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

>>> Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> 01/09/06 11:43 PM >>>writes:
Let me further the support for my thesis by observing that in Edwards v.
Aguillard the court found that

    "The majority in /Edwards /found the statute in violation of the
    Establishment Clause, but under /Lemon's/ first prong of a primary
    secular purpose it did not hold that creation is inherently
    religious. It expressly stated that teachers may present other
    scientific theories besides evolution: "[T]eaching a variety of
    scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren
    might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the
    effectiveness of science instruction.""

    and

    "If the Louisiana Legislature's purpose was solely to maximize the
    comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction, it would
    have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the
    origins of humankind. (/Edwards/ at 588)."

****

Ted comments:

Pim is correct to point to this part of the Edwards decision. Ed Larson,
the leading legal expert on creationism, told me two years ago (and
confirmed his view two months ago as the trial here wound down) that a
science teacher *may* discuss ID in class if they have a valid secular
purpose for doing so. Ed knows that I might be citing his opinion in public
forums such as this one--that's why I checked with him recently. My
understanding is that Ed's opinion is based on this particular point. I
believe myself that it serves a legitimate educational and secular purpose,
for a teacher to discuss aspects of ID in biology and physics classes (the
fine tuning of the universe, e.g., in physics), and it would be both wrong
and unfortunate if Judge Jones' decision is interpreted to mean that this
cannot happen. ID makes some secular philosophical criticisms of evolution
and of the way in which evolution is presented in textbooks, just as the
fine tuning of the universe (or, shall we say, the apparent fine tuning) is
an observational fact admitted by nearly all who know the evidence. To put
a gag order on a teacher who simply wants to talk about theories and
evidence is not IMO legitimate jurisprudence.

But Jones was presented with strong evidence that ID was deeply in bed with
creationists--and that is a fact, pure and simple, a fact I have called to
the attention of my friends in ID for some time, without getting them to
alter their stance in any obvious way--and thus ID got transformed into
virtual creationism in Harrisburg. This is just one more example of my
axiom: In the politics of science, the politics drives the science. And
truth loses.

As I say, it remains to be seen whether or not Jones' decision is
interpreted this way by other courts. I hope it is not. My assumption
would be, that the older precedent will prevail when it comes to applying
Jones' ruling, and that a teacher with a legitimate secular purpose for
discussing ID can still do so. But I really don't have a lot of confidence
in this particular hope.

Ted
Received on Tue Jan 10 09:07:18 2006