Thomas More Law Center Responds to UPenn Professors
Nick mentioned this in a couple of comments, but I think it needs a post of its own.
Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the Dover Area School District’s new “intelligent design” policy, responded to an open letter from biology and philosophy professors at the University of Pennsylvania. I don’t think I’m the only one who finds it amusing that a lawyer thinks that he can correct Ivy League biologists about biology and science. Thompson begins,
Thompson wrote:
If the level of inquiry supporting your letter is an example of the type of inquiry you make before arriving at scientific conclusions, I suggest that at the very least, your students should get their tuition money back, and more appropriately, the University should fire you as a scientist. It is clear that you do not have the slightest idea of the actual Dover school policy that you so vehemently condemn, and so let me educate you.
Wow, looks like the Dover Area School District sure picked a winner to represent them. There are numerous problems with Thompson’s accusations, as I will demonstrate below.
Thompson continues,
Thompson wrote:
You write that the Dover school Board made a decision to “mandate the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ along with evolution.” That statement is untrue; in fact the opposite is the case. The school board policy specifically states: “No teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs.”
The school district’s press release on the new biology curriculum policy is internally inconsistent. Thompson uses this inconsistency to avoid facts unfavorable to his case. The biology curriculum has actually been amended to include the following objective:
DASD wrote:
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught.
Based on this new curriculum change, the UPenn professors are correct that the school board has mandated the inclusion of “intelligent design” in the classroom. Nothing in the press release suggests that this language has been removed from the curriculum. However, being the inconsistent document it is, the press release also includes the following sentence:
DASD wrote:
The Superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, has directed that no teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs.
Thompson emphasizes this sentence in his letter, ignoring how inconsistent it is with the rest of the facts of the case. The statement that will be read to biology students indeed introduces “intelligent design” into the classroom at the mandate of the school district. Thompson can use this inconsistency to disclaim the board’s policy all he wants, but that doesn’t change the board’s policy. Thompson continues,
Thompson wrote:
Regarding your dispute with the definition of theory, you fail to include the actual definition used in the policy, “A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.” That definition was recommended by the science teachers and adopted by the school board.
The statement that will be read to the students is also internally inconsistent. It clearly derives from classic “anti-evolution” language used by special creationists and “intelligent design” activists. Statements taken from standard biology curricula appear to have been mixed in. In all, it is a hodge-podge constructed mainly by ignorant individuals trying to not get sued. The UPenn professors were right in their criticism that the statement’s section on “theory” is misleading to students. Thompson’s appeal to the statement’s internal inconsistency doesn’t change that. Thompson continues,
Thompson wrote:
the only theory taught in class is Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the only textbook used in class is the standard text positing this theory.
“Darwin’s theory?” I wonder if Thompson has ever even heard about Wallace, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Dobzhansky, Kimura, and the many other biologists that have contributed to the vast field of evolutionary biology. It hasn’t been Darwin’s theory for a long time. If the curriculum mentions anything about genes being involved in evolution, they are not teaching Darwin’s theory; they are teaching the modern synthesis. Anti-evolutionists do tend to make the mistaken projection of implying that modern biology consists of nothing more than following the century-old authority of an English gentleman.
Getting back to the happenings in Dover, Thompson is a bit disingenuous here. The school board has passed a biology curriculum change that would require “intelligent design” to be taught as an alternate “theory.” (Making aware is teaching.) However, the biology teachers made it clear that they would not develop any such curriculum for the board. (There is nothing to develop it from.) Without anyone willing to do their dirty work for them, the board decided to craft a statement based on the politics of “intelligent design” creationism, and have the teachers read it to their students. This statement teaches that “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view” and urges students to investigate it in Of Pandas and People, a “reference book” available from the school. Thompson goes on to say,
Thompson wrote:
I notice that your open letter was signed by a member [sic] of the Department of Philosophy. What does philosophy have to do with this issue?
