<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A well-informed, even-handed assessment
Review:
Francis Beckwith's LAW, DARWINISM, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION does an excellent job of sorting through and analyzing the relevant court cases and legal arguments concerning the teaching of creation/evolution in public schools. With the emergence of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, a much stronger and more sophisticated case can be made, both empirically and philosophically, for the plausibility of a Creator and Designer. The strength of these arguments cannot justifiably be barred from public education curricula.
Beckwith suggests a point I would like to underscore: the "creation vs. evolution" debate is often a red herring, masking the more fundamental metaphysical issues at stake. First, there are theistic evolutionists (Howard Van Till calls this view "fully gifted creation"), who believe that God has been working through the evolutionary process in the unfolding of His purposes. Darwin himself started out believing this. In the early editions of *The Origin of Species*, Darwin himself spoke of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator" and "life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one" (Ch. 15, "Recapitulation and Conclusion"). Later, Darwin apparently gave up on his faith based, not on any scientific evidence, but due to theological and philosophical assumptions (which turn out to be deeply problematic: see Cornelius Hunter, DARWIN'S GOD [Brazos Press]). So the ultimate issue is not "creation vs. evolution" but "naturalism vs. supernaturalism." Whether we should prefer naturalistic explanations over supernaturalistic ones is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one.
Second, biological evolution presupposes (a) the emergence of the universe a finite time ago and (b) its delicately-balanced conditions for life. Without these, the process of evolution could not even get started. One could add that (c) simply because conditions are conducive to the emergence of life, this by no means guarantees that non-living matter will produce living organisms. The emergence of first life itself is a huge difficulty for the naturalist (see Bradley, Olson, and Thaxton, THE MYSTERY OF LIFE'S ORIGIN* [Philosophical Press])..
To underscore the constitutional legitimacy of ID in public education, one could make the minimalist case for bracketing the issue of biological evolution itself and first focusing specifically on a Creator and Designer as the best explanation for (a) the emergence of the universe from nothing a finite time ago and (b) the "Goldilocks effect"--that the many interlocking conditions for biological life are "just right." Even if evolution has taken place, the explanatory context of a powerful and intelligent Being makes much better sense of (a) and (b) than its naturalistic alternatives. Once these are in place, only then could evolution get going.
I heartily recommend Beckwith's refreshing, insightful book and wish it all the success it deserves.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis of legal issues surrounding ID
Review: At the outset of this review I think it only fair to note that I am a colleague of Dr. Beckwith's in that I serve as an attorney for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the nation's leading think-tank challenging neo-Darwinian evolution and promoting the study of intelligent design theory. Nonetheless, I first read this book prior to my involvement with DI and would not have joined them had I disagreed with Beckwith's analysis. This important book offers the most thorough and comprehensive treatment of the legal issues surrounding the teaching of intelligent design in the public school classroom. Beckwith rightly concludes that it is constitutionally permissible for public school teachers to discuss intelligent design in science classrooms. This book gives readers a general introduction to intelligent design and provides an analysis of older cases involving creationism. Yes, there is a real and significant legal distinction to be made between creationism and intelligent design, and Beckwith makes this clear. His own words give an insight into his correct conclusion: "...the Supreme Court has affirmed that a teacher engages in protected speech under the rubric of academic freedom (and thus the First Amendment) when she brings into the classroom relevant material that is supplementary to the curriculum (and not a violation of any other legal duties) and she has adequately fulfilled all of her curricular obligations. Given that, it seems to me that any government body that passed legislation to protect the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss in the classroom scientific alternatives to evolution, including design theory, would simply be affirming by statute or written policy what is already a fixed point in constitutional law." The recent controversies taking place in most states and school boards has NOT been over the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms, but only over the teaching of scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution. Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the Supreme Court's seminal decision in the area of origins science, points out that it is permissible to teach scientific criticisms of prevailing scientific theories. Beckwith drives home this point as well. Readers interested in this general topic would also probably benefit from reading the recently released "Darwinism, Design and Public Education," co-edited by Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. But Beckwith's book provides the single-best discussion of the legal issues surrounding intelligent design. This book was recently given high marks in the Harvard Law Review, and I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in this topic.
