Dover Intelligent-Design Case

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

Unfortunately, Ed Darrell  distorts my post.  I never said or implied that 
Kuhn's theory of  science favors intelligent design in any way at all. " What I 
said was  "I do not see any likelihood of intelligent design providing the 
thrust for  a paradigm shift concerning what is or what is not science." Further, 
I never  said Judge Jones imposed  "his views over the experts in science  
who were called to testify." My point is directed at capacity, and the  
indefensible contention, in my view, that somehow a legal education  provides the 
necessary ingredients for assessing expert testimony in a wide  range of domains 
of human inquiry.  
 
        When it comes to science  (if not everything else) the distinction 
between not deciding what is or is  not science and "following accepted legal 
procedures in use of expert testimony"  is, in my view unhelpful.  It is 
entirely circular to suppose that because  there are "accepted legal procedures of 
expert testimony," that these procedures  are anything more than "accepted." 
There is little more than hubris in the  view that the fact that courts use these 
procedures means that these  procedures count as legitimate evaluations of 
expert testimony. 
 
        What gives judges the  requisite background to decide whether experts 
are correct about defining  science as naturalistic, testable, and so forth?  
In other words, what  prepares judges to assess such abstract debates?
 
        I agree with the experts  (and the court) about what science is.  But 
my agreement is irrelevant to  the question of whether judges have the 
ability to sift through conceptually  difficult testimony about the nature of 
science, religion, and a host of other  issues. What in a legal education (or in 
practicing law) provides  the required background?  
 
        As for the gratuitous  remark about philosophy, well I'll leave it at 
that.
 
Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener  University School of Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20051220/7b1189c9/attachment.html