David Opderbeck wrote:
>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."
>
>
>
The endorsement test however is not limited to just these indices. In
fact, to many evolution presents a disaproval of religion and even an
endorsement of what some see as a religion, namely atheism.
>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."
>
>
I argue that the lack of a valid secular purpose would be a major factor
since the study does not meet the SC's requirements of science.
It's the fact the evolution is a well established science that provides
it with a primary secular purpose which is not religious, despite the
fact that to an observer, evolution may very well be seen as an
endorsement of a particular religion or disaproval of a particular religion.
More later
Received on Wed Jan 4 12:58:27 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 04 2006 - 12:58:27 EST