Rating:
Summary: Must Read for Law and Religion Buffs
Review: Beckwith is a fearless philosopher who has never been afraid to ruffle a few feathers along the way and THE LAW, DARWINISM AND PUBLIC EDUCATION is no exception. A must read for anyone interested in the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. Beckwith uses the legal philosopher's tools of logic and critical thinking to dissect what has formerly been a playground open only to scientists. His detractors loathe him because Beckwith is their worst nightmare, a highly intelligent, witty, young thinker who is not a creationist. When it comes to teaching creationism in public schools, Beckwith is no different than the guy with the darwin fish on the back of his car, he's against it. This book is not about that. This book deals with whether or not it is constitutionally permissible to teach Intelligent Design in public schools. This book is important for people on both sides of the I.D. debate to understand the potential ways the law may interpret this issue. Because at the end of the day, for better of worse, it is the courts who have the final say on subjects like this, not the scientists.
Rating:
Summary: Presents the Legal Case to teach ID in Schools
Review: Dr. Beckwith is an accomplished scholar at Princeton University. This work looks at the legal aspects of teaching alternatives to Darwinism. As a long time biology professor, I have always concluded that Darwinism is still around only because its true believers use the law to squelch alternative theories. As Beckwith convincingly shows, Darwinists know that once the other side is allowed a place at the table, the Darwinists will lose, so they do all they can to keep the other side out of academic discussions. This book explains why. One reason is, misinformation is rampant in this field. For example, it is often claimed that articles supporting ID have not been published in Science, Nature, or other peer-reviewed journals. Actually, this is simply not true, as Beckwith points out on page 43. Many articles have been published, although they did not use the words intelligent design, or they would not have been published (although some that have been published were fairly open about their position on Darwinism). The concern that ID is not acceptable until ID is accepted by the scientific community requires defining who the scientific community is. The fact is, much disagreement exists in the so called scientific community about Darwinism, although, when challenged by creationists and ID theorists, they close rank and pretend that the disagreement does not exist. The college where I teach at (a state supported school), as far as I know, all of the biology faculty are supporters of ID, as are most of my professional associates (Ph.D's almost all). Thus, my scientific community are firmly behind ID (and some are even creationists). Another problem is the incessant name calling, such as ID is purely mass-market claptrap that deserves to stay with other forms of creationism... in church. This response will not help to resolve the controversy and will only impede the much needed dialogue. Only an objective examination of the facts can resolve the controversy .
Rating: 
Summary: Scholarly Tome that Makes a Persuasive Case; One Criticism
Review: I am not a proponent of intelligent design or creationism, but I am law professor and know constitutional law. I must say that when I recently read the reviews of this book--the ones that gave it one star--I was puzzled. For they seem not to be based on an actual reading of the book. For example, one reviewer says that the book is about making a case for "teaching the controversy." Well, it isn't. It's about whether it would be constitutionally permissible to teach intelligent design in public schools. It is not even a defense of intelligent design. The author, in fact, makes that clear in the introduction. I don't know that much about the "Dembski demotion" except what I was able to find on the internet after I read about it here. To me, Beckwith's brief reference to it--which is used as an illustration in a discussion of academic freedom--is accurate and fair. He relies on two news accounts (if I remember correctly), and briefly gives Dembski's side (it was because of ID that he was demoted) and Baylor's side (it was because of uncollegial behavior that he was demoted). I have since read Dembski's "uncollegial" note that the reviewers are whining about. Those who are calling Beckwith's account inaccurate should thank him for not exposing the cowardice of the Baylor administration for using Dembski's moderately intemperate note as a pretext to placate the "tolerant" Baptist moderates who wanted him fired. Beckwith could have very easily quoted what these people had said and really made Dembski look like a saint. But that was not the point of this portion of his book; the point was to provide vignettes of cases that may provide reasons for a legislature or school board to protect critics of evolution from political intimidation. Back to the book. It's very well-done, highly-endnoted, and very carefuly in its analysis of the numerous court cases. My only criticism is that Beckwith does not offer criticisms of ID. I know that was not his point, since it is a legal brief and a science article. However, it would have still been nice anyhow.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written book with a modest conclusion
