What is and is not science is a key issue in the field of philosophy of science. When somebody insists that their activities qualify as science, but others disagree, the best way to settle the question is by open discussion. There are two ways in which this issue should never be settled. The first is by those who insist that the activities are not scientific, forcing their view through the established institutions of mainstream science to prevent discussion. The second is even worse by judicial decree, that is by lawsuit.
There are cases where concerns about political influence affecting official scientific positions have been raised. In such cases questions about which side is really doing science, if either, seem to be squelched with little if any discussion occurring. Climate change is the perfect example of this, this issue has been highly politicized from the beginning. From the time it first started being pushed as a public issue, climate change has been used to justify heavy-handed government policies to supposedly fix the problem. However, it is largely in the area of origins where science has been settled largely by judicial decree.
In the case of, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools, ruling that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If they had called that a violation of the free speech clause because it blocked the teachers from talking about evolution this case would not have been as significant in this issue as it is.
In the case of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) a federal court declared an Arkansas law requiring balanced treatment of creation science and evolution unconstitutional. The judge decided that creation science was not actually science, but rather a religious viewpoint. In this case we literally have a judge declaring what is and is not science and clearly favoring an atheistic view of science.
In the most recent case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a Pennsylvania school district simply required students to hear a statement about "intelligent design" before biology class. The court ruled that intelligent design is a form of creationism and that the school district's mandate violated the Establishment Clause. In doing so the court once again decreed a scientific issue in favor of an atheistic perspective.
What made this case particularly significant was not only the fact that the judge provided a detailed definition of intelligent design, decreeing that it is not science but a religious argument. It also decreed that any promotion of intelligent design in science classes is unconstitutional. Once again we have judges decreeing what is and is not science.
The definition of intelligent design is that it proposes that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by undirected processes like natural selection. It argues that some biological systems exhibit "irreducible complexity," meaning they are so complex that they could not have evolved gradually from simpler precursors. Intelligent design proponents claim this complexity is evidence of design. This definition not only covers standard intelligent design in biology, but it covers any theory or evidence that would lead to the conclusion there anything in nature was the result of intelligent design rather than blind naturalistic processes. This is regardless of the evidence and how strongly it points in that direction. The judge literally decreed that any inclusion of an intelligent designer in nature is not science. With this definition and decision, he literally declared science to be a 100% atheistic endeavor. This is enhanced by the fact that the earlier case made it clear that public schools must teach the inherently atheistic evolutionary view of origins.
Regardless of what you think of either creation science or intelligent design, the fact that we have judges deciding what is and is not science should disturb anybody who really likes science. If you think it is acceptable then you do so because you like the results and don't care about the implications for science as a whole. It is bad for science as a whole for questions about what constitutes science to be settled by judicial decree rather than open discussion within the broader scientific community. By the way, the broader scientific community includes those on both sides of an issue not just one.
What the judges should have done was make it clear that they are not qualified to decide what is and is not science. As a result, their ruling should have allowed discussion to continue rather than shut it down by legal decree and keeping it out of public educational institutions. Furthermore, their rulings consistently supported an atheistic view of science by repeatedly decreeing against any conclusion of an intelligent designer regardless of the evidence. These judges have declared science to be a totally atheistic endeavor thereby declaring what is and is not considered science by legal decree and not open scientific discussion.
