miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/14/84)
#N:uiucdcs:45500002:000:7147
uiucdcs!miller Apr 13 17:09:00 1984
This is part 2 of a creationist's analysis of the Arkansas Balanced
Treatment Act trial. Part 1 was submitted on the net a few days back.
Finally the trial began, with creationists knowing that it was already
lost. Most of the leading creationists had long ago withdrawn along with the
CSLDF. Of those still interested, Clark did not choose well. For example, one
editor of an Arkansas paper wrote "The best witness Mr. Clark could have used
was present in the courtroom every day of the trial, but was only quoted by the
witnesses of the ACLU. Frequently the witnesses for the ACLU referred to
Dr. Duane Gish, as one of the leading exponents of creation-science and they
acknowledged him to be a worthy opponent for they had met him in debate. But
though they made frequent references to Dr. Gish and his books and writings,
Mr. Clark did not consider him an adequate witness." Dr. Gish has a Ph.D. in
biochemistry and is Associate Director of the Institute for Creation Research.
Clark's lack of preparation showed during the trial. At one point, Judge
Overton berated him for inept cross-examination. One Dallas paper covering the
trial described his performance as the most "bumbling" and inadequate courtroom
defense that its reporters had ever seen. But in general, the media's coverage
of the trial was as poor as it had been before the trial. Quite simply, it
ignored the essential and emphasized the irrelevant. For example the two
issues of Science I saw on the trial completely ignored most of the best evi-
dence presented by the state's witnesses. Instead, it spent a great deal of
time discussing one person's opinions on UFOs and a line of research that
didn't pan out for another. Science did a very good job of making those guys
look like a bunch of clowns. At another point, they took great glee in quoting
from the court record when a third witness strongly disagreed with a major
creationist contention. What they "forgot" to tell us was that he was *not* a
creationist. He was an evolutionist and appeared only because of some proba-
bility calculations he and Hoyle had done and because he supported the balanced
treatment of creation science along side of evolution.
At any rate, the plaintiffs won. Fortunately, the Attorney General
decided not to appeal. The CSLDF concured, writing that an appeal would be
"fruitless, even damaging to the entire cause", given the manner in which the
case was handled. And so the attention shifts to Louisiana, which will go to
trial probably this summer. There, the CSLDF attorneys have been deputized by
the state and an entirely different outcome is possible. If they do lose, how-
ever, an appeal will almost certainly be filed. Hopes are much brighter there.
That's all for the objective reporting of the facts. Now for an entirely
subjective section: my opinions. First, why did Steve Clark blow the case?
Some creationists believe that he threw the case on purpose. They point to his
participation in the ACLU fundraising event 3 weeks before the trial as a per-
fect example of conflict of interest. However, I agree with those that feel
that he simply overestimated his capabilities. As the Newsweek article pointed
out, he was considering running for governor and a big win where he doesn't
have to share the credit (with the CSLDF) would be a major political coup.
Next, should creationism be taught on a balanced treatment with evolution?
I think yes here. Students should be given all of the scientific evidence in
support of both models and then be allowed to make up their own minds. I
oppose scientific censorship. Students should be taught how to think, not what
to think. But, I do oppose inclusion of religious material in the public
schools. I can think of nothing worse than an atheist or agnostic teacher
trying to teach theology to children. Fortunately, both the Arkansas and
Louisiana Balanced Treatment Acts *specifically forbid* any reference to any
religious materials (though this was widely misreported in the media). Both
models should stand or fall on their scientific merits alone.
Dr. Scott Morrow is an evolutionist and an agnostic (not the one mentioned
above in the trial section). He is an associate professor of chemistry and of
biology. He said in an affidavit in support of the CSLDF's motion to intervene
"I am an evolutionist and I believe strongly in public schools teaching both
creation-science and evolution-science. I personally believe that evolution-
science possesses more experimental strengths, and in the origin of life area I
believe thatthe initial life forms evolved by the various mechanisms...I prefer
confrontation of the evidence and argument for and against facts or concepts,
because through this process one is more likely to derive what could be called
the truth or at least a useful working explanation, and it creates intellectual
flexibility, develops analytic capacities, and increases student interest. Al-
though I do not personally believe that creation-science is the better explana-
tion, creation-science brings a proper amount of reservation or questioning to
the evolution-science explanation and also presents a plausible alternative.
Creation-science writings point out many real difficulties or defects with evo-
lution-science...Creation-science also involves positive scientific evidences
that should be presented and assessed..There is no particular reason why a per-
son has to be religious in a normal sense of the word to believe in creation-
science or to believe that it should be given balanced treatment. I see no
difficulty in accepting a creation-science explanation for the origin of living
things without believing at the same time that the creator was a personal
deity. Both creation-science and evolution-science can be equivalently scien-
tific, just as they can be equivalently religious. I believe the best way to
find truth is not to talk dogmatically about one conceptual framework but to
consider pros and cons and to assess alternative conceptual frameworks."
