Re: Dover Case Questions

[Steven Jamar]

Who are "they"? If it is the press-created "they", then keep in mind that the press always looks for the polar advocates - young earthers vs. in-your-face athiests. Let's turn it around for a minute. I look at disease, war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees, elbows, eyes), and I infer that there cannot be a god.  Why should this not be taught if ID should be?  I make my inferences about the existence of a creator from these facts.  Why isn't this just as legitimate as science as ID's opposite inference? It is.  Just as legitimate.  And that is, not at all. As a matter for debate in another class, it would be fun for some people, I'm sure.  But it is not science.  It is a belief formed from observation. I can decide either way:  there is a creator, there is not a creator -- and there is no difference in observable results in physics, chemistry, or biology. There may be observable results in sociology or history or philosophy, however. Steve On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:35 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: I think Chris reveals something significant here.  Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not presuming that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of science.  They seem to think it's necessary to go further and say that ID is not true.  But if the evolutionists who say ID is outside the realm of science because it's untestable really believe that it's untestable, then they have absolutely no basis for saying it's false because, by their own definition, they can't test it.  The absolute best that they should be able to say is, "In the absence of some external force which is not bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that evolution is what happened.  If there was a supernatural actor in the process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test the supernatural."  But that's not what they say.  They say a) ID is not testable, but b) even though we can't test it, we will still draw conclusions about it and call it false.  I'm sorry, but if you can't test it, then you can't draw conclusions about it.  After all, aren't responsible scientific conclusions the result of testing?  That's why people like me often view the scientific community's test-less rejection of ID as more of an attempt to protect their hallowed turf instead of actually describe what did or didn't happen. Brad --  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/ "Love the pitcher less and the water more." Sufi Saying

_______________________________________________
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.