New NC bill on creation and evolution

[Sanford Levinson]

Steven Drahozal writes:

>The difference is that the scientific method proves Copernicus right,
>whereas the scientific method has thus far failed to raise evolution
>beyond the level of theory.  Is it the job of the government to state what
>is "fact" when it deals with the realm of belief?  Or is it best to simply
>state a fact, namely that evolution has not been proven and is merely a
>viable theory?


In what *precise* sense is it a "fact" that the earth revolves around the
sun?  Isn't this a theory-laden observation?  Is it simply the case that we
can't really imagine, any longer, a pre-Copernican understanding, so that we
offer the honorific label "fact" to what once was a highly contested
argument.  Is it, incidentally, a "fact" that the sun will come up tomorrow?
I take it that any Humean would emphasize the necessity to adopt a
particular theory of induction.  Is quantum mechanics a "fact"?  Is the
statement "smoking cigarettes is bad for your health" a fact.  Should the
Surgeon General's warning be changed to "Some people believe that smoking
contributes to cancer"?  And so on.


>University of Iowa
>steven-drahozal at uiowa.edu
>
>

------------------------
Sanford Levinson
B.U. Law School
EMail: levinson at bu.edu
------------------------