Re: Dover Case Questions

[Steven Jamar]

Maybe they teach science differently now than when I went to school and when my boys (now ages 19 and 22) went to school, but science was inherently taught as conditional and subject to testing and change.  There are things that are known facts, but there is a lot that is still unexplained -- the true nature of light, for example, and why gravity is such a weak force compared to the others, and a whole host of things in biology and geology. Isn't that enough? Why any disclaimer at all? The ID challenge is motivated not by the demonstrable concern that there is anything wrong with the science of evolution as science, but rather by the fear that it conflicts with religious beliefs. If the point is to teach the limits of our understanding, that can be and in my experience was and is taught.  There are lots of questions still to which the answer is "we don't know." But the answer the IDers desire is not that we don't know or even that it is unknowable through current scientific methods, but rather that the answer to some of the questions is there is a creator. And that is religious. Steve On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Alan Brownstein wrote: In a clear effort in futility,  I wonder if it would be possible to identify some minimalist consensus on the list on this issue; one that reflects Mark’s thoughtful recognition of ID’s current limitations (see below) as well as Brad’s concerns about the overreaching of some evolutionists.   So – suppose someone drafted a statement disclaiming scientific overreaching as in   “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."   And then added to it a statement building on Mark’s comment – that   In its current form, or state of development, ID does not provide a framework for identifying testable hypothesis – and as such can not be recognized as science.   Is that a statement list members think school boards can constitutionally, and should, as a matter of policy, endorse?   Alan Brownstein         My sense is that some (or perhaps all) ID proponents think that some features of biological systems were designed but that other features evolved, either independently of design or after implementation of an intelligent design. ID does not, I think, necessarily involve a view that all present features of biological systems were designed. It does not necessarily require that the intelligent designer intervene at every moment or be responsible for every present-day feature. Thus ID and the existence of evolutionary processes are not necessarily incompatible. That's one reason why I think some anti-ID claims are overstated, such as the claim that ID is inconsistent with a scientific understanding of how bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics, or the claim that examples of poor design falsify ID.   On the other hand, the inability to falsify ID by pointing to poor design is one reason why it may be hard to take ID at this point seriously as a scientific theory. ID seems to be underdefined. When ID proponents identify systematically (rather than item by item) which present-day features (or precursors of present-day features) are the result of intelligent design, then it will be possible to consider whether the theory matches the facts. Until then, any example of a poorly operating biological feature can be explained as the result of evolutionary processes, and in a sense ID theory will remain nonfalsifiable, with ID proponents able to cherry-pick examples that support, or seem to support, their view. At least that's my sense of the matter.     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:46 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions   "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. --  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "There is no cosmic law forbidding the triumph of extremism in America." Thomas McIntyre

_______________________________________________
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.