I'd suggest that people read the submissions by plaintiffs and defendants in the Dover case to understand why the Judge had to address these issue the way he did.
David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Ted. The vagueries of email. Sorry I misinterpreted.
Cris -- I'm not sure I would put it exactly that way. In my view, Judge Jones could have reached the same conclusion under the existing establishment clause jurisprudence without the lengthy discourse on "science." I don't think anything in the Aguillard line of cases required that; in fact, once he found that the Dover board's intent was to sneak scientific creationism in under the mantle of ID, I think Judge Jones could have cited Aguillard on motive and been done with it. I do think the Supreme Court's establishment clause jurisprudence is flawed generally, not just in the creationism cases -- I think the Court has understood the establishment clause too broadly and the free exercise clause too narrowly -- but obviously Judge Jones is not in a position to change that.
Received on Tue Feb 28 12:07:19 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 12:07:19 EST