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

What does Powell's concurrence in Aguilard have to do with anything?
There's no extended discussion of "science" there.

On 1/2/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > David
>
>
> > /All the ruling does is prevent ID from being taught in high schools
> > since it, (at this moment), does not meet the standards of science.
> > /
> >
> > But what the ruling was /supposed/ to do was ask whether ID
> > unconstitutionally promotes religion, not whether ID meets the
> > standards of science. Hence the first amendment problem.
>
>
> The two questions are intertwined as Powell argues in his concurring
> opinion on Edwards v Aguillard.
>
> /The Court's search for a valid, bona fide secular purpose, also
> suggests the conclusion that the concurrence in Edwards in fact
> draws: "If no valid secular purpose can be identified, then the
> statute violates the Establishment Clause."45 In this context, the
> search for the bone fide secular purpose would entail a close
> examination of alternatives to evolution, including the question
> whether the alternative constitutes a valid scientific theory./
>
> 45 482 U.S. at 597 (Powell, J., concurring).
> http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Intelligent_Design_White_Paper.pdf
>
> See also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html#Concur1
>
>
> jack syme wrote:
>
> >> In other words, I am not arguing that the judge's decision is
> >> neutral, judges seldomly are neutral by virtue of having to decide
> >> one way or the other. What I am arguing is that the Judge's ruling is
> >> well supported by argument, evidence and fact and is by virtue of its
> >> thorougness, quite impressive.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is not supported by argument. It is supported by judicial
> > precedent, and by the constraints that judges are allowed to work
> > within. This does not necessarily mean that the decision was "good" in
> > the sense that the Gospel, or Truth was promoted.
>
>
> The court is not in the business of promoting the Truth or the Gospel.
> Therefor, from a perspective of justice, the ruling was well rooted in
> precendent and legal practice.
>
> >
> > I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the ID proponents, who
> > as far as I can tell, were only motivated by trying to make sure that
> > what was taught in their children's school was balanced and not
> > subjected solely to a materialistic worldview.
>
> The Judge seems to disagree and considers this to be a 'sham'. Much of
> the fault for ID proponents believing this is because of the arguments
> promoted by ID proponents in general who give the impression that there
> is a scientific foundation to their claims.
> The idea of a balanced treatment has also failed to withstand judicial
> scrutiny for good reasons, it intended to promote a (Christian)
> religious idea.
> Since science is often confused with materialistic worldview, I'd argue
> that such a position does an additional disservice to those who reject
> evolution as materialistic. I am presently reading an excellent book by
> Keith B Miller "Perspectives on an evolving creation" with chapters by
> many ASA members who show that science need to contradict with religion
> and vice versa. In fact, the chapters not only present compelling
> theological arguments but also compelling evidence why evolution is
> strongly supported by such "Icons" as the Cambrian explosion,
> transitional fossils, biochemistry, and genetics. All in all a book well
> worth reading.
>
> Bill Hamilton
>
> >Have you read the Judge's decision? It relates numerous instances of
> board
> >members lying in court testimony about their statements before the board
> of
> >education, and several instances of board members intimidating other
> members,
> >accusing them of being atheists, "not good Christians", and even one case
> of
> >threatening a member with damnation. What you say above may be correct,
> but
> >the means used stink.
> >
> Good point.
>
Received on Mon Jan 2 17:09:07 2006