E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The Onion reports that "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory" (thanks to Leiter Reports for pointer). Here are excerpts:
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
....
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
...
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
...
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
...
Ha! Ha! Ha! Great hoax, Onion...this is a hoax, right?
The scary thing about this hoax is that many people (especially folks who don't know what Onion is about) won't recognize it as such. It works as a hoax because this is the same reasoning operating in the challenge to Darwinism.
Cultural conservatives harp ad nauseam on the decline of our culture (sex, drugs, and rap and hip hop). The're right, but are obsessing on the wrong things. We are witnessing the decline of knowledge, in this weary late modern age. It's not just that our kids learn less in schools (as report after report confirm). In more and more contexts--from our political leaders to our school boards--our culture has become soft and fuzzy on the idea that factual, verifiable truths exist and matter (see Jack's earlier post on rejecting Enlightenment values).
The Left bears a good deal of the blame for this. Interpretivism, social constructionism, holism, pragmatism, postmodernism and all those other leftist academic ideas (pardon my irresistable sarcasm), have been taken (wrongly) to suggest that science is just another point of view with no priority or particular authority over any other. Into this wide open door come striding religious fundamentalists who insist they know the ultimate truths.
The next thing you know, they will be coming up with some idea like gravity is an illusion and it's really God micro-managing intelligent falling. And no doubt many people will believe them. Gravity can't explain how angels can fly, so it must be wrong.
All of the above "isms" are sound, in my view, but none of them in the least undermine the validity and importance of science in the way casual interpreters seem to believe. We had better starting emphasizing this. The Left has always lacked the resources of the Right. It's most effective weapon has been--to put it in a 60's kind of way--speaking truth to power. Posted
11:14 AM
by Brian Tamanaha [link]
Comments:
i have no problem if "a bunch of conservative christians want to raise their kids to be ignorant of scientific truth". by all means go forth and multiply your ignorance... amongst yourselves. leave my kids out of it.
i hereby take full responsibility for the way my children turn out in spite of the fact that i do not teach them neocon "truths" on a daily basis. that being said, i have little doubt that they will become good, moral, compassionate adults.
"What is the big deal? So, a bunch of conservative Christians want to raise their kids to be ignorant of scientific truth. What is the cause for alarm, exactly, in that?"
When they are undermining the education of OTHER folks.
I don't think you're aware of the effects these yahoos are having. They're trying to redefine science and forcing their viewpoint into high school curricula, and circumventing the established methods of science. They've already intimidated a good portion of high school teachers into not even mentioning evolution; now, they want to undercut the definition of science entirely.
I think they called this Lysenkoism in the old USSR....