Daniel Marsula, Post-Gazette Click illustration for larger version.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones made national headlines last year when he handed down his decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the court battle over the teaching of creationism in the public schools.

Jones' acknowledgment that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, and his resulting decision that "it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," marked an important moment in an ongoing battle.

The intelligent design movement grew out of the failure of earlier efforts to teach creationism in science classes with a strong biblical tilt.

It can be viewed as part of the fight religious groups have waged over the exact intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

	"THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE" By Chris Mooney Basic Books ($24.95)

However, the school board battle in Dover, York County, also marked a key moment in a different, if related, battle, one that Chris Mooney named in the title of his recent book.

He delivers on the title, thoroughly documenting how conservative groups, including not just fundamentalist religious communities but also businesses, attempt to co-opt or slant science they disagree with rather than make honest arguments based on other concerns.

Mooney is a political reporter with a clear understanding of what science is and its value to society.

At the beginning of his book, he acknowledges an essential truth about the process of science and the knowledge it produces, that, "Science isn't infallible; it's only as good as we are, and we often aren't all that good."

Yet, he recognizes that a field of systematic inquiry that has helped date the age of the Earth, describe its orbit around the sun and split the atom is a "fount of useful information crucial to modern political decision making" and that it "provides the best tool we have for understanding nature."

Mooney understands that science makes no claim to answer questions of faith. It is true, as critics of evolution sometimes note, that some prominent scientists are atheists, but it is equally true that many are religious.

More important, as both Mooney and Judge Jones note, science simply cannot prove or disprove the existence of a divine creator; questions of faith exist in a separate sphere from science.

	"A JEALOUS GOD: SCIENCE'S CRUSADE AGAINST RELIGION" By Pamela Winnick Nelson Current ($25)

This distinction seems lost on Pittsburgh-based writer Pamela Winnick, a former Post-Gazette reporter, who takes on similar issues from a different viewpoint in her new book from a Christian-based publisher.

Winnick repeatedly refers to evolution as a "secular religion" and argues that science textbooks use terminology that "smacks against the theological view of a species created in God's image."

At some points, she raises important issues that warrant attention from the public and the scientific community, including historic and recent problems with scientific testing on human subjects. She's also an engaging writer.

But in general, Winnick engages in enough verbal tricks that it's impossible to rely on her analysis.

In fact, she uses many of the tactics Mooney describes -- misstating science, relying on fringe opinions and shifting arguments.

For example, Winnick argues:

"... bioethicists assumed a shortage of resources and working from there addressed ways to distribute them 'justly.' Ironically, much of the shortage was itself created by the same group of population zealots and eugenicists who favored forced sterilization, abortion, and birth control. ...

"Economically, the young and healthy shore up programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and private health insurance, allocating resources to the elderly and infirm. But with a decline in birth rates, a reverse pyramid took effect:

If once, an elderly individual was supported by ten healthy people, now there would be only two or three ..."

In addition to the disconcerting conflation of eugenics and birth control, a recurring theme for Winnick, the population scientists to whom she refers had expressed concerns about physical resources like food and water, which will be able to support only a finite number of people, even if we haven't reached that number yet.

The health care and retirement costs she brings up are a separate problem. It's also surprising, given her background, that in this section and others Winnick appears to ignore one of the basic tenets of professional journalism:

If you disagree with someone, you confront them with your evidence and give them a chance to respond.

On occasion, Winnick also misstates facts. For example, in the book's second chapter, in a discussion of abortion, she claims, "A fertilized egg immediately undergoes division and, unless, destroyed, grows into a full-term infant."

This is simply untrue. Even in the complete absence of any external method of birth control, some fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus, never even starting a recognizable pregnancy. And a surprising number of early pregnancies spontaneously abort. As Mooney notes, it is entirely possible and sometimes necessary to make decisions for reasons other than science. I, of course, agree.

Like Winnick, I think most Americans regard the Tuskegee syphilis experiments with horror, not because we didn't learn enough about syphilis to justify withholding treatment from poor black men, but because withholding that treatment was wrong, regardless of what was learned. But slanting science itself to support moral, religious, or economic positions is an entirely different matter. Since the election of President George W. Bush, concerns over such slanting have been festering among scientists.

Early on, concerns focused on Bush's treatment of scientific advisory committees, particularly when William Miller, a scientist being considered for an appointment to a National Institute on Drug Abuse advisory panel, was asked his position on abortion and whether he'd voted for Bush.

While that case got particular publicity, it was hardly unique. And health information on government Web sites changed after Bush's election, often in ways that appeared to support conservative positions over good science.

These are just a few isolated anecdotes. In his book, Mooney brings the research and analytical skill of a reporter to bear on the question of how conservatives have abused science; he untangles the money trails, lays bare the internal corporate memos and documents and interviews nearly everyone he discusses, except for the few who have refused.

The result is a comprehensive picture of an all-out assault on science from a surprising number of corners, showing patterns and planning that long predate Bush. Mooney's tone is a bit strident at times, but his writing is clear, direct, and usually punchy. I gave his book as a Christmas present this year, and I'd recommend it to anyone who cares about the future of science in America.