Perhaps Thompson should ask Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, William Dembski, Jay Richards, Francis Beckwith, Paul Nelson, Robert Koons, J. Budziszewski, Robin Collins, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, John Mark Reynolds and the many other philosophers connected with the Discovery Institute and the “intelligent design” movement. It is plainly obvious that the “intelligent design” movement derives much more of its material from philosophers (and other non-scientists) than scientists. Even in its cadre of genuine scientists, experience with evolutionary biology and biology in general is lacking. Thompson continues,
Thompson wrote:
This issue is not about science versus philosophy; it is about two different interpretations of the same scientific data by scientists.
I’m curious if Thompson can identify what the scientific data is, what those interpretations are, what critically peer-reviewed scientific papers they have been presented in. I doubt he can do any of these. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has investigated such claims and concluded
AAAS wrote:
individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of “intelligent design,” demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
The purpose of Thompson’s organization is “to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.” Now, Thompson has claimed that the school policy is only about science, but if his claim was true, why would he be involved? Thompson continues,
Thompson wrote:
I assume you would agree that the metaphysical implication of Darwin’s theory of evolution has no place in the science classroom. Or perhaps it is for this very reason that you so staunchly and dogmatically defend Darwin and place his theory above all criticism.
We have now seen the reason why the Thomas More Law Center, champion of Christian values, is involved in this case and why its chief counsel has responded so vociferously to these UPenn professors. Clearly, the above passage derives from the classic anti-evolutionist position: “evolution is atheism, and the biological establishment only supports evolution because of their dogmatic, atheistic religion.” The Thomas More Law Center is defending the Dover Area School District because it wants to defend Christians from biology and dogmatic biologists. Thompson isn’t done,
Thompson wrote:
In conclusion, the Dover policy merely makes students aware of a growing controversy in the scientific community over the extent to which the theory of evolution can explain complex biological systems.
Too bad no such controversy exists. When real controversies exist in science, they are between scientists in relevant fields actively researching, experimenting, publishing their results on the issue in critically peer-reviewed journals, and actively defending their work at mainstream, general conferences and in further scientific publications. Clearly, “intelligent design” does not fit this pattern. Teaching students otherwise is neither honest nor fruitful education. Thompson continues his conclusion,
Thompson wrote:
This policy promotes critical thinking, which is important not only for the science profession, but for education in general.
On its face, the policy does not promote critical thinking, since it insulates “intelligent design” from being critically examined by students. The policy includes no mention that “intelligent design” has gaps or problems or even the fact that it has no scientific support whatsoever.
Pedagogically, encouraging students, with less than a week of study, to critically examine evolution is problematic. They simply would not know enough about the centuries of biological research behind evolution to make informed, critical examinations. It is important in science education for students to be able to understand their deficiencies in knowledge. If they know what they don’t know, they can then set out to learn it. This malformed policy violates that goal. Thompson ends,
Thompson wrote:
Moreover, this policy is in keeping with the Congressional intent behind the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and complements an honest science education.
Thompson is wrong about the No Child Left Behind Act. Congress’s intent with NCLB is very clear; they never enacted into law Santorum’s amendment which contained “teach the controversy” language. By decision of Congress it was intentionally removed. In addition, the law specifically states that is does not dictate anything against local control:
Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction.
Sec 1905 of Public Law 107-110
Thompson argues for honest science education. Intelligent design, however, is not science but pseudoscience. How is presenting pseudoscience as science being honest?
Full Text of the UPenn Letter
5 January 2005
Dover Area School Board 2 School Lane Dover, PA 17315
An Open Letter to the Dover Area School Board:
As scientists, scholars, and teachers, we are compelled to point out that the quality of science education in your schools has been seriously compromised by the decision to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” along with evolution. Science education should be based on ideas that are well supported by evidence. Intelligent design does not meet this criterion: It is a form of creationism propped up by a biased and selective view of the evidence.
In contrast, evolution is based on and supported by an immense and diverse array of evidence and is continually being tested and reaffirmed by new discoveries from many scientific fields. The evidence for evolution is so strong that important new areas of biological research are confidently and successfully based on the reality of evolution. For example, evolution is fundamental to genomics and bioinformatics, new fields which hold the promise of great medical discoveries.
