As many of you may be aware, the Florida Science Standards are up for final review this month.  Many school districts have been passing resolutions in opposition to the proposed standards, because the standards are forthright about the role evolution and Big Bang cosmology play in biology and astronomy, respectively.  The Florida Citizens for Science have created an online petition in support of the standards.  You can view it here.  One good thing about the petition is that you can add your comments.  Note that the donations are requested only after your signature has been added - close the page if you do not wish to donate.  The following are my comments:

Many Florida school boards are crafting resolutions in oppostion to the proposed standards.  The opposition takes form in three major arguments.  The first is that evolution is no longer being taught as theory, but rather as “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.”  However, according to Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1, that is the definition of a scientific theory.  In fact, these school boards are promulgating the very misconception that benchmark is trying to avoid when it continues on to explain that “the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.”

The second argument is that if we are to teach evolution and Big Bang theory, we should teach other theories as well.  To which I respond, “Go ahead.”  But we must use only teach theories that meet the definition given in the standards - that is, scientific theories.  When pressed, these school boards either can’t provide alternate scientific theories, or else provide ”theories” that do not meet the criteria set forth in the standards, but rather are theories only in the sense used in everyday life.  How do you teach a non-existent theory?  These alternate “theories” would be quickly exposed under Benchmarks SC.912.N.2.1-3 - imagine the hue and cry if they were included under those benchmarks!  It should also be pointed out that several benchmarks require students to understand the role alternative explanations play in developing science (e.g., SC.912.N.1.3).

The final argument is that we should “teach both the strengths and weaknesses” of the challenged theories, with thte implication that only the strengths are taught.  But the standards already do that.  The weaknesses of the challenged theories are no different than the weaknesses of the other theories in the standards that haven’t been challenged.  All one has to do is read through the Nature of Science standards to find these weaknesses.  Even within the Life Science standards, specific examples are given (e.g., SC.912.L.15.12).

It is apparent that these school boards are either not familiar with the standards they are purporting to improve, or that they are ignoring them in pursuit of an ideological goal.  This shows a disturbing contempt for the educational standards of Florida.  I urge the BoE to treat these resolutions with the same respect shown by the school boards - none at all.

I am also posting this as a comment at Panda’s Thumb.

Sorry about falling off the face of the earth.  Shortly after my last posting, work dropped a one ton case of overtime on my head.  At one point, I worked 13 straight days, and am just now recovering.  Or not, as my body decided that all that stress + the bad weather = one sick person.  Since I am home alone today, I thought I’d take the opportunity to work on the blog.

First on the list was picking an avatar.  Thanks to Lou, that was actually pretty easy.  In 2006, Panda’s Thumb had a contest to see if the participants could derive the exact Steiner solution for an arrangement of six points.  A Steiner solution is the shortest network of straight lines that connect a set of fixed points, allowing for nodes not located at the fixed points.  Contestants were pitted against a genetic algorithm.When the results were posted, the genetic algorithm and a few of the contestants had produced the exact solution.  There were, however, other solutions that were somewhat longer, which were called MacGyvers.  While I was able to visualize the exact solution, I wasn’t sure how to determine the location of the connecting nodes, so I instead submitted a number of MacGyvers.  All told, I formally submitted five of the top ten MacGyvers, and considered another three of the remaining five, which I didn’t submit because they were longer variations on the MacGyvers I formally submitted.  For my troubles, I was declared the Master of MacGyvers.

 MacGyver is also one of my favorite TV shows, though I was only introduced to it recently.  I have long been a “MacGyver”, always finding ways to accomplish tasks with what resources I have at hand, such as using coins as screwdrivers.  One of the best examples of that is my time in Odyssey of the Mind - my team won the Renatra Fusca Award for Creativity because of our MacGyver-worthy Short-Term problem solution.  In fact, the officials noted that we almost won a second Renatra Fusca for our Long-Term solution (for similar reasons), but they decided it wouldn’t be fair to give us the award twice in one competition.

 The clincher for my choice of avatar is that Richard Dean Anderson is one of my favourite actors.  I don’t look all that much like him (in high school and college I was often told I looked like Cary Elwes - or more precisely “that guy from Princess Bride”), but I don’t see that as a barrier.

 Look for more stuff later today.

On January 16th, 1786, Virginia finally passed Jefferson’s Statute of Religious Freedom, nearly seven years after he first penned it.  It formed the basis of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as serving as the model for many states’ constitutions.  I invite you all to read and reflect on the impact a single law can have.

