Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Although my sig quote does indeed quote CS Lewis ("When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle), I am not an all or nothing kind of guy when it comes to politics. I think the way topeace in the culture wars is agreeing to disagree.For example, school choiceis the solution to thecurriculum wars in the public schools. A robust Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause also allows each of us to dance to his or her own religious Piper. A live and let live approach to theEC--one that opens the public square to all kinds of celebrations (including religious ones like Christmas)--isalso a necessary part of the peace treaty. If A can avert her eye from a gay pride banner in the public square, then B can avert his eye from a nativity display ina park.ID in the science curriculum is only a!
problem
because of thegovernment school monopoly. The same for commencement prayer and sex ed.A secular establishment won't bring peace, but allowing dissenters toexit without penaltywill.Cheers, Rick DuncanSteven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Doug has stated this well. But perhaps it understates the challenge presented by evolution -- if science can explain so much, then what is left? It also understates the challenge to the Biblical literalists -- if evolution is correct, then the Biblical story is wrong. If the Biblical story is wrong in any detail, it is all suspect. If it is suspect, then what? This is the line I've heard not only from young-earther creationists, but also from those who accept the geological and astronomical data and
information and see in the Biblical creation stories another sort of truth or perhaps allegorical truth. To them, evolution challenges even that remaining confidence.I understand the all or nothing viewpoint -- though I reject it. Just read Prof. Rick Duncan's recent sig for this attitude.Steve On Nov 23, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is this: the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic explanation possible. That explanation is random variation and natural selection (ful!
ly
elaborated, with multiple mechanisms of selection). That explanation is sufficient to explain the origin of species, and that explanation does not assume purpose or guidance or design. That is as much as science can say.[snip]This clarification, even when understood, comforts some believers but not all. Just as some believers want the support of the state for their faith, some also want the support of science. Even a model that says evolution could have happened without divine guidance is too threatening.-- Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 202-806-8017 Howard Univer!
sity
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/"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."Benjamin Franklin___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.___
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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
I think I agree with both Ed and Doug. But I have a question about the content of the category of statements in between Doug's dashes -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans. Those are the exclusively religious statements, out of the domain of science (and therefore out of the government's ability to promote or disapprobate). Of course, this whole fight was started because many people thought claims about the origins of human life on this planet belonged on that list, but evolution changed that. (Those people can still climb the ladder -claims about the origin of the universe are still, at this point, out of science's domain.) But why are claims about the supernatural outside the domain of science? Science's standard commitment to naturalism entails a rejection of the supernatural, which is certainly a claim about the supernatural. And science can directly investigate the supernatural. Take the perhaps-sound-but-everyone-has-trouble-believing-them experiments allegedly showing prayer has effects on unknowing subjects that are unexplainable by naturalistic phenomena. (I won't go into the experiments here, but you can find them in Kent Greenawalt's piece, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics Pub. Poly 321, 322 (2003), and his book, Does God Belong in the Public Schools?) Science could come back at those experiments and investigate supernatural phenomena directly, right? It could investigate the efficacy of prayer, run some double-bind experiments, and conclude something like: Prayer has no empirically demonstrable, statistically significant, this-world effects. Such findings, like the findings of evolution, could then be taught as true by the government. The realm of the purely religious -- the stuff between Doug's dashes -- seems always shrinking. Surely it won't disappear. (Even if science runs experiments showing prayer has no this-world effects, for example, the question of whether it has other-worldly effects would remain.) But I understand why this frightens a lot of people. Chris From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:32:14 -0600 I agree. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:20 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Douglas Laycock wrote: Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans -- then it is true that government cannot say those claims are false. I well recognize that the examples between the dashes are a first approximation and not an adequate definition. That's a reasonable distinction. But ID is clearly in the first camp and not the second and therefore to teach that it is false would not be an EC problem. Ed Brayton ___ 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. ___ 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. ___ 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
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Christopher C. Lund wrote: I think I agree with both Ed and Doug. But I have a question about the content of the category of statements in between Doug's dashes -- "claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans." Those are the exclusively religious statements, out of the domain of science (and therefore out of the government's ability to promote or disapprobate). Of course, this whole fight was started because many people thought "claims about the origins of human life on this planet" belonged on that list, but evolution changed that. (Those people can still climb the ladder -"claims about the origin of the universe" are still, at this point, out of science's domain.) But why are "claims about the supernatural" outside the domain of science? Science's standard commitment to naturalism entails a rejection of the supernatural, which is certainly a claim about the supernatural. This isn't accurate. Science does not have a commitment to naturalism in the sense that you imagine here, as a rejection of the supernatural. There is a very important distinction between methodological naturalism (MN) and philosophical naturalism (PN). Science requires the first, not the second. As a matter of methodology, science rules out supernatural causes and it does