Dover Case Questions
DLaycock at law.utexas.edu
Thu Dec 22 08:12:00 PST 2005
Perry Dane writes:
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.
This should definitely be part of the science curriculum -- because it is true, because it is part of explaining the meaning and boundaries of science and the scientific method, and because it addresses a very widespread misunderstanding that fuels resistance to central parts of the science curriculum. If this simple point could ever be established in the public mind, it would defuse the whole controversy. That degree of success is of course quite unlikely, but the point is important and needs to be emphasized at every opportunity.
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw