Dover Case Questions

[Douglas Laycock]

    Marc and I do not disagree on the reality.  I am inclined to think
that the points he makes show that the boundary between science and
religion cannot be established in the public mind; he appears to think
that even if the point were established, the fight would go on.  I don't
think that anything turns on this difference in characterization.
 
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 Marc Stern
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions



I think Perry is right that the schools can, and should teach something
along the lines he is suggesting- though I fit is not part of the high
stakes  test ,no one will pay attention,- but I cannot agree with Doug
that such a  statement if  'established in the public mind" would defuse
the whole controversy" I think experience has shown that moderate
middle ground solutions do not defuse controversy; they seem to
encourage 'true believers of right ort left to try harder to achieve
total victory. Look at the recent discussion on this list over whether
the Equal Access Act is unconstitutional for not providing enough access
for religious speakers from outside the school or the controversy over
teaching the Bible; there now is a constitutional text available, and
school boards, such as that of Odessa Texas seem willing to insist on an
unconstitutional sectarian text

Marc   Stern

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:12 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions

 

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.

                                 Perry

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.

 

Douglas Laycock

University of Texas Law School

727 E. Dean Keeton St.

Austin, TX  78705

512-232-1341

512-471-6988 (fax)



_______________________________________________
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...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20051222/ac7cc83c/attachment-0001.html