Dover Case Questions

[Douglas Laycock]

"In the absence of some external force which is not bound by the laws of
science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that evolution is what
happened.  If there was a supernatural actor in the process, however,
then all bets are off because science cannot test the supernatural."
 
    That is what they say when they are being careful.  Some are sloppy,
and some deliberately overreach, but that's the claim.  Chris Lund might
have meant that putting ID in the biology class or the comparative
religion class is a proxy for whether to teach that ID's claim to be
science is true.  Or he might have simply meant that government can't
teach that a religious view is true, nor can it teach that a religious
view is false.  Where ever you put ID in the curriculum, the government
would have to be agnostic about its supernatural claims.
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)
 


________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions



I think Chris reveals something significant here.  Among the evolution
supporters I have heard (and I'm not presuming that they speak for all
evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to be enough to say that
intelligent design is outside the realm of science.  They seem to think
it's necessary to go further and say that ID is not true.  But if the
evolutionists who say ID is outside the realm of science because it's
untestable really believe that it's untestable, then they have
absolutely no basis for saying it's false because, by their own
definition, they can't test it.  The absolute best that they should be
able to say is, "In the absence of some external force which is not
bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us
that evolution is what happened.  If there was a supernatural actor in
the process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test
the supernatural."  But that's not what they say.  They say a) ID is not
testable, but b) even though we can't test it, we will still draw
conclusions about it and call it false.  I'm sorry, but if you can't
test it, then you can't draw conclusions about it.  After all, aren't
responsible scientific conclusions the result of testing?  That's why
people like me often view the scientific community's test-less rejection
of ID as more of an attempt to protect their hallowed turf instead of
actually describe what did or didn't happen. 

Brad 

Chris wrote on 12/21/2005 12:06:52 PM:

> Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense,
does
> seem completely irrelevant.  But the reason why we have this fight is
> because whether ID is taught as science or something else will
determine
> whether it is taught as true.  If it's taught outside of science
class, it
> will likely be taught from a purely descriptive point of view: this is
how
> ID movement historically developed, it had these progenitors, it was
> motivated by these concerns, etc.  But if it is taught as science,
however,
> then it will be taught as true (or at least as a strong candidate for
being
> true).  That's why Dover wanted this in the science curriculum, and
why Dr.
> Mirecki (no friend of ID) wanted it taught in a religious-studies
class.
> 
> Whether it's being taught in science or religious-studies class, I
think, is
> just a proxy for whether it's being taught descriptively or as true.
I
> would assume that nothing of substance would change if Dover moved the
> discussion of ID into a religion class, but then there tried to teach
ID as
> true -- but do others disagree?
> 
> Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20051221/14fd8f58/attachment.html