1. 2½ Puzzles: Intelligent Design, Oil & (Maybe) Particle Physics Science & Public Policy Stephen M. Maurer Jan. 19 2006 - Lecture 1

2. Introduction Science Interacts With Society… Courts Use Science Decisionmakers Use Science Society Invests in Science A Mismatch: Ways of Knowing The Need to Decide

3. Intelligent Design The Dover School Board Case

4. Courts vs. Science Outcomes vs. Process The Public Debate Evolution is Right, ID is wrong A (Naïve?) Policy Goal Teach the Truth!

5. Courts vs. Science The Law “[W]e find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” “ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory.” [82]

6. Courts vs. Science The Law “To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation.” [89] Why the Hesitation?

7. Science rejects supernatural explanations because of “the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extensions, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence.” [65] “Ground rules” of Science (The Scientific Method): Observe, test, replicate, and verify. [65] Testable and Falsifiable [22] Must have “quantitative” rather than “subjective” criteria. But… Not Everything Can Be Replicated or Quantified The Evidence is Always Incomplete Theories are Never Proven Ways of Knowing: Science

8. Courts Must Decide! Courts Don’t Feel Competent Courts Shouldn’t Supplant Science Judging Credibility Ways of Knowing: Courts

9. The Dispute Dover School Board Policy: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”

10. Doctrine The Endorsement Test: “Whether an objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, would perceive it as a state endorsement [of religion].”

11. The Endorsement Test ctd: Conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred [15] Doctrine

12. Drawing a Line Between Science and Religion Doctrine

13. Religion, Not Science? (1) “ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.” [65] Science rejects supernatural explanations because of “the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extensions, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence.” [65] As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter ‘NAS’) was recognized by experts for both parties as the ‘most prestigious’ scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate.” [65] ID is rejected by an “overwhelming number of scientists.” [83]

14. (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s. Is pointing out flaws in a theory sufficient? Religion, Not Science?

15. (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer- reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. ID uses “outdated concepts and badly flawed science…” [86] Religion, Not Science?

16. “An Objective Observer Would Know that … Teaching About ‘Gaps’ and ‘Problems’ in Evolutionary Theory are … Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism” [18] “Actual purpose to prove or disprove religion.” [91] Religion, Not Science?

17. Examples: Taking the character of the advocates into consideration “The tactically unnamed designer is God” Rewriting the Pandas book to conform to court decisions Hidden subsidies for the Pandas book The Wedge Document Tactics: Change the ground rules, postpone tough arguments. Political discourse “Theory not fact” has a “cultural meaning.” Religion, Not Science?

18. Shooting the Messenger Can We Teach The Solar Carbon Cycle? Religion, Not Science?

19. Oil

20. Winston Churchill (1911) US Navy (1911) Teapot Dome/Strategic Petroleum Reserve M. King Hubbert (1956) Paul Ehrlich and The Club of Rome (1971) Current Estimates 10 years or 50? 1350 billion barrels (1969) vs. 3021 billion (2000) Predictions

21. Oil: The Hubbert Curve US Peak – 1980 World Peak - 2000

22. Oil: The Hubbert Curve Why Geologists Believe the Hubbert Curve Example: US Exploration Why Economists Don’t. Examples: Nazi Germany, Saudi Exploration, Capital Markets Who’s Right?

23. Oil: The Hubbert Curve Implications for Politics “Finding a billion barrels here and a billion barrels there doesn’t change the nature of the argument.” – World Resources Institute Implications for Policy “It doesn’t matter when the oil runs out, it’s going to run out eventually.” – Steven Chu

24. Particle Physics

25. The Higgs Particle: Science Inertia Aristotle’s Arrow The Higgs Particle Superconducting Supercollider LHC New Machines?

26. The Higgs Particle: Politics What Does the Community Want? …and is that “optimal”? The Physics and Security Spreading Contracts Around Texas vs. California

27. The Higgs Particle: Justifications Spin-Offs Prestige Recruitment DOE’s Mission Doing Science Sid Drell