RE: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn"

[Francis J. Beckwith]

Title: Message

I think Sandy's right in this regard: the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters.  The labeling becomes the whole deal rather than quality of the arguments offered by the disputants.  If I can peg your positon as "religious," I have a ready-made exclusionary rule built into the process--the establishment clause--that permits me to reject your positon without wrestling with it.    I'm not saying that is necessarily going on in this PA case, which I have not kept up with. Ed could very well be correct that the school board's resolution is incoherent drivel. But we should reject it because it is incoherent drivel and not because it is "religion."    --- Francis J. Beckwith Associate Professor of Church-State Studies Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies Baylor University  http://www.baylor.edu  ph: 254.710.6464 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://francisbeckwith.com   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:16 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn" I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism.  That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view.  Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata?  Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously).  I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples.  But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility.  Is Foucault right, that what counts as "knowledge" (or "disputable theory") is all a matter of social power?  (This is not a rhetorical question.)   sandy

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.