Dover Intelligent-Design Case

[Paul Finkelman]

Is it better to have a judge decide what is science, after lots of 
expert testimony, than an elected school board after listening to 
constituents without any scientific background? Now what would really be 
nice is to have the science department decide what is science but that 
is likely to  happen in some places only after hell (if there is a hell) 
freezes over.

paul finkelman

RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:

>         Although I do not disagree with the result in this case, I am 
> troubled by the idea of judges deciding what is or what is not 
> science.  As far as I can tell, a Kuhnian conception of scientific 
> change in principle supports the possibility of intelligent design 
> being understood as expanding the current notion of science. ( I say 
> "in principle" for the reason that just because a particular 
> conception theoretically can be advanced in a Kuhnian fashion does not 
> mean that the change in paradigm will be successful). Hence, to say 
> that intelligent design cannot be considered a science according to 
> our current paradigm of science can be answered by intelligent 
> designers with a strident "So what?"
>  
>         Don't get me wrong.  According to my own understanding of the 
> philosophy of science, I do not see any likelihood of intelligent 
> design providing the thrust for a paradigm shift concerning what is or 
> what is not science. That aside, what justifies judicial 
> determinations of this matter?  I suppose one reply is that the 
> court is merely reflecting what its best understanding of the current 
> scientific paradigm is.  Moreover, courts are forever involving in 
> making judgments about complex factual and conceptual matters. 
> Still, an opinion based solely on the EC might be more in line 
> with the basis of a court's authority and expertise. 
>  
> Bobby
>
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of Law
> Delaware
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>

-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20051220/06cf8ef6/attachment.html