Review: I don't agree with Beckwith. I don't believe that ID is even permissible to teach in public schools if it is the only option to evolution offered (which is the same position as Kent Greenawalt, the Columbia U. law professor, whose major article on this can be found in the same issue of the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy as Beckwith's). However, Beckwith's case is the strongest one out there, and for that, I have great respect for what appears to be a powerful intellect. I think the book's major flaw is that it underestimates the role that religion plays in the motivations of ID advocates. Beckwith does address this by showing that appealing to motivation is logically fallacious (i.e., the genetic fallacy), and Beckwith is clearly correct. However, the courts are not arbitors of the logical soundness of argument. They are trying to make policy (even if they deny they are doing so). In short, this is well-done book, even though I think the author is wrong.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: Law, Darwinism, and Public Education is a well-written, well-researched, and thoroughly-argued book on the question of whether or not the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) would be in violation of the Establishment Clause (EC). Whereas in other books on ID the primary question is whether or not it meets (disputed) philosophical criterion for science, in LDPE the primary question is whether or not ID meets established legal precedent. Given this aim, the book unsurprisingly delves into the recent history of the EC and its application by the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, though, this exposition is never dry and boring, in spite of the fact that it has numerous (often one per sentence) references to court cases. The chapter on the legal issues was fascinating, and those who continue to challenge the legitimacy of teaching ID will face an uphill battle in demonstrating where ID violates the EC. It is essential to note that given that Creation Science/Scientific Creationism has been found to violate the EC, what Beckwith is investigating is whether or not Intelligent Design has the same legal status as Creation Science/Scientific Creationism. Thus, reviewers (one-star reviewers, I might add) who refer to ID as IDC both miss the point and beg the question concerning this book (one wonders if they have even read the thing). Legally (as well as scientifically/philosophically), the question is whether or not Intelligent Design and Creationism are identical or discernible. Critics of ID have repeatedly alleged that ID is "creationism in disguise" or "stealth creationism." I submit that the reviewers who give this book one star can accurately be referred to as "stealth reviewers." They are stealth reviewers because they, interestingly and unknowingly, challenge the major premise of ID. ID simply states that specified complexity is a reliable indicator of creative intelligence. Thus, when one sees an arrangement of flowers that spells out "South Pasadena" on the side of the 110 freeway, (s)he rightly concludes that the arrangement was intentional and hence the result of creative/designing intelligence. One need not have seen the South Pasadena city gardener plant the flowers to know they were planted. However, when one reads many (though not necessarily all) of the one-star reviews of ID books, the presence of specified complexity does not always signal that creative intelligence was responsible. The fact is that the specified complexity within the one-star reviews is not sufficient to demonstrate that they are the product of a creative intelligence. There is little that is creative or intelligent in those reviews.
Rating: 
Summary: It is "Your Daddy's Fundamentalism"
Review: Next to sex education, evolution is the most controversial school subject. This book makes the modest argument that an idea called "Intelligent Design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution. The author sets out a framework for analysis which unfortunately leads to the opposite conclusion, failing to achieve its modest goal. I read it because it received a glowing review in the Harvard Law Review, entitled, "Not Your Daddy's Fundamanetalism." The author's argument is that various court cases rejected creationism in public schools because it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The author argues that Intelligent Design should be treated differently. First it is not the "New Earth" creationism, which was rejected by the courts. Furthermore, attempts by various courts to define "science" fail on philosophical grounds, so there is no philosophical preference between evolution and Intelligent Design. Methodological Naturalism, the basis for evolution is not a scientific theory but a philosophical outlook no more or no less valid than Intelligent Design's outlook. The author does not conceal the fact that he objects to evolution because it "cannot account for the existence of the universe, morality rationality," and therefore it should be rejected on philosophical grounds as the overarching scientific theory of biology.
According to the author, the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Edwards v Aguillard, struck down the creationist law based on (1) the historical continuity with the famous Scopes trial and other well publicized creationist-evolutionist debates throughout the twentieth century; (2) How closely the curriculum content parallels the Genesis story or that curriculum is proscribed because it departs from Genesis; (3) the motives of the statute's supporters; and (4) Whether the statute was a legitimate means to achieve an appropriate state ends. The author attempts to argue that the analysis of these points applied to "Intelligent Design" leads to a different result. The author's suggested framework is plausible, but when applied to the facts as recognized by the author, himself, it fails. As a general proposition, how do we determine whether any idea is to be presented to students in an elementary school science class? A list of candidates could include atomic theory, Newtonian physics, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, yeti, astrology, ES, geocentricism, creationism and Intelligent design. The Author makes the incorrect and novel idea that a discipline, such as science or medicine, cannot define itself. Only philosophy, not coincidentally the author's area of expertise, is qualified to sort out which of the above ideas qualify as true "science." In McLean v Arkansas, the trial judge determined that "science" had several characteristics. Application of the McLean criteria would quickly eliminate yeti, ESP creationism and Intelligent Design from the above list, so the author suggests that "demarcation issues' prevent a trial judge from reliably distinguishing between "real science" and imposters. Beckwith especially relies on the methodology of Larry Laudan, who suggests that the demarcation is unsolvable, i.e., it is not possible or desirable to distinguish between science and non-science. Laudan however, completes the argument that Beckwith does not-Laudan holds that some ideas are demonstrably scientifically wrong. Laudan holds that it is possible to determine what those ideas are, and Intelligent Design is one of them. I don't know why the author did not refer to Laudan's specific rejection of Intelligent Design. Amazingly, at the time he wrote the book (2002), the author conceded that there was insufficient scholarly support for Intelligent Design. (p. 43, fn. 125). Since 2002, that situation has become worse, not better, according to the author, who, as of March 2004, holds that he does not favor teaching intelligent design in public schools because of a lack of scientific documentation for the theory (http://www.moteworthy.com/archives/000242.html). This is an amazing admission in light of the myriad of footnotes citing nearly all the Intelligent Design literature as of 2002, including the collected works of Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and William Demski. At this point, Beckwith's argument has to be re-phrased to, "Is it unconstitutional to teach incorrect ideas as established science?" After all, a law may be stupid without being unconstitutional. Although Beckwith (and Scalia) may disagree, a court is entitled to ask why on earth anyone would want to teach a subject such as intelligent design (or ESP) with no scientific evidence in support and vast amounts contradicting it. (Beckwith's analysis of evolution is cursory, incorrect and irrelevant to his argument). It is reasonable to suggest that the idea is a sham in an effort to inject religious creationism into science class. If so, then the four Edwards criteria make sense. Reference to the history of evolution /creationism debates, the religious motivations of Intelligent Design proponents, their extra-scientific comments, their refusal to address the evolution's scientific evidence and predictive powers and legislative history would all be relevant under the Edwards analysis. Applying the Edwards criteria to Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that it is a sham and should be treated the same as all other forms of creationism. Teaching about Intelligent Design in a philosophy, religion or history course would be a different matter entirely.
