David wrote:
> Wayne -- thanks. I largely agree with you; you've made some of the points
> I originally wanted to make maybe better than I did. My main point is that
> courts are not the place for deciding broad questions like what is "science."
> A trial is not a wide ranging search for Truth, it's more like Kabuki
> theater-- highly structured and in many ways artificial.
>
I think maybe I am also dimly grasping what you are saying also.
To put it in the layman terms what you are saying is....
Judge Jones could have addressed this case entirely within the purview
of existing legal decisions without having to delve into defining
science.
The reason you are suggesting this approach would have been better is
because we can expect that legal matters will be discussed competently
amongst all legal professionals but matters of defining science run the
risk of unintentional error when placed in the hands of those who lack
sufficient experience in these areas.
Because the case was handled this way, we may run the risk of further efforts
by the court to define what science is, with the potential of future
undesirable
consequences.
That is quite interesting, because your point is counter intuitive to someone
like myself whose main concern here is what could happen to the science.
Hence, I was a little shock to even think that a judge could come to the
exact
same ruling while hardly mentioning the word "science" let alone defining
it. Nothing in my background or training would prepare me to see it this
way.
Nevertheless, I recognize your point that keeping matters fully within the
purview of the judicial system would have some clear advantages in that
sense.
Well, only time will tell now. We definitely need to pray for our leaders.
We
also need to pray that we ourselves will not fall into temptation.
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Sat Dec 31 20:24:47 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 31 2005 - 20:24:47 EST