|
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
|
|
Op-Ed
The Constitutionality of Thought-Control By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Robert R. Guzzardi, Esquire
The 1925 Scopes Trial led to the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools. Dramatized in the play/movie “Inherit the Wind” (by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee), the outcome of the case established the need to disengage science and religion in public education. Yet, eight decades later, America seems to have gone full-cycle, for evolution has now received a judicial imprimatur as the sole approach—excluding all other hypotheses.
Just as the holiday season greeted Pennsylvanians with its customary brisk winds, along came the judgment that Darwin’s Theory on Evolution should be immune from academic challenge. Bundle-up with us as we refute the rationale of this startling opinion, which is available on the internet [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf].
The Dover Area School Board of Directors, on October 18, 2004, had adopted the policy that “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. Note: Origins of Life [e.g., Creationism] is not taught.” This was an even-handed way to challenge students to think for themselves. Although secularists and agnostics might segue gently over such a seemingly-welcome admonition, the Board wisely concomitantly subjected all theories to disinterested scrutiny and explicitly excluded Creationism from study.
When implemented, the simple meaning of the word “theory” was defined for educators and parents as “a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.” Ninth grade students were warned against “temptation” to leap reflexly as they learned, no matter how convincing the argument may appear, from postulate to fact. “Testability” is inherent in science, and nothing was to be exempted.
The school board merely recognized the availability of a text (Of Pandas and People) addressing Intelligent Design [“ID”] yet, all the while, encouraged “open-mindedness.” They maintained that “The school leaves discussion of the Origin of Life to individual students and their families.” They only emphasized the use of a “Standards-Driven” curriculum, to maximize students’ proficiency when taking a state-level standardized test.
This seems reasonable to us, as parents constantly subject to “critique” by our children. We revel in the interactions sparked by classroom debates. After our teenagers have been formally instructed about Darwin’s excursions on the Beagle, it is irrelevant if they privately ponder whether a “God” could have created a world that then evolved? “Passing” The Endorsement Test The “Endorsement Test” (promulgated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) is used to analyze whether governmental actions violate the First Amendment by excluding non-believers from a sense of community. It evaluates whether “government transgresses the limits of neutrality and acts in ways that show religious favoritism or sponsorship.” So, why was Dover’s policy found to be tantamount to introducing religion into schools, when its proponents didn’t advocate for “Creationism” or any other theological stance? Because it was opined, “An objective observer would know that Intelligent Design and teaching about ‘gaps’ and ‘problems’ in Evolutionary Theory are creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of Creationism.” [“Objective”? “Evolved”?] The court leaped to this conclusion by mounting a tangential, ad hominem attack on the perceived motivations, belief systems, distinctive personalities and flawed presentations of some educators wishing only a critical analysis of Darwin’s random natural selection. This exclusive thread of heinous political advocacy was traced tenuously from (evil) creationism, through the (devious) ID Movement, to any (critical analysis of) Evolution. Working backwards, critique of Darwin’s “Natural Selection” idea was necessarily based on religious fundamentalism. His analysis tolerated no road-forks, legal or data-based, when adhering to “common-link ancestors.” Judicially, his logic could not be interrupted by expressing alternate formulations, effectively suppressing expression of dissent. Scientifically, his linear theory could not be discounted by discordant fossil-evidence. This leap was achieved by lambasting a straw-dog (Creationism), without acknowledging Dover’s unambiguous policy of noting the existence of other constructs such as ID while advocating instruction only of Evolutionism! The underlying irrational fear was that the Pandas book lurked outside of the classroom, but remained inside the school (library)! Pandas was said to endorse a deity’s existence, despite its stated intent: “By now, you are aware that you have a mind of your own. Here is a good opportunity to use it.” It then provided six “excursions”: The Origin of Life, Genetics and Macroevolution, The Origin of Species, The Fossil Record, Homology, and Biochemical Similarities. The opinion concluded scientific arguments regarding “irreducible complexity” could only serve to attack evolution, but not to support ID. Further, supporting ID by invoking a possible “purposeful arrangement of parts” was not concluded to have been sufficiently documented. [If a bacterial flagellum needs 40 parts to function, do 39 work partially (Darwin) or not-at-all (ID)?] ID-based science was found not to have been predicated on the peer-reviewed literature, a point hotly (if inarticulately) disputed by ID-advocates. Disclaiming Disclaimers The Opinion concluded that the unique nature of this introductory comment set it apart from the rest of the biology curriculum—indeed the entire school’s curriculum—when it noted the existence of standardized testing. Thus, ignored was the possibility that, even were this to be pivotal concern, an identical statement could be made during the first class in September with regard to the topics planned for discussion in each/every science class. Clearly, there was no intent to propose a “cure” for such (real or fanciful) concerns. This is most dramatic when it postulated a “contrived dualism” existed in the disclaimer, allegedly citing the Pandas text uncritically while conveying doubt about Evolutionism. This is disproven by a simple reading of the Defendant School Board’s statement, which applied open-mindedness to all competing conceptualizations (outside of school studies). After having traced the ID-movement from Sir Thomas Aquinas, the judge concluded that, “If there is ‘Intelligent Design,’ there must have been an ‘Intelligent Designer.’ ” He then concluded that ID was a code-word for “God,” for which there is no evidence Consider the lengthy ad hominem attack on ID-proponents, prominently misquoting the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document, also on the internet [http://www.discovery.org/]. This memo explores this secular organization’s intent to serve as a repository for research data, to use the scientific method to examine cogently “politically correct” assertions and, if indicated, to debunk wild pronouncements. It has sparked secular materialists to try to elucidate ID’s alleged flaws, if only to stoke unjustified fears of unbridled theocrats. Even if Dover suggested a “supernatural” entity existed (and it didn’t), the judge equated its existence with superseding “nature” and, therefore, being unscientific. Actually, invoking a “supernatural force” isn’t mandated when the tenets of ID (and other alternate conceptualizations) are explored. Yet, it is a great source of awe—as well as intellectual stimulation—to consider how characteristics of our physical universe (e.g., Planck’s constant) actually mesh. Might they, too, have “evolved”? If they didn’t, what would be the effect on physics if the speed of light were diminished by a few thousand miles per second? Would that affect the speed of sound? Or Einstein’s Relativity Theories? These are not mere speculations about the philosophical cosmos, nor ideological probes. Rather, they constitute the very scrutiny that motivates researchers to reformulate ideas. Real-world facts can be used both to challenge orthodoxy and to verify myriad theories. And, if an individual’s offshoot may also be the reassessment of ethical ideals, so what? If the President can unjustly be equated to Hitler in a public (Colorado) high school—absent any “academic” effort, for example, to compare rhetoric to match polemics—what is so dangerous about exposing youth to the wonderment, the spectacle, that is science? “Let’s You and Him Fight!” No one disputes evolution, microcosmically and macrocosmically. Very loosely defined, individuals are not the same people developmentally as adults vs. as children; indeed, humans can change, can be transformed, in the time-span of reading such an essay as this. Similarly, groups of individuals change. Darwin’s tautological epigram, "Survival of the Fittest" explained the origin of the species by using a priori categories and principles— in rational and secular terms—not religiously. He posited "Random Natural Selection.” This contrasts with ID, which inextricably links every action to some prior action. ID mandates certitude; every cause has an effect and every effect is explained by a cause. The silent-hand animating Darwin's view is Randomness...which contradicts ID’s basis, Rationality. Darwin promotes free will and its sequellae, whereas ID lauds physical laws as replicable and predictable. Darwin acknowledges heterogeneity, while ID elevates the reproducibility of scientific determinism. Darwin’s world is notoriously unpredictable, but ID perceives nature as immutable. Darwin is inductive; ID is deductive. Must we choose to study only