Do Judges Understand Evolution?

 

Do Judges Understand Evolution?

Evolution is such a divisive topic that it has become the subject of court cases. In 1987, a  7-2 decision (Edwards v. Aguillard),  by the Supreme Court affirmed the holding of a Louisiana District Court that the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act  violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Subsequently, in 2005, after an in depth legal analysis, Judge John E. Jones III (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) ruled that the school district could not inform students that the theory or hypothesis of Intelligent Design challenged the Modern Synthesis (Darwinian evolution).

This is reminiscent of historic challenges concerning the center of the solar system  In 1616, the Roman Catholic Church banned Nicholas Copernicus’ book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres,” published in 1543.  It also directed Galileo not to use his astronomical observations to support Copernicus’ theory that the earth revolves around the sun.  In 1633, he was tried and convicted for not complying with that direction and placed under house arrest for life.

Whenever some established authority decrees what is and what is not acceptable for inclusion in a science textbook, the result cannot be a good science textbook.

According to Wikipedia, “science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.” Therefore, true science establishes itself via an impersonal process.  When errors are found, new evidence establishes a correction.  Repeatable, scientific observations eventually determined that the earth does indeed move around the sun.  Einstein showed that Newton’s laws of motion are limited, and not universally true.  Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and others displaced classical particle physics with quantum mechanics. Science follows the evidence, not the dictates of any human authority.

Seven Supreme Court judges and Judge John E. Jones III were wrong. In legal proceeding reminiscent of the 1925 Scopes trial, they thought they could decree what is and what is not science.  Ironically, their error was exposed by a Kansas attorney. Roger Tarbutton published, in a law journal, an article that summarized Edwards v. Aguillard as well as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decisions. Following those summaries, he presented a very brief summary of some of the many challenges to the modern synthesis (Darwinian evolution) that have been published in peer review scientific literature.  The obvious conclusion is that the judges were uniformed and in no way qualified to determine what is and what is not science.

Boston University law professor Jay D. Wexler examined both the Edwards and the Kitzermiller cases in in further detail. However, Wexler analyzed them only in terms of various aspects of established legal theory, and did not in any way question the validity of the modern synthesis (Darwinian evolution). In fact, in his conclusion, he referred to it as “solid science” He went on to write “The judges sitting in these courtrooms have uniformly realized that given evolution’s commanding support in the scientific community, attempts to weaken evolution’s status in the classroom are constitutionally suspect. As long as evolution continues to hold the dominant position in the scientific community that it has occupied for most of the past century, courts will likely continue to look at attempts to discredit it with similar disfavor.”

Clearly, Wexler had no familiarity with the related scientific literature as did Tarbutton. Two lawyers came to opposite conclusions not because of legal principles or the details of intelligent design, but because of their familiarity with modern scientific literature.  Tarbutton read it, Wexler did not. Wexler went on to declare that it is the duty of judges to defend established scientific theory.  Such thinking is reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church dictating that the sun revolves around the earth, and is a threat to scientific progress.

Reference:

Tarbutton, Roger L. Evolution, Intelligent Design and the Establishment Clause, Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion [Vol. 19] 2018,pp 25-42

Wexler, Jay D., From the Classroom to the Courtroom: Intelligent Design and the Constitution, Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:215–224 DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0223-3