Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn"

[Sanford Levinson]

I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID
saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives
to Darwinism.  That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a
multiplicity of points of view.  Is there a principled way of deciding
when that is a desiderata?  Consider, e.g., the failure of American
public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we
have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally
believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry
persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe,
but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us,
obviously).  I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of
views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with
regard to my examples.  But, conversely, I presume that persons who
agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even
a possibility.  Is Foucault right, that what counts as "knowledge" (or
"disputable theory") is all a matter of social power?  (This is not a
rhetorical question.)
 
sandy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041214/521adf44/attachment.htm