Have a Breathtakingly Merry Kitzmas! (a little late)
I must acknowledge the exciting court decision that Judge Jones produced last week. I'm sure you've read this already, but I just love going over it again and again:
"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision [to interfere with biology teaching] is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
You may read more (if you haven't already) on, among many other sources, Panda's Thumb.
I just want to say that my favorite part (so far) of Judge Jones' decision (I haven't yet read the whole thing yet, but can't wait to) was his pointing out the mind-blowing amount of lying done by the supposedly upstanding, religious people on the ID side:
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
And, we now see some greed around Christmas: I 've been fantasizing a little about how wonderful it would have been if angry Judge Jones had subpoenaed the liars for perjury. I mean, they lied to the court- that's serious. How come they didn't get legal action against them?
But mainly I am just happy. I really loved this post, and also this (anonymous) commenter's point from evolution blog about what happens when issues are settled in the painstaking laying out of evidence, as opposed to political showboating: (I also think it's an interesting point about the dynamics and value of debate in general.)
(quoted from previous writer:) "I believe it was Stephen Jay Gould who pointed out that while creationists do well in public debates in front of lay audiences, they are lousy in court. Courts, you see, have strict rules of evidence and are, generally speaking, completely devoid of theatrical flash. In such an environment, creationism can't win."
That was from Gould's 1985 Caltech lecture, where he was talking about debating creationists and the McLean v. Arkansas trial:"Debate is an artform. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact - which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief...." (S.J. Gould, Caltech lecture, 1985)
So it was in Arkansas, and so it is in Dover.
What a lovely gift and conclusion to 2005. Maybe things aren't so bad, after all. They probably are, but maybe not!
posted by Lizzie @ 1:30 PM
5 Comments:
And a merry one to you and yours! Incidentally, are you a fan of Philip Pullman? The New Yorker just put out an engaging profile of him and his inspiring brand of godlessness.
Thank you, Murky! I must see this article right away!
Had an afterthought: I think it deserves mention that Gould's point about "court" argument being nontheatrical and different from debate is mostly about argument before a judge or before a panel of judges (as in appeals case). O.J.'s felony trial before a jury of urban Los Angelenos was all hole-poking and theater on the defense side, but despite the man's history of domestic violence toward the murder victim, who was his wife, and the bloody glove in his possession, and etc, etc, etc, the jury O.J. wasn't persuaded to convict him. Dover was not a jury trial. Had it been, instead of the race card we would have seen defense play the religion card, which probably would work as well or better.
Actually, forget I mentioned the glove, which really was contentious deserving of challenge. But there was a lot of other evidence that was untainted by suspicious police work.
Well, now that I've watch the Frontline documentary on the trial let's just forget I mentioned O.J. all together. But I think there's a point to be made about juries, because I hear it made all the time...albeit mainly from white people.
Post a Comment
<< Home