According to the York Daily Record (November 23, 2004), you issued a statement claiming that “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.” This is extraordinarily misleading. While one can refer to the general body of modern evolutionary knowledge as “theory,” the same is true of all other scientific knowledge, such as the theory of relativity or the theory of continental drift. It is one of the hallmarks of scientific inquiry that all such ideas are open to testing and reinterpretation. That theories are open to testing, however, does not mean that they are wrong. Evolution has been subject to well over a century of continual testing. The result: Its reality is no more in dispute among biologists than, for example, the existence of atoms and molecules is among chemists.
Our students need to be taught the method and content of real science. We urge you to alter the misguided policy of teaching intelligent design creationism in your high school science curriculum. Instead, empower students with real, dependable scientific knowledge. They need this knowledge to understand the world around them, to compete for admission to colleges and universities, and to compete for good jobs. They deserve nothing less.
Sincerely,
Paul Sniegowski Associate Professor Department of Biology
Michael Weisberg Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy
Members of the Departments of Biology and Philosophy:
Prof. Edwin Abel Prof. Andrew Binns Prof. Anthony Cashmore Prof. Brenda Casper Prof. Dorothy Cheney Prof. Karen Detlefsen Prof. Zoltan Domotor Prof. Arthur Dunham Prof. Samuel Freeman Prof. Warren Ewens Prof. Steven Gross Prof. Greg Guild Prof. Paul Guyer Prof. Gary Hatfield Prof. Michael Hippler Prof. Daniel Janzen Prof. Peter Petraitis Prof. Scott Poethig Prof. Philip Rea Prof. Dejian Ren Prof. Marc Schmidt Prof. Paul Schmidt Prof. Richard Schultz Prof. Tatanya Svitkina Prof. Kok-Chor Tan Prof. Lewis Tilney Prof. Doris Wagner Prof. Eric Weinberg Prof. Scott Weinstein Prof. Sally Zigmond
Associate Dean David Balamuth (Natural Sciences), Department of Physics
Full Text of TMLC Letter
Thomas More Law Center
Richard Thompson Chief Counsel Admitted in Michigan
January 7,2005
Paul Sniegowski University of Pennsylvania Department of Biology 415 S. University Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018
Michael Weisberg University of Pennsylvania Department of Philosophy 415 S. University Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018
Response to open letter dated January 6,2005:
If the level of inquiry supporting your letter is an example of the type of inquiry you make before arriving at scientific conclusions, I suggest that at the very least, your students should get their tuition money back, and more appropriately, the University should fire you as a scientist. It is clear that you do not have the slightest idea of the actual Dover school policy that you so vehemently condemn, and so let me educate you.
You write that the Dover school Board made a decision to “mandate the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ along with evolution.” That statement is untrue; in fact the opposite is the case. The school board policy specifically states: “No teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs.”
Moreover, the school board adopted and purchased the biology textbooks for its students that were recommended by the school science teachers and the administration.
Regarding your dispute with the definition of theory, you fail to include the actual definition used in the policy, “A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.” That definition was recommended by the science teachers and adopted by the school board.
Finally, you are under the impression that Dover students will not be taught evolution, Let me disabuse you of that concern. The policy specifically acknowledges that the students must learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and take a standardized test in which evolution is a part. Accordingly, the only theory taught in class is Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the only textbook used in class is the standard text positing this theory.
I notice that your open letter was signed by a member of the Department of Philosophy. What does philosophy have to do with this issue? This issue is not about science versus philosophy; it is about two different interpretations of the same scientific data by scientists. I assume you would agree that the metaphysical implication of Darwin’s theory of evolution has no place in the science classroom. Or perhaps it is for this very reason that you so staunchly and dogmatically defend Darwin and place his theory above all criticism.
In conclusion, the Dover policy merely makes students aware of a growing controversy in the scientific community over the extent to which the theory of evolution can explain complex biological systems. This policy promotes critical thinking, which is important not only for the science profession, but for education in general. Moreover, this policy is in keeping with the Congressional intent behind the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and complements an honest science education.