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

David Opderbeck wrote:

> Pim -- right, but the court didn't have to decide whether ID is in
> fact "science" to decide whether the Board's purpose was a "sham."
> The record as to the Board's motives was clear -- they intended to use
> ID as a way of sneaking their own religious views into the classroom.

You miss the point David. The board argued that they have a valid
secular purpose namely that ID is science.

> After that, whether ID qualified as "science" in any broader sense was
> irrelevant. And, in fact, Judge Jones' discussion of "science" didn't
> relate to the Lemon "purpose" prong. It related to the "endorsement"
> test, which makes this discussion of "purpose" interesting but not
> relevant to Kitzmiller.
>
Again you are missing the point. Purpose AND effect are part of the
endorsement test. You keep running in circles here. The claimed secular
purpose was that ID is science, like in Edwards, the court had to
determine if ID (creation science) had a valid secular purpose. It was
inevitable that the court would rule on ID being science. It was
prominently raised as a defense why the court should reject an
establishment clause violation.

Given your reasoning the court would have found that a similar board
requiring the teaching of evolution would have violated the
establishment clause irregardless of whether evolution qualitied as science.
Received on Fri Jan 6 12:40:17 2006