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

Jack: Have you ever thought that perhaps the judiciary is interpreting
the first amendment in ways the authors never intended?
I considered it and have so far rejected it, especially since the
supreme court's opinions seem to have supported the judiciary's
interpretation. In fact, while one may very well hold to the argument
that the courts are wrong, the final word on these issues is typically
in the hands of the SC
I find a position arguing against the correct interpretation of the
constitution of little interest when the courts have ruled as they
have.Until the SC rules otherwise, the court is correct to apply said
rules whether one likes it or not. The good reasons may not be
'biblical' but thank God, the Courts apply the law, not religious faith
in their rulings.
How would a narrower ruling have been more favorable to the gospel?

Pim

David:

On 1/2/06, *Pim van Meurs* <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com
<mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>> wrote:

    David Opderbeck wrote:

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

    /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./

    Powell argues that the search for a bona fide secular purpose would
    entail the determination if the alternative, in this case ID,
    consistutes a valid scientific theory.

    First of all this helps understand why the Judge may have considered
    ruling on whether ID is science essential, secondly it shows that your
    statement

> 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.

    is contradicted by Powell's concurring opinion in Ewards.
Received on Mon Jan 2 20:12:02 2006