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

Courts are a branch of the government. The coercive power of government should
not be used unnecessarily. Once a court has ruled on some issue, it becomes
more difficult for that issue to progress through debate and investigation.
Don't misunderstand me -- I don't believe ID's status as nonscience will ever
change. But as Ted Davis points out, ID can be treated within philosophy of
science. Courts' area of expertise is questions of law, and they should stick
to that.

I generally don't respond to hypothetical questions, but if a situation such as
you describe below ever came to the attention of a court, obviously the court
would have to rule -- I would hope very carefully and with a great deal of
advice from experts. I don't disagree with Judge Jones' ruling or with his
conclusion that ID is not science. I just would have been more comfortable had
he stuck to the legal issues -- which were sufficient to decide the case.

--- Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:

> May in inquire as to why it is dangerous for the courts to try to define
> science? What if the issue of whether something is a science were
> central to the question of constitutionality?
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton wrote:
>
> >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.

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 21:34:56 2006