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

Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

> 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".

I asked what makes the issue of the courts ruling on whether something
is science different from other rulings? The risk that an individual
judge makes a ruling because of his YEC beliefs on science, applies
equally well to other circumstances.

>
> 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?

Of course not. But that was not the question I was trying to address. If
however such a question is raised in court, especially by both sides and
it is 'essential' to the ruling then the courts have the legal
responsibility to do so.

>
> 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.

There are various legal papers by such people as Beckwith or DeWolf
which argue that ID may be constitutionally taught in schools. All these
papers rely on the presumption that ID is science or has some scientific
relevance. In the case of Dover, the DI was actually trying to not have
the courts resolve the issue since they believed that it was
unnecessary. By arguing however that the primary purpose of ID is not
religious since ID is science, they basically advanced the defense
raised by the defendants and the response to such defense by the plaintiffs.

All sides, including all the expert witnesses for the defense raised the
issue that ID is science. As I see it, whether ID is science is
essential for ruling on the secular purpose.
I also argue that IF ID had been found to have a primary scientific
purpose, the actions of the board my not have been relevant for the
endorsement test. Replace Intelligent Design by evolution and imagine a
similar case where the board requires evolution to be taught, including
their religious statements arguing that evolution supports their faith,
etc. Would the court have rejected such a policy since evolution has a
strong secular purpose?
I am looking for court cases right now where plaintiffs argued against
evolution because of its perceived religious implications.

Pim

>
> 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
>
Received on Tue Jan 3 12:13:50 2006