SGU Episode 15

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Geneocide (talk) as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

This episode needs: proofreading, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing!

How to Contribute

SGU Episode 15
6th October 2005
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 14                      SGU 16
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
P: Perry DeAngelis
Guest
C: Chris Mooney
Links
Download Podcast
SGU Podcast archive
SGU Forum

Introduction

S: Hello and welcome again to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society. Today October 6^th, 2005. With me tonight are Perry DeAngelis...

P: Hello.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Good evening all.

S: Bob cannot be with us tonight but I'm sure he will be with us again next week.

Interview with Chris Mooney: Intelligent Design 0:28

S: Tonight we have just one item on the schedule. We have a guest with us tonight, Chris Mooney. Chris a friend of mine back when he was at Yale and he was running a skeptical group at Yale at the time. He is a journalist and a writer who operates, and this is a quote, I can't remember who the quote is from,

at the intersection of science and politics.

He is the author of a recently released book which is–is it still on the New York Times Bestseller List? It was recently.

C: Yeah. It may not be when they release the next one.

S: Right. Okay. The Republican War on Science. He's a regular contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer, writes an online column for CSICOP called Doubt and About. He's a contributing columnist for a new online media group called the Seed Media Group which is–we'll ask him about it but basically it's mission statement says that it promotes the culture of science and is trying to promote public understanding and appreciation for science. Also the author of numerous, numerous articles and op eds on a range of topics from politics to science and the law and culture. Chris, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide.

C: Yeah. Thanks for having me.

S: So, let me–let's start with a topic that is a favorite of ours on this show namely intelligent design. I understand from reading your blog that you've been covering the court case that's going on right now. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

C: Sure. Yes. I've been in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for three days of trial so far. I wish I could have caught more but things have been kind of crazy but I did see Wednesday through Friday of the first week of the trial and it is–all I've seen is the ACLU and it's co-litigants making a case against the Dover School Board which had introduced intelligent design into the curriculum and so far the board has been able to make it's case defending itself...

S: Right.

C: the (inaudible) making it's case. And that was–the board's defense will come later but so far they've brought in experts on science, on philosophy of science and on theology to make the argument that intelligent design is not science and is religion and I think they've been very effective at that.

S: Is that the core of their case?

C: That is the core of their case, and, of course, if it's–if the purpose of introducing intelligent design into the curriculum is to advance religion then it's unconstitutional.

S: Right.

C: Because the purpose has to be primarily secular. That's what the law–that's what the legal test is.

S: Right. So, from what I've read elsewhere there's sort of two pieces to their case. One is that it's not science but the–and the other is what you just said. That it's specifical purpose it to promote religion.

C: That's right.

S: So that–those are sort of the two–the two pieces that they're doing and they're doing a good job of it, huh?

C: Yeah, and they're linked together, right? Cause if it isn't science then what is it?

S: Then what is it? Right.

C: So.

S: But I think one–again in one article I read about it said that the judge can rule specifically on what the purpose–forget about whether or not it's scientific or not but the–if the purpose is overtly religious...

C: Mm hmm.

S: the judge can rule against the school board on that basis alone.

C: Yeah. I guess so.

S: Yeah. So–does that seem to coincide with the case the ACLU and the others are making?

C: Sure. Sure. I think that ever–what some people would like to see on the defense of evolution side is the judge do a really sweeping opinion.

S: Mm hmm.

C: Both explaining why intelligent design isn't science and so forth and also explaining why it is religion. That's certainly what I think evolution defenders would hope for. Something in the vein of the 1981-82 McLean vs. Arkansas case which is very parallel...

S: Right.

C: to the current Dover case in a lot of ways because in that case what was being introduced into a curriculum for Arkansas was not intelligent design but creation science but all the legal issues were exactly the same.

S: Mm hmm.

C: And the legal strategies were exactly the same. Almost exactly the same.

S: Right.

C: The judge was very powerfully in favor in evolution and ruled that way.

S: So there's a lot of legal precedence that would seem to favor the anti-intelligent design case...

C: Yeah.

S: in this situation. And I guess it really comes down to whether or not the judge rules that intelligent design as it is being used here, or formulated here, essentially is creationism. Do those precedents apply? And I guess that's why everyone is watching this case very closely.

