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

<em>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.</em>

My hypothetical assumed the study does meet the requirements of
"science". Assume whatever other facts you need to about the study's
design and methodology in order to meet those requirements. Remember,
it's a hypothetical. Don't get overly hung up on the details of the
imaginary study.

But let me refine the hypo a little:

Scenario 1: The record shows that the school board's motives were
strictly scientific. The board had no motive but to engage in a
scientific study of whether prayer produces a biochemical recation
that correlates with an improvement in standardized test scores.
However, the study's methodology is considered "junk science" by the
scientific community. The theory underlying the study has been shown
to be false in numerous peer-reviewed articles, and the proposed
methodology ignores basic principles of statistical design.

Scenario 2: The underlying theory, design and methodology of the
study are soundly scientific. However, the record shows that the
school board had religious motives. None of the school board members
were concerned with the science at all; they were concerned only with
getting prayer into the public schools. These school board members
were savvy and devious enough, however, to involve outside experts in
the study who were truly interested in the science of the study,
without disclosing their religious motives to those outside experts.

Under the "purpose" prong of the Lemon test, the results might differ
under these two scenarios, but the difference would have nothing to do
with whether the study meets the criteria of "science." Under
Scenario 1, the school board's actions clearly pass Lemon's "purpose"
prong, even though the study isn't "science." Under Scenario 2, the
school board's actions clearly fail Lemon's "purpose" prong, even
though the study is validly considered "science."

The point is that the definitive consideration under Lemon's "purpose"
prong isn't the study's status as "science," it's the school board's
motives. The "endorsement" test asks questions about human
perceptions: do people affected by the policy perceive a government
endosement of religion. The "purpose" prong of Lemon asks questions
about human motives: what motivated the people who adopted or
enforced the government policy. In neither instance does the actual
status of the policy as "science," "not science," "ham sandwich," or
some other categorical label matter. What matters is only perception
and motive.

On 1/4/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 15:57:30 2006