Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

Thanks, Wayne. I agree with your -- and David's -- concerns. It strikes me
that it's dangerous for the courts to try to define science. I wrote to David
offline while trying to understand this thread and observed that it seemed to
me the judge was striving for completeness -- trying to reduce the chances that
someone else would argue that ID includes an element of science and that
therefore including it in a science curriculum can be justified. I don't think
that would fly based on the other tests ID fails, but as David said, the judge
may have been angry and was trying to fire a shot across the bow of the ID
community. He certainly was justified in his anger based on the court record,
but letting anger determine the course of action is dangerous.

--- Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

> 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
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

                
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Received on Sun Jan 1 18:50:31 2006