Dover Case Questions

[Christopher C. Lund]

There is only a difference between methodological naturalism and ontological 
naturalism if we are open to the possibility that there may be other methods 
of inquiry (besides naturalism) that could potentially lead to truth.

Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained 
discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full 
picture of Truth."  If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar 
mean unconstitutional?), then we really have crossed over into ontological 
naturalism.

Chris


From: Steven Jamar <stevenjamar at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:31:10 -0500


On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote:

>
>
>         Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard  Dawkins 
>and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the  conclusions of 
>science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis  for belief in God.   
>Would it be constitutional for this sort of  Dawkins/Dennett claim to be 
>one of the propositions officially  taught as a part of a science 
>curriculum?  I assume not.  Would it  be constitutional to tell students 
>that there are no truths that  are unamentable, in principle, to scientific 
>study and  verification?  I assume not.  (I'm not saying that these sorts 
>of  thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.)   All  that 
>some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be  constitutional simply to 
>advise students that the methodological  naturalism built into scientific 
>inquiry (and which properly  excludes the teaching of "intelligent design 
>theory" as a subject  _within_ science) should not be taken for an official 
>commitment to  the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and 
>Dennett.

Wow!  Your science teachers and students must be well ahead of the  pack to 
understand the philosophy of science and concepts like  methodological 
naturalism.

But the problem with your disclaimer is that methodological  naturalism 
isn't religion and so no disclaimer is appropriate.   Indeed, it would be, 
within the current context, just another  undermining of the science 
teaching and learning that is happening.   And we don't need any more of 
that.

I seriously doubt that HS science books make the entirely legitimate  
religious/philosophical argument that the conclusions of science  point to 
the non-existence of god.  I'll bet they avoid such stuff  with great vigor.

In my experience with HS students, they do not need to be told that  science 
is not everything!

Steve


--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW
mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/

"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life:  It  goes 
on."

Robert Frost




_______________________________________________
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.