Science and Justice: The Dover case and its impact on science
Jaron Daniël Schoone
Graduate Student
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
This essay analyzes the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in which Judges John E. Jones III decided that the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is not science and therefore cannot be taught in high school science classes in the Dover School District, as the Educational Board of the school tried to implement. There is some form of preceding case law, for example the famous Scopes trial, followed by the Edward case where the US Supreme Court banned the “Creationism” to the realm of religion. However, that form of creationism was merely a sub-group called Young-Earth Creationism, which draws its “creation science” from the bible rather then from empirical evidence. Intelligent Design however seems different. The proponents of this theory claim that there are telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. Judge Jones puts this theory to the test. He starts by stating what science is about, followed by three arguments why ID does not adhere to that particular definition of science, namely that: 1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; 2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and 3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. However, when analyzing these three arguments, it will become apparent that arguments 2 and 3 are not about whether ID is science, but whether ID is true. And since the latter is an entirely different issue, these two arguments are fallacious. However, the first argument seems to be correct, since not only biological systems, but the universe as a whole, according to ID, exemplifies design, which means that the designer is necessarily a supernatural entity. But then again, is this problematic? It is not logically or historically, but only when one adopts the view of methodological naturalism. The essay will conclude by arguing that, although ID is science in the wide sense of the word, it apparently doesn’t adhere to the paradigmatic view of methodological naturalism, and until this naturalistic paradigm is overturned, ID should not be taught to high school students who should be taught science within its current paradigm.