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Jefferson’s Statute did not immediately get passed.  It languished until the second foundational document, Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, was produced.  Published on June 20, 1785, it contained the objections to a bill proposed by Patrick Henry the previous legislative session that would provide government support for Christian clergy.  It provided the impetus to pass Jefferson’s Statute of Religious Freedom.

The text is as follows:

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.
10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and chairty,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.
13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly.” But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
15. Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonweath.

Via Ed Brayton, I am reminded that today, January 16th is Religious Freedom Day.  It is the anniversary of the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.  The Statute is the model upon which the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is constructed, as well as many of the state constitutions.  By 1833, all states had officially eliminated establishment of religion.  Like many other laws, there are a series of documents leading up to the enactment, explaining the rationale behind the statute.  I am dedicating a short series of posts to the three foundational documents, including the Statute itself, that formed the basis of the Religion Clauses of the Constitution.

First in line is Query 17 of Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia.  The front matter of the Notes states:

The following Notes were written in Virginia in the year 1781, and somewhat corrected and enlarged in the winter of 1782, in answer to Queries proposed to the Author, by a Foreigner of Distinction, then residing among us. The subjects are all treated imperfectly; some scarcely touched on. To apologize for this by developing the circumstances of the time and place of their composition, would be to open wounds which have already bled enough. To these circumstances some of their imperfections may with truth be ascribed; the great mass to the want of information and want of talents in the writer. He had a few copies printed, which he gave among his friends: and a translation of them has been lately published in France, but with such alterations as the laws of the press in that country rendered necessary. They are now offered to the public in their original form and language.

Query 17, titled “Religion - The different religions received into that state?” documents the role of religion in Virginia.  In particular, Jefferson focused on the abuses of state establishment of religion, particularly heresy laws and religious tests.  This document is regarded by historians as explaining his motivation for originally writing the Statute two years earlier in 1779.  The text is as follows:

The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.

The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all acts of parliament which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly. At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ De haeretico comburendo. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father’s right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its
axis by a vorte^o. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has
answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

This is the first in a series of posts analyzing Larry Fafarman’s 20 criticisms of Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.  It was originally posted at Larry’s blog on June 2, 2006.  I have made some edits.

 (1) For perhaps only the second time in American history (the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case was possibly the first), a judge ruled that something — irreducible complexity in this case — that makes no mention of anything related to religion and that contains no religious symbols constitutes a government endorsement of religion. Whether or not irreducible complexity is bogus science is irrelevant, because there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

Well, I would say that there are at least a few cases where a judge ruled that something making no mention of anything related to religion and that contains no religious symbols constituted a government endorsement of religion. The first that springs to mind is Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (196 . The law struck down made no mention of religion, creationism, or God. Rather, the law in question is as follows:

§ 80-1627. — Doctrine of ascent or descent of man from lower order of animals prohibited. — It shall be unlawful for any teacher or other instructor in any University, College, Normal, Public School or other institution of the State, which is supported in whole or in part from public funds derived by State and local taxation to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals and also it shall be unlawful for any teacher, textbook commission, or other authority exercising the power to select textbooks for above mentioned educational institutions to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches the doctrine or theory that mankind descended or ascended from a lower order of animals.

§ 80-1628. — Teaching doctrine or adopting textbook mentioning doctrine — Penalties — Positions to be vacated. — Any teacher or other instructor or textbook commissioner who is found guilty of violation of this act by teaching the theory or doctrine mentioned in section 1 hereof, or by using, or adopting any such textbooks in any such educational institution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and upon conviction shall vacate the position thus held in any educational institutions of the character above mentioned or any commission of which he may be a member.

The language used clearly indicates that it is the same type of analysis used in what has become the endorsement test. The opinion quotes Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 222 (1963):

[W]hat are the purpose and primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion, then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution.

These are clearly the precursors to the modern definition of the endorsement test - that is, the purpose and effect portions of the Lemon test or the modification advanced by Justice O’Connor. For the purpose of this argument, I am excluding the entanglement test. (The Lemon decision combined two lines of judicial tests of the Establishment Clause - the two endorsement tests, from the line leading to Abington; and the entanglement test, from the line leading to Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 US 664 (1970). Inclusion of the entanglement test would add more cases not mentioning religion, including Lemon itself.

 If, as Larry later attempted to do, we wish to change the argument to “banned” rather than “ruled that” we need look no further than McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (ED Ark. 1982).  Although, like Epperson, McLean predates the endorsement test, the analysis follows the same line of reasoning an endorsement test would follow.  The definition of creation-science in the McLean is as follows (emphasis mine):

 (a) “Creation-science” means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

Irreducible complexity is an example of (2).  Judge Overton ruled in McLean that it failed the Establishment Clause because it was a “contrived dualism.”  Judge Jones ruled that irreducible complexity failed for the same reasons, calling it a “false dichotomy” and relying explicitly on Judge Overton’s ruling.

