case, TMLC had one full-time person on the case and two or three part-timers. The ACLU, by contrast, had at least twelve full-timers on the case.)
Of course, I regard 1. as the best outcome for ID. Thats not to say I think the Dover policy is particularly astute. Indeed, thats why the ACLU has come to this case both guns blazing, namely, because the policy is less than optimally formulated and they hope that they can take down not only the policy but also ID with it (their model is what happened to creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in the 80s).
Fortunately, ID is in a much stronger position scientifically than creationism, so the ACLU faces a much tougher opponent than back then (go, for instance, here and here). Unfortunately, members of the Dover school board have, through their actions, conflated ID with an apparent religious agenda. For instance, it doesnt help the ID side that William Buckingham, then a member of the Dover school board, in trying to get the Dover policy adopted, remarked: Two thousand years ago somebody died on the cross, cant somebody stand up for him? (Go here.)
If the policy is upheld, it will embolden school boards, legislators, and grass roots organizations to push for intelligent design in the public school science curriculum. As a consequence, this case really could be a Waterloo for the other side.
But will outcome 2. or 3. constitute a Waterloo for ID? Outcome 2. certainly wont. It may make policy makers more cautious about how they incorporate ID into educational policy. But it certainly wont stop them, especially with Santorum language in the Federal Governments education policy (go here).
That leaves outcome 3. Although I would hate to see this happen, mainly because of all the young people who would continue to be indoctrinated into a neo-Darwinian view of biological origins, this would hardly spell the end of ID. For one thing, ID is rapidly going international and crossing metaphysical and theological boundaries. The idea that ID is purely an American thing can no longer be sustained. Interest is growing internationally and it will continue to grow regardless of the outcome of the trial. Also, ID is of great interest to college and graduate students, so these ideas will continue to be discussed.
But the most important thing to understand about this case is that the significance of a court case depends not merely on the judges decision but also on the cultural forces that serve as the backdrop against which the decision is made. Take the Scopes Trial. In most persons minds, it represents a decisive victory for evolution. And yet, in the actual trial, the decision went against Scopes (he was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute against teaching evolutionary theory).
Thus, unlike outcome 1., which would be a Waterloo for the other side, I dont see outcome 3. as anything like a Waterloo for our side. It would make life in the short-term more difficult, and it certainly would not be pleasant to have to endure the gloating by the other side, but the work of ID would continue. In fact, it might continue more effectively than under outcome 1., which might convince people that ID has already won the day when in fact ID still has a long way to go in developing its scientific and intellectual program.
To sum up, we might say that outcome 1. would be a recipe for complacency, outcome 2. would encourage us to take greater care and try again, and option 3. would inspire us to work that much harder for IDs ultimate success. I trust that Providence will bring about the outcome that will best foster IDs ultimate success. The important thing is IDs intellectual vitality.
Whether favor or adversity is, at least for now, the best tonic for IDs intellectual vitality remains to be seen. |
It's clear that the outcome was Dembski's #3. It is not clear that ID has continued to grow, and the only metaphysical boundaries that it has been crossing lately are ones associated with ethics and unwitting comedy. It is more clear than ever that "ID still has a long way to go in developing its scientific and intellectual program."
Science has continued to make nifty new discoveries since Dover, as it would have done no matter what legal judgement was reached. ID has produced approximately nothing (a few more bogus arguments from Behe, and nothing of substance from Dembski, except for a flap over cafeteria access at Baylor). Moreover, that's probably just about all the cdesign proponentsists would have produced if they had won in Pennsylvania.
And, yes, the producers did a great job with that program. Way to go, PBS!
|
