Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does
seem completely irrelevant. But the reason why we have this fight is
because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine
whether it is taught as true. If it's taught outside of science class, it
will likely be taught from a purely descriptive point of view: this is how
ID movement historically developed, it had these progenitors, it was
motivated by these concerns, etc. But if it is taught as science, however,
then it will be taught as true (or at least as a strong candidate for being
true). That's why Dover wanted this in the science curriculum, and why Dr.
Mirecki (no friend of ID) wanted it taught in a religious-studies class.
Whether it's being taught in science or religious-studies class, I think, is
just a proxy for whether it's being taught descriptively or as true. I
would assume that nothing of substance would change if Dover moved the
discussion of ID into a religion class, but then there tried to teach ID as
true -- but do others disagree?
Chris
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Dover case has me so confused that I cant see what its implications
are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read
it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out.
1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said last night on one of the
news shows that all this (ID) would be fine if relegated to a class on
comparative religion or philosophy. Why should the ostensible subject
matter or title of a class make any difference? The case wasnt about
policing the content of science classes but rather the establishment
clause. It seems like it ought not matter which door the establishment
effort enters. What am I missing here?
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@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.