However, even though I support balanced treatment of both viewpoints, my
next statement my surprise you. I am not sure I support legislation to achieve
that goal. First, litigation is very expensive and is probably not the most
cost effective way of getting scientific creationism accepted. Second, the
courts are not the place to decide what is or isn't good science. Third, if
the courts decide incorrectly, the entire strategy backfires and creationists
face a bad situation legally that currently doesn't exist. So, I support the
CSLDF's defense of the Louisiana law (because of the legal precedent it will
set if it is defeated) but I have to agree with Dr. Gish who said he would
"not recommend" other states to adopt balanced treatment laws. (BTW, creation-
ists who wish to support CSLDF's work can get their address from me via mail.)
I close with a quote from Clarence Darrow, the ACLU lawyer in the 1925
Scopes trial. "It is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of
origins."
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoisrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/18/84)
Response to A. Ray Miller: > Next, should creationism be taught on a balanced treatment with evolution? >I think yes here. Students should be given all of the scientific evidence in >support of both models and then be allowed to make up their own minds... Just great! But why only THE creationist model and THE evolutionist model? What about all of the other "theories"? It won't fly. You can't possibly give students "all of the scientific evidence" that they need to make up their minds. Look, if it's a matter that has occupied serious archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc., for scores of years, how in the world do you expect to give a public school student enough information to decide in a few courses? In fact, any decision the students would reach would come either directly from the instructor's bias or from peer pressure. > However, even though I support balanced treatment of both viewpoints, my >next statement my surprise you. I am not sure I support legislation to achieve >that goal... the >courts are not the place to decide what is or isn't good science... You should find agreement among anyone with a responsible view of science on that one, but then... >...So, I support the >CSLDF's defense of the Louisiana law (because of the legal precedent it will >set if it is defeated)... If you really believed what you said about not deciding science in the courts, you wouldn't be able to support defense of the Louisiana law. It looks like your position is one in which you'll take victory if it should happen to come your way, but you've got a tenable position in case of defeat. I find that a pretty unsavory approach. -- ...Are you making this up as you go along? Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (04/18/84)
Ray Miller has treated us to a long article in which he blames the defeat of the Arkansas Creationism bill on "bungling" by Attorney General Clark. I think the situation is rather different. Attorney General Clark was, unfortunately, caught between a rock and a hard place, with an impossible case and creationists hounding him at every step. The fact is, despite pious attempts of creationists to depict the law as a "balanced treatment act" (the official title of the bill), there can be no doubt that it was in fact a blatant attempt to promote certain teachings of a particular narrow Fundamentalist form of Christianity in the public schools as "Science". It is one thing to pull the wool over the eyes of legislators; it is quite another thing to fool the federal courts. I believe that the attempt in Louisiana will be no more successful, and I hope that creationists *do* pursue the issue to the Supreme Court because I think that a nationally binding precedent would be extremely valuable. Ray remarks: > However, even though I support balanced treatment of both viewpoints, my >next statement my surprise you. I am not sure I support legislation to achieve >that goal. First, litigation is very expensive and is probably not the most >cost effective way of getting scientific creationism accepted. Second, the >courts are not the place to decide what is or isn't good science. Third, if >the courts decide incorrectly, the entire strategy backfires and creationists >face a bad situation legally that currently doesn't exist. So, I support the >CSLDF's defense of the Louisiana law (because of the legal precedent it will >set if it is defeated) but I have to agree with Dr. Gish who said he would >"not recommend" other states to adopt balanced treatment laws. I am not in the least surprised. A colleague of mine has informed me that after the Arkansas fiasco, creationists have looked again at the strategy of passing state laws and have concluded that it is a losing proposition. The courts are just not going to go along with it (hence Gish's statement, mentioned by Ray above). Instead, creationists have adopted a much more dangerous tactic (which is likely to be considerably more successful). It is to go after local school boards, which are even more malleable than state legislatures. If hundreds of school require creationism to be taught, it will be very difficult to overturn these decisions, since it will require an equal number of lawsuits. Consider, for example, a story that I read about how the sponsor of a "balanced treatment act" in Oklahoma was persuaded to withdraw his bill on the grounds that, out in the country, creationism was *already* being taught, and the passage of the bill would require them to teach evolution *as well*! So much for the claims of creationists that all they want is equal treatment. EVOLUTIONISTS, BE WARNED!! THE BATTLE HASN'T BEEN WON! IT IS GOING TO RETURN EVEN STRONGER, AND YOU HAD BETTER BE PREPARED TO FIGHT IT. THIS MEANS THOROUGHLY UNDERSTANDING THE METHODS OF THE CREATIONISTS AND BEING PREPARED TO COUNTER THEM PUBLICLY. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)