| Interesting point, Bobby, but since the claim is that ID is science, how does the court avoid the issue? This is just the obverse of the courts needing to decide, howsoever much discomfort is involved for all of us, what is religion from time to time, isn't it?
And the court did not say that "only this is science." Or that "this is science for all time." He based his decision on expert testimony. And that in itself, it seems to me, is a goodly ground for lessening the concern you raise about judicially-created orthodoxy.
Steve Although I do not disagree with the result in this case, I am troubled by the idea of judges deciding what is or what is not science. As far as I can tell, a Kuhnian conception of scientific change in principle supports the possibility of intelligent design being understood as expanding the current notion of science. ( I say "in principle" for the reason that just because a particular conception theoretically can be advanced in a Kuhnian fashion does not mean that the change in paradigm will be successful). Hence, to say that intelligent design cannot be considered a science according to our current paradigm of science can be answered by intelligent designers with a strident "So what?" Don't get me wrong. According to my own understanding of the philosophy of science, I do not see any likelihood of intelligent design providing the thrust for a paradigm shift concerning what is or what is not science. That aside, what justifies judicial determinations of this matter? I suppose one reply is that the court is merely reflecting what its best understanding of the current scientific paradigm is. Moreover, courts are forever involving in making judgments about complex factual and conceptual matters. Still, an opinion based solely on the EC might be more in line with the basis of a court's authority and expertise. Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware _______________________________________________
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality."
Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941
|
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
