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

The argument that evolution is a religion is a different issue.
Courts reject that argument because evolution doesn't refer to any
deity and there are none of the ordinary indicia of religious
institutions or practices associated with it (like church buildings,
denominations, etc.). It's not that evolution isn't a "religion"
because it's "science."

As to my hypo -- ok, let's assume the school board followed proper
protocols -- there was informed consent, an opportunity to opt out,
careful recordkeeping, oversight by a qualified pscychologist, medical
doctor and biochemist, whatever. The policy would still fail under
the establishment clause because it promotes a message of religious
endorsement. It doesn't matter that what the school is doing arguably
is "science."

On 1/3/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > I'm having trouble with this hypo, Pim, because I don't see how such
> > an argument could be raised.
>
> In fact something very similar was raised by a teacher who argued that
> the school by forcing him to teach evolution was violating the
> establishment clause. Similarly, many Christians believe that evolution
> forces naturalism or atheism onto their children.
> After all according to the endorsement test in creates in the mind of a
> reasonable observer the impression or perception that the government is
> endorsing or disapproving of religion.
>
> Connor's was particularly concerned that outsiders of the political
> community would feel that there would be favored members and non-favored
> members of the community
>
> /Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are
> outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an
> accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored
> members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite
> message
>
> /
>
>
> > Imagine a different hypo: researchers find a strong link between
> > prayer and performance on standardized tests. The results of this
> > research are published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, and are
> > confirmed by a number of peer reviewed follow-up studies. Some
> > studies suggest that prayer causes biochemical changes in the brain
> > that stimulate comprehension and problem-solving acuity. (Remember
> > this is a hypo -- I doubt such studies actually exist, but then again,
> > who knows.)
> >
> > A local school board, anxious to improve test scores in the district,
> > adopts a mandatory prayer policy before the state competency exams are
> > given. The school board plans to keep careful records of student
> > performance, which will be made available to researchers who are
> > conducting additional studies concerning the linkage between prayer
> > and standardized tests.
>
> Does the school board have a valid secular purpose, namely participation
> in a science study, to further its required participation? I can see
> this policy fail on many grounds, for instance the forced participation
> in a research study. Second of all, I do not see that the schools policy
> makes for a valid scientific approach to resolve these questions. While
> these are 'questions of science' they fail the standards the court has
> set for scientific evidence in Daubert.
>
> >
> > Part of the problem here is that I think you view "science" and
> > "religion" as opposite poles: if science, then not religion. I don't
> > think it's that simple under the establishment clause. The
> > establishment clause jurisprudence asks for assessment of public
> > perception and personal motives, which can't be boiled down to such a
> > simple proposition.
> >
> I realize that there are grey areas and that a religious purpose can
> still be accepted if there is a valid secular purposes. It's not that
> black and white but IF something is scientific, then I argue that the
> 'purpose' issue may be resolved satisfactorily. In the case of purpose,
> the SC has left the decision of purpose mostly to the legistlator, of
> course, when a clear secular purpose is lacking, the purpose will be
> considered to be religious.
>
> See
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/claytonp.html
> where although a clear religious purpose was lacking, the fact that no
> secular purpose could be identified and thus the policy (to prohibit
> school dances) violated the Lemon purpose prong.
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 4 07:25:47 2006