Re: Dover Case Questions

[Steven Jamar]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Christopher C. Lund wrote: Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth."  If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar mean unconstitutional?), then we really have crossed over into ontological naturalism. Chris No.  I meant inappropriate for the reason stated.  And no, saying that such a disclaimer is inappropriate does not push us over to ontological naturalism.  It just says it is inappropriate to require such a disclaimer for science.  It is also inappropriate to require one for any other subject. 2 + 2 = 4 is true.  But neither it, nor all of the math yet invented, is the whole truth of existence.  The map is never the thing itself.  The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. --  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/ "It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear." Aristotle

_______________________________________________
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.