Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 20 20:36:50 PDT 2005
Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science" was religion and not science. It held only that the particular law (the "Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular purpose. Even here, the Ct accomplished this only by misinterpreting the stated secular purpose--academic freedom for students--and saying that since the law did not advance academic freedom for teachers it was a sham. Scalia's dissent demolished the majority's reasoning on this point.
Ed Brayton <stcynic at crystalauto.com> wrote:
As a further note on the connection between this and EC jurisprudence,
there is a major lawsuit going on right now in Pennsylvania over this
and the central question will be whether ID is a scientific theory or
merely old-fashioned creationism dressed up in vaguely
scientific-sounding language. If it is the latter, then the Edwards
precedent applies. And so far, the evidence is strongly on the side of
the first conclusion, not the second. The criticisms of evolution
offered by the ID crowd - and that is all ID actually is at this point,
a set of criticisms of evolutionary theory, there is no ID theory or
model - are the same criticisms that were found in creation science that
was ruled out of public school science classrooms in 1987. In fact, I
have just today been reading the deposition of the publisher of the
textbook, Of Pandas and People, that the Dover school board put into
science classrooms there. His name is Jon Buell. In that deposition he
makes the very damaging admission that they used the exact same
definition in the book of "creation science" as they used for
"intelligent design". In fact, the original draft of the book used the
terms "creation", "creationism" and "creation science" and they were
later simply replaced with the phrase "intelligent design" with no
change in the definition or the positions attributed to them as distinct
ideas at all. And this is from the first (and only) "intelligent design"
textbook ever produced, the very book that coined the phrase. This is
likely to be very compelling in court.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw