Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time? Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g., the Big Bang lends supports to first cause arguments. Suppose that a devout theist on a school board realizes this and suggests that an intro to science text book mention the Big Bang theory (Imagine, ironically, that its absence is a result of young earth creationists getting it removed because it is inconsistent with their view of the earth's age, which is, by the way, a view many of them hold.). Imagine further that it were discovered later that the inclusion of the Big Bang was motivated by religion, even though the purpose of the inclusion is secular because it is the better scientific theory and students ought to learn the better scientif theory. This tells us two things: (1) motive and purpose are conceptually distinct, since the former is a belief held by minds and the latter, when it comes to statutes, is a property held by texts; and (2)clearly, the better scientific theory could be the more religious one in comparison to its rivals, but that seems like a less than good reason to prohibit teaching it in public schools.
Frank On Sunday, August 21, 2005, at 12:43PM, Ed Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ><<Original Attached>>No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05 > >_______________________________________________ >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. > -- Francis J. Beckwith, MJS, PhD Associate Professor of Church-State Studies Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies, Baylor University <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://francisbeckwith.com>
Rick Duncan wrote:
Of course you have to read quotations in context. But you've pointed out nothing in the context which changes the clear meaning that I spoke of. As I said, the fact that they don't even have a specific curriculum to strike down but still said that teaching "creation science" in any form, regardless of any specific curriculum, was unconstitutional, actually strengthens my position. And as Ed Darrell pointed out, the district court's decision was based strongly on McLean v. Arkansas, which ruled that creation science is explicitly religious in nature and not scientific and therefore could not be mandated without an EC problem.
If I taught a con law class, I'm sure I would do so. :) Ed Brayton |
_______________________________________________ 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.