Also, the Epperson opinion states that leaving out explicit references to religion doesn’t prevent the court from determining that the law or activity in question has underlying religious motivations:

Perhaps the sensational publicity attendant upon the Scopes trial induced Arkansas to adopt less explicit language. It eliminated Tennessee’s reference to “the story of the Divine Creation of man” as taught in the Bible, but there is no doubt that the motivation for the law was the same: to suppress the teaching of a theory which, it was thought, “denied” the divine creation of man.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that, especially in the case of children, violations of civil rights are not to be tolerated, whether openly or evasively through contrivance or genuine ignorance on the part of the legislature. “We also take note of the Court’s warning that “the constitutional rights of children . . . can neither be nullified openly and directly by [the] state . . . nor nullified indirectly by [it] through evasive schemes . . . whether attempted ‘ingeniously or ingenuously.’” Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U.S. 556, 568 (1974) (quoting Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17 (195 ).” - Adler v. Duval County School Board, 250 F.3d (11th Cir 2001).

I have read many other court decisions that addressed facets of these issues (~50), many of them originating in non-Establishment Clause cases, but later applied to the EC. I will spare the reader a recitation of these quotes in the interest of brevity and to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome on my part. For those interested, start at the various evolution cases and follow the citations to other cases.

The fact is, the courts have consistently determined that opposition to the teaching of evolution is a religious concept because certain religious sects hold it as anathema to their dogma. This opposition may be in the form of outright bans, or by attempts to discredit evolution through disclaimers or alternative theories with no scientific basis. “The Court found that there can be no legitimate state interest in protecting particular religions from scientific views “distasteful to them,” and concluded “that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma,”" - Edwards, quoting Epperson (citations omitted). Therefore, we have a known religious purpose or effect that advances religion.

Bogus science has no legitimate secular purpose, and its primary effect is to discredit legitimate science. Therefore, if no purpose other than promotion of bogus science is given when a religious purpose is known to exist, the law fails the purpose prong. Likewise, if its primary effect is merely to discredit a theory when discrediting that theory advances religion, it fails the effect prong.

Of course, the truth is that irreducible complexity is merely a restatement of a famous religious argument: What good is half an eye?

A weekly feature, often done on Fridays, has long been a staple of blogs.  Who am I to deny the tradition?  Each week, I will provide a detailed analysis of someone missing the point.

Of course, it takes a bit of time to build up a good file of bad arguments.  However, I happen to have one already built up.  Shortly after the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was released, Larry Fafarman and I started locking horns over the various legal aspects of the case at The Panda’s Thumb.  Eventually, Larry was banned and created his own blog, where he listed his top 20 criticisms of the decision.  I started posted detailed responses, but the format at Larry’s blog is not conducive to in depth analysis: quoting is very clunky, and the narrow fixed width column makes long arguments seem even longer than they really are.  I’ve never fully abandoned the idea, and this blog gives me the forum to do it.

So for the next half year, I will be deconstructing Larry’s criticisms, point by point.  This will give me time to develop a file of other, more diverse victims subjects, while freeing me to write about current issues as they arise.  Don’t be surprised, however, if I intersperse other topics from time to time.

This post written on Jan 12, 2008 and backdated to Jan 3, 2008

 The point of this blog is to document the illogic of modern argumentative discourse.  Of particular focus are the arguments of pseudoscience and the nuances of First Amendment rights.

There were a number of circumstances surrounding the creation - resurrection, really - of this blog.  First, I’ve found myself holding back from commenting at other people’s blogs, either because my observation was tangential to the conversation or too long to post as a comment.  Second, I recently received encouragement to start my own blog.  Third, Lou FCD mentioned at After the Bar Closes (the forum for Panda’s Thumb)that he had a blog that he had created but never really used, and was offering it up because he didn’t want the name to go to waste.  Finally, I need to practice writing for purposes of therapy, so mainting this blog is my New Year’s Resolution.

Although I had picked out a potential name for my hypothetical blog, the name of Lou’s old blog fit in perfectly with the purpose of my blog.  It also was on a platform that I liked from an aesthetic standpoint, and which had the features I wanted in the blog.  So I contacted Lou, and he agreed to turn over the keys.

 So bear with me as I knock the rust off the blog, install a few cool widgets, and give it a tuneup.  I plan on a weekly feature, a fun monthly feature, and other posts as the opportunity arises.

And here’s a hint (and a shameless plug for Lou) of the type of people who are the focus of my blog:

Missing the Point