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

Pim,

I have a some trouble seeing what your point is here (below). Is it
that abortion and gay marriages have some religious connotations?
Do you think that these matters should be decided by science? I
cannot see what this has to do with the court defining science, but
maybe I don't understand what you mean by "the same".

And my question to you is, why would you even want a court to
define science: at least if you don't have to? Of course, I expect
a court could, and maybe like judge Jones, they could do a fine job,
but who would claim that a court must?

It really does seem better to settle science matters within our own science
rituals,
even if they are quite fallible. If ID becomes part of the scientific
community,
it is because it is science. In the final analysis, scientists use what
works. I grant
that there would be resistance to trying it, but finally, good scientists
test ideas
for how well they work. That the ID folk would even try to settle the science
issue
in the courts already suggests to me that they don't have a real case for the
science
they are claiming. Time is a far better filter for discerning what is
science.

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne

> But does the same also not apply to for instance abortion, gay marriage
> etc? Judges are human too after all., but ist that a reason why the
> courts should not be allowed to define science when the issue is brought
> to them?
> What makes science different from other such issues?
>
>
> Pim
>
> Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Pim Van Meurs 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?
> >>
> >
> >
> > If issues of science end up in the courts, that is already very bad news.
> >
> > In Northern California at least, judges are elected. Let's say a YEC
> > activist judge is there in Eurika, and this case is brought there. Will
> > you trust the judicial system to do justice now if the case is about
> > science? Move a few steps back on the chess board and think about
> > it.
> >
> > We should be deeply grateful to the Lord for his quite protection;
> > that a W appointed judge in a creationist town did a commendable and
> > honest job defining science on a matter that should never have even
> > appeared in his court. But just because we were rescued by Grace
> > this time, don't conclude you're an Abraham and can risk your wife
> > again at Gerar (Gen 20). The court should be the last place where
> > science is decided.
> >
> > By Grace alone we proceed,
> > Wayne
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 3 11:06:45 2006