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

David Opderbeck wrote:

><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."
>

On the contrary, lacking a valid secular purpose, the first scenario
would inevitably fail the secular purpose prong of Lemon.

In fact in Dover, the plaintiffs argued that

"This Court should similarly reject any suggestion by defendants or
their amici that this Court cannot evaluate whether intelligent design
is science in order to determine whether there could be a secular
purpose in presenting
it to students in a public-school science class."

After all, if there were a valid secular purpose, then the Lemon prong
would survive."

“While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a
secular purpose, it is required that the
statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham."
Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87

Similarly

"The Court’s search for a valid, bona fide secular purpose, also
suggests the conclusion that the concurrence in Edwards in fact draws:
“If no valid secular purpose can be identified, then the statute
violates the Establishment Clause.”45"

If no valid secular purpose can be found, then the establishment clause
has been violated...

I still would like to see some evaluation of my example in which the
motives of the board were clearly religious in requiring evolutionary
theory to be taught. Would this violate the establishment clause? Would
the mere fact that to many observers, evolution has religious
implications, make evolution failing the endorsement test? Again, the
presence of a valid secular purpose is an essential requirement here to
help decide the case. Absence of any secular purpose, the act would fail
but if a valid and sincere secular purpose can be found this has to be
taken into consideration.

>Under Scenario 2, the
>school board's actions clearly fail Lemon's "purpose" prong, even
>though the study is validly considered "science."
>
>
So the findings seem to be that being science is not sufficient but
lacking any scientific (secular) purpose the courts are likely to find
in favor of the Lemon purpose prong violation. Although I am still not
convinced that the study, as you argue, serves a valid secular purpose,
certainly it does not seem to be meeting most of the rules which would
make it science. A valid study methodology hardly makes something
scientific.

>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.
>
Not necessarily, even if the motives were to be religiously motivated,
there may still be a valid secular purpose. So I argue that lacking a
valid secular purpose, there is no such defense. This is what happened
in Dover, the defendants claimed that their religious statements were
irrelevant since there is ID has a sincere secular purpose, namely it
being science.

>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.
>
>
Not according the the SC which ruled that if the law or act has a
secular purpose, then the purpose prong may not have been violated.
Received on Wed Jan 4 23:44:46 2006