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

Yes, but it has little to do with the argument that it was "essential" for
Judge Jones to make sweeping findings about whether ID is "science." As you
note, Ted, ID could be considered "not science" and yet have a valid secular
purpose, such as presenting philosophical arguments about evolution. The
legal issue isn't whether ID meets some definition of "science." The issue
is one of motive. As you've correctly noted, the motive here wasn't really
to present philosophical arguments about evolution, it was to promote a
particular religious viewpoint about creation.

On 1/10/06, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> 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 11:12:18 2006