From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 20:47:04 EDT
--- Cmekve@aol.com wrote:
(SNIP)
> It's true that Phil Johnson is not a scientist or a
> theologian. As we all
> know he is a lawyer. It seems to me that the
> practice of the law routinely
> insists on and uses methodological naturalism (MN).
> Does the Discovery Institute
> have a legal branch that investigates ID in the law?
> Why not? The answer
> seems to be that like most, if not all natural
> theologies, they end up creating a
> god (Designer) in their own image. Apparently
> Feuerbach is alive and living
> in Seattle! :-)
Ah, but law, unless you are talking about Natural Law,
which has little role in any actual extant legal
system, is thoroughly designed (although it also
evolves in a sense), and law studies the designer all
the time. In Anglo-American legal systems, one such
study of the designer is referred to as legislative
intent. ;)
The practice of law also goes beyond MN in lots of
ways. Lawyers (and judges and juries) infer intent
from actions all the time. Intent is sort of out of
the picture in MN, but is integral to many aspects of
law. The same actions combined with different intent
can lead to different legal outcomes.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 20:47:11 EDT