Dover Case Questions

[Perry Dane]

Alan Brownstein writes:

>So - suppose someone drafted a statement disclaiming scientific
>overreaching as in
>
>1.      "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."
>
>And then added to it a statement building on Mark's comment - that
>
>2.      In its current form, or state of development, ID does not
>provide a framework for identifying testable hypothesis - and as such
>can not be recognized as science.
>
>Is that a statement list members think school boards can
>constitutionally, and should, as a matter of policy, endorse?

         I do think that it might be salutary and just plain correct 
to append to all science classes (and for that matter social science 
classes that proceed from a presumption of methodological naturalism) 
the sort of disclaimer I suggested earlier.  But I worry that 
attaching such a disclaimer specifically to the teaching of evolution 
improperly privileges one particular religious point of view over others.

         The trick is to attend to the legitimate concern that 
science education would inadvertently promote an ideology of 
scientism, while also avoiding the official promotion of religion.

                                 Perry


*******************************************************
Perry Dane
Professor of Law

Rutgers University
School of Law  -- Camden
217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102

dane at crab.rutgers.edu
www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/

Work:   (856) 225-6004
Fax:       (856) 969-7924
Home:   (610) 896-5702
*******************************************************