Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolut ion policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn" .:.

[Kelly Ford]

Perhaps he meant natural selection is an established fact.  News to me,
too that "evolution is an established fact."  Sounds like Gould
speaking.
 
(This is off-list).
 
Kelly Ford

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Menard, Richard
H.
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:40 PM
To: 'religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: Re: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover
evolut ion policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn" .:.



Evolution is an established fact?  News to me. 

Richard Menard 
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood 
202-736-8016 (office) 
202-246-7408 (mobile) 


-----Original Message----- 
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu> 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>

Sent: Tue Dec 14 18:05:34 2004 
Subject: Re: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover
evolution policy    "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn" .:.

Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples
you mention, including critiques of evolution.  But there is a
difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements
about the mechanism by which it works.  Requiring teaching that
evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative.  But allowing or
even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense.  Even if it is
creationism light. 

Knowledge is not all a matter of social power.  But what constitutes
"truth" at any given time certainly is affected by social power. 

Steve 

On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: 


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 

--  
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017 
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:sjamar at law.howard.edu 
Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ 

"It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the
constraint of fear." 

Aristotle 

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following
annotations on 12/14/2004, 05:39:39 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041214/49c8ed27/attachment.htm