the more tangible of these two ideas, evolution vs. ID? Although Dover’s curriculum excluded ID, the diversity inherent in our universe suggests elements of both may co-exist. Light behaves both as a particle and as a wave; so too does life have both random and rational facets. Fundamental tension may be “scientific.” And is Darwinism any more or less testable in our physical universe than is ID? Posing such a Hobson’s choice is even refuted religiously. Jacob realized he must both struggle with God and participate in Humanity. We revel in innumerable contradictions. A personal philosophy serves as a ligament, a connection between the profane, mundane and quotidian…and the eternal, infinite and universal. As a result, some people pray, even as others continue to “worship” a self-limited theology of materialism. Secularists decry (perhaps fear) potential existence of any type of Intelligent Designer. Ironically, this includes a voice-less, soul-less, unengaging Architect-Engineer-Mechanic, as well as a personal, interventionist God, who cares what we do in life and who keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust. Meanwhile, a Buddhist’s objective reality and a Zoroastrian’s dualism may be explained more cogently by ID than by foundations laid by Darwinian assumptions. Whether injustice constitutes a moral test, the devil’s doing, or just arbitrary sequellae of immutable laws—challenging evolution isn’t sacrilegious. That’s why it is so unnerving that America appears now to have gone “full cycle” after substitute-teacher Scopes was convicted of challenging what was then the status quo. The Ongoing Debate The authors publicly queried the plaintiffs’ lead-attorney (Mr. Eric Rothschild) after his 3/13/2006 lecture at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, delivered in conjunction with its Evolution Project. He adopted inherently contradictory postures regarding four concerns, summarized herein while recognizing any abridgement necessarily truncates elaborative oral exposition. (1)—Regarding Constitutionally-protected Free Speech, he averred excluding any sort of discussion or questioning of a scientific theory is just as justified as ensuring students are not exposed to deniers of the historical fact of the Holocaust. (2)—Regarding informing students of the availability of a book that critiques Darwinism, he argued “Intelligent Design” was inherently being taught in the classroom because these words merely appeared in Dover’s terse reference to an alternate theory. Yet, he admitted ID was neither defined in this disclaimer nor included in the curriculum! (Legalistically, he discounted Parliamentary Procedure, which precludes adoption of the title portion of a bill or resolution, when a legislative body adopts its “resolved” section.) (3)—Regarding Randomness, he oxymoronically insisted Mutations are Rational, prompting a wave of murmured disapproval among ~100 people in the auditorium. (4)—Regarding whether alternatives to evolution appeared in peer-reviewed scientific literature, he claimed David Berlinski’s article [On the Origins of Life, Commentary Magazine, February 2006).did not comply. Although he concurred that it satisfied his crucial criterion by citing specific sources that questioned basic Darwinian assumptions (prominently, exploring mechanisms of sequential substrate interactions within a putative “primordial soup”), he refused to discuss the contents of this detailed review of a truly complex topic, solely because it had been published in a non-scientific periodical. This mandate has been satisfied by eminent thinkers, in articles from renowned journals. Among them is David L. Thaler, Ph.D., from Rockefeller University in New York City. In The Evolution of Genetic Intelligence [Science 264:224-225 (1994)], he wrote, "Natural selection acts beyond particular alleles. It also favors genetic metabolism that generates alleles with a high probability of passing the test of environmental selection." The result, according to Thaler, is "the evolution of genetic intelligence." Thus, ID and Evolution can co-exist! It remains instructive to note the final words of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Ponder, please, of what entity he might have been thinking when he only used the passive voice (“having been”) to identify the force behind the initial “breath of life”: Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Responsible school boards throughout America must not be chilled by courts that jettison intellectual honesty and academic integrity, lest dissemination of any type of “heresy” questioning evolution offend agnostics, atheists and believers in non-monotheistic faiths.
Dr. Sklaroff is an oncologist/hematologist. Mr. Guzzardi is a businessman |
|
To contact me--Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.--just send an e-mail (rsklaroff@comcast.net).
|