New NC bill on creation and evolution
lingle at CECASUN.UTC.EDU
Wed Mar 19 05:26:24 PST 1997
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, S. Drahozal wrote:
> 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?
Beg pardon, but my understanding of evolutionary theory, as a
non-scientist, is that evolution has been "raised . . . beyond the level
of theory" in the same way that Copernicianism has: until something else
comes along that more adequately explains the facts, the "theory" of
evolution is valid. Or, to make sure that this remains roughly on an
acceptable topic, so long as courts and law school profs accept Chief
Justice Marshall's formulation in 1803 and do not challenge whether
judicial review reflects original intent, it remains valid.
For what it's worth.
Larry Ingle Larry-Ingle at utc.edu
History, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
More information about the Religionlaw