C: Sure.

S: Cause this is sort of precedent setting in terms of intelligent design specifically.

E: And it's a federal case. I think it's the first time this is being argued in federal court.

S: Intelligent design is.

E: Intelligent design. Right. Right.

S: Creationism has multiple times. What level of fe–do you know what level of federal court is this?

C: This is the district court. This is the federal district court in Harrisburg and if appealed it will go to I believe third circuit or supreme court. But again, whether this one is going to be appealed or not is up for grabs. I mean, certainly in McLean vs. Arkansas the district judge wrote a very resounding opinion denouncing the creation science strategy in no uncertain terms. It wasn't appealed. It just sort of stood.

S: Yeah. I wonder if it would almost be better if this does go to the supreme court. Cause then–cause a decision at that level would be more sweeping in it's implications that at the–at this level. Do you think that's true or even that the president at this level is adequate for our purposes?

C: I think that the defendant of evolution, ACLU, National Center for Science Education, the others prosecuting this case think that this is a very good case for them. Because, first of all it's not that hard to show that intelligent design has religious content. It's not that hard to show that school board that enacted the intelligent design policy, that they were–had religious motivations because some of them–statements at public meetings tend to make that pretty clear. So, for these reasons I think they think it's a strong case for them.

S: Mm hmm.

C: And so, yeah, I think that they'd probably be glad to appeal it. But I think that there are going to be other legal fights...

S: Right.

C: where the battle may be a little bit more difficult. So...

S: This is a good case for us. What would make it more difficult. I mean, are you referring to specifically Kansas or any other venue that you're talking about?

C: Right.

P: And you mean more difficult for the evolution side.

C: Yes. Yes, I do. And what I mean is that in Dover, Pennsylvania the school board put intelligent design, the words intelligent design into their curriculum and they voted on it. And they also included referred students to Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design textbook.

S: Right.

C: And what happens if the school district, either local or state board of education just says, "We are going to teach the gaps in evolution," and doesn't say anything else? Or, "We are going to teach that evolution is just a theory."

S: Right.

C: Doesn't offer any alternative. Well, is that religion?

S: That's a harder legal case to make.

C: How do you prove that? The way you prove it would be, I guess, you would go to the creationist literature and you'd find that these specific attacks on evolution they're teaching only come from creationists.

S: Right. Right.

C: But it's harder, because they're not introducing any creationist content. They're just attacking evolution. And I think that that's what's coming.

S: Mm hmm. Well, I think–certainly over the last 30-40 years the creationists have been modifying and modifying their strategy. They're gonna, I think, try everything that they can. I don't know where they would go after that but I'm sure they'll think of something.

C: (laughter) After that I don't know.

S: There–I don't think they're going to give this up any time soon. It'll just have–It'll have to be refought in different guises, I think, over and over again. But I don't think that they're fooling anybody in terms of the legality of this. I think whenever it gets to–maybe at the school board level–at the grassroots level they can certainly pack boards and have some short term victories but whenever this gets to a high court and you're arguing the case with the rules of evidence as they apply in a courtroom the creationists always gets crushed.

C: So far, anyway.

S: So far. I think it would take a pretty–an ideologically conservative judge to really–to score a victory for the creationists in these kinds of cases.

C: Right. But remember though the 1987 case was the strongest precedent was a supreme court decision saying that Louisiana could not teach quote "creation science" alongside evolution. And this was a 7-2 supreme court decision but there were two, and two were Scalia and Rehnquist.

S: Right. Right. Remember that.

C: So if you get more of those people on the supreme court or if you just get a lower court judge that is of a Scalia or Rehnquist mindset then these cases go differently. Theoretically.

S: That's true. I mean, that's true–and I read Scalia's dissent in that case very carefully and if I recall his position is not that creationism is science or not religion or whatever. His position basically is that this is a state's rights issue and the constitution does not specifically forbid it.

C: Mm hmm.

S: So, I don't know. Do you agree with that? I think that's the position that would allow these kind of cases to go against evolution.

C: That's my sense. And also, in that opinion if I recall correctly, he said something along the lines of, "Surely just criticism of evolution can be taught." Something like that, and that I think is where the strategy is going to end up going.

S: Right.

References