"In the absence of some external
force which is not bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test
tells us that evolution is what happened. If there was a supernatural
actor in the process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test
the supernatural."
That is what they say when they are being
careful. Some are sloppy, and some deliberately overreach, but that's the
claim. Chris Lund might have meant that putting ID in the
biology class or the comparative religion class is a proxy for whether to teach
that ID's claim to be science is true. Or he might have simply meant that
government can't teach that a religious view is true, nor can it teach that a
religious view is false. Where ever you put ID in the curriculum, the
government would have to be agnostic about its supernatural
claims.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions
I think Chris reveals something significant here. Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not presuming that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. They seem to think it's necessary to go further and say that ID is not true. But if the evolutionists who say ID is outside the realm of science because it's untestable really believe that it's untestable, then they have absolutely no basis for saying it's false because, by their own definition, they can't test it. The absolute best that they should be able to say is, "In the absence of some external force which is not bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that evolution is what happened. If there was a supernatural actor in the process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test the supernatural." But that's not what they say. They say a) ID is not testable, but b) even though we can't test it, we will still draw conclusions about it and call it false. I'm sorry, but if you can't test it, then you can't draw conclusions about it. After all, aren't responsible scientific conclusions the result of testing? That's why people like me often view the scientific community's test-less rejection of ID as more of an attempt to protect their hallowed turf instead of actually describe what did or didn't happen.
Brad
Chris wrote on 12/21/2005 12:06:52 PM:
> 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
_______________________________________________ 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.