Rating:
Summary: It is "Your Daddy's Fundamentalism"
Review: Next to sex education, evolution is the most controversial school subject. This book makes the modest argument that an idea called "Intelligent Design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution. The author sets out a framework for analysis which unfortunately leads to the opposite conclusion, failing to achieve its modest goal. I read it because it received a glowing review in the Harvard Law Review, entitled, "Not Your Daddy's Fundamanetalism." The author's argument is that various court cases rejected creationism in public schools because it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The author argues that Intelligent Design should be treated differently. First it is not the "New Earth" creationism, which was rejected by the courts. Furthermore, attempts by various courts to define "science" fail on philosophical grounds, so there is no philosophical preference between evolution and Intelligent Design. Methodological Naturalism, the basis for evolution is not a scientific theory but a philosophical outlook no more or no less valid than Intelligent Design's outlook. The author does not conceal the fact that he objects to evolution because it "cannot account for the existence of the universe, morality rationality," and therefore it should be rejected on philosophical grounds as the overarching scientific theory of biology.
According to the author, the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Edwards v Aguillard, struck down the creationist law based on (1) the historical continuity with the famous Scopes trial and other well publicized creationist-evolutionist debates throughout the twentieth century; (2) How closely the curriculum content parallels the Genesis story or that curriculum is proscribed because it departs from Genesis; (3) the motives of the statute's supporters; and (4) Whether the statute was a legitimate means to achieve an appropriate state ends. The author attempts to argue that the analysis of these points applied to "Intelligent Design" leads to a different result. The author's suggested framework is plausible, but when applied to the facts as recognized by the author, himself, it fails. As a general proposition, how do we determine whether any idea is to be presented to students in an elementary school science class? A list of candidates could include atomic theory, Newtonian physics, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, yeti, astrology, ES, geocentricism, creationism and Intelligent design. The Author makes the incorrect and novel idea that a discipline, such as science or medicine, cannot define itself. Only philosophy, not coincidentally the author's area of expertise, is qualified to sort out which of the above ideas qualify as true "science." In McLean v Arkansas, the trial judge determined that "science" had several characteristics. Application of the McLean criteria would quickly eliminate yeti, ESP creationism and Intelligent Design from the above list, so the author suggests that "demarcation issues' prevent a trial judge from reliably distinguishing between "real science" and imposters. Beckwith especially relies on the methodology of Larry Laudan, who suggests that the demarcation is unsolvable, i.e., it is not possible or desirable to distinguish between science and non-science. Laudan however, completes the argument that Beckwith does not-Laudan holds that some ideas are demonstrably scientifically wrong. Laudan holds that it is possible to determine what those ideas are, and Intelligent Design is one of them. I don't know why the author did not refer to Laudan's specific rejection of Intelligent Design. Amazingly, at the time he wrote the book (2002), the author conceded that there was insufficient scholarly support for Intelligent Design. (p. 43, fn. 125). Since 2002, that situation has become worse, not better, according to the author, who, as of March 2004, holds that he does not favor teaching intelligent design in public schools because of a lack of scientific documentation for the theory (http://www.moteworthy.com/archives/000242.html). This is an amazing admission in light of the myriad of footnotes citing nearly all the Intelligent Design literature as of 2002, including the collected works of Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and William Demski. At this point, Beckwith's argument has to be re-phrased to, "Is it unconstitutional to teach incorrect ideas as established science?" After all, a law may be stupid without being unconstitutional. Although Beckwith (and Scalia) may disagree, a court is entitled to ask why on earth anyone would want to teach a subject such as intelligent design (or ESP) with no scientific evidence in support and vast amounts contradicting it. (Beckwith's analysis of evolution is cursory, incorrect and irrelevant to his argument). It is reasonable to suggest that the idea is a sham in an effort to inject religious creationism into science class. If so, then the four Edwards criteria make sense. Reference to the history of evolution /creationism debates, the religious motivations of Intelligent Design proponents, their extra-scientific comments, their refusal to address the evolution's scientific evidence and predictive powers and legislative history would all be relevant under the Edwards analysis. Applying the Edwards criteria to Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that it is a sham and should be treated the same as all other forms of creationism. Teaching about Intelligent Design in a philosophy, religion or history course would be a different matter entirely.
<< 1 >>
|