so because it must, because supernatural causes cannot be predicted or controlled and are therefore not testable. But that doesn't mean it rules out the existence of the supernatural as a matter of conclusion. The mere fact that so many scientists are theists is enough to establish that fact. And science can directly investigate the supernatural. Take the perhaps-sound-but-everyone-has-trouble-believing-them experiments allegedly showing prayer has effects on unknowing subjects that are unexplainable by naturalistic phenomena. (I won't go into the experiments here, but you can find them in Kent Greenawalt's piece, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics Pub. Poly 321, 322 (2003), and his book, Does God Belong in the Public Schools?) Science could come back at those experiments and investigate supernatural phenomena directly, right? It could investigate the efficacy of prayer, run some double-bind experiments, and conclude something like: Prayer has no empirically demonstrable, statistically significant, this-world effects. Such findings, like the findings of evolution, could then be taught as true by the government. There is a distinction between investigating claims of supernatural causation and actually investigating supernatural causation as well. For instance, if someone makes the claim that they have an amulet with magic powers that gives them the ability to find flowing water (typically called "dowsing") underground, that claim can be tested. But does that actually disprove the power of the amulet? No, because one can always excuse away the results as being the will of whatever entity is behind the magic. Perhaps the magic amulet does not want to be discovered and hides its magic when under investigation. The supernatural can never be falsified. The most we can ever say is that the claimed effects do not show up under rigorous testing standards. The realm of the purely religious -- the stuff between Doug's dashes -- seems always shrinking. Surely it won't disappear. (Even if science runs experiments showing prayer has no this-world effects, for example, the question of whether it has other-worldly effects would remain.) But I understand why this frightens a lot of people. That much is certainly true. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
I understand why science frightens (I'm not sure this is the right word) some religious people too. But the ability of science to threaten (again, I'm not sure this is the right word either) religion is surely over-stated. To use Chris Lund's example, science might be able to test the efficacy of prayer -- when the prayers at issue seek divine intervention that changes the course of natural events, such as the progression of a terminal illness. But most prayers express different messages. They express praise, gratitude, repentance, and promises. When people pray for help from G-d, it is often for help in finding the strength or wisdom to deal with their problems. And, of course, they pray for their souls and the souls of others. I doubt science can test the efficacy of such prayers because these prayers are not directed at producing a particular material result. Alan Brownstein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher C. Lund Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:06 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist I think I agree with both Ed and Doug. But I have a question about the content of the category of statements in between Doug's dashes -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans. Those are the exclusively religious statements, out of the domain of science (and therefore out of the government's ability to promote or disapprobate). Of course, this whole fight was started because many people thought claims about the origins of human life on this planet belonged on that list, but evolution changed that. (Those people can still climb the ladder -claims about the origin of the universe are still, at this point, out of science's domain.) But why are claims about the supernatural outside the domain of science? Science's standard commitment to naturalism entails a rejection of the supernatural, which is certainly a claim about the supernatural. And science can directly investigate the supernatural. Take the perhaps-sound-but-everyone-has-trouble-believing-them experiments allegedly showing prayer has effects on unknowing subjects that are unexplainable by naturalistic phenomena. (I won't go into the experiments here, but you can find them in Kent Greenawalt's piece, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics Pub. Pol'y 321, 322 (2003), and his book, Does God Belong in the Public Schools?) Science could come back at those experiments and investigate supernatural phenomena directly, right? It could investigate the efficacy of prayer, run some double-bind experiments, and conclude something like: Prayer has no empirically demonstrable, statistically significant, this-world effects. Such findings, like the findings of evolution, could then be taught as true by the government. The realm of the purely religious -- the stuff between Doug's dashes -- seems always shrinking. Surely it won't disappear. (Even if science runs experiments showing prayer has no this-world effects, for example, the question of whether it has other-worldly effects would remain.) But I understand why this frightens a lot of people. Chris ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
We do not ban teaching that illness is caused by spiritual malaise or misalignment with the essence of the universe or any of a huge number of non-germ theories. That is the more close analogy to ID -- first causes or causes outside the realm of scientific explanation.I recall being taught the "shrunken apple" theory of mountain formation -- before we understood plate techtonics. Wrong as the shrunken apple theory is, I doubt anyone bothers to ban it -- or any number of obsolete teachings. They just select/approve books which reflect more current understandings from which to teach.Besides, the problem is not that ID is wrong -- it could even in some version be correct - -there might be a creator god out there -- it is just that it is not science -- and so it is wrong as a scientific explanation of evolution.It is that which can be limited -- not the teaching in general of controversial and even wrong ideas.SteveOn Nov 23, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Christopher C. Lund wrote:I don't want to get into an argument defending ID. Others do it better. And I don't find ID persuasive. But I wonder what will happen to those who do. Let me ask people on the listserv this next question: Should the government force private religious schools to explicitly deny ID? (If it is like banning the phlogistonistic view of chemistry or teachings contrary to the germ theory of disease, should we even hesitate?)Chris -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. . . . Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."Martin Luther King, Jr., (1963) ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Christopher C. Lund wrote: I think Ed and I are agreeing, although initially I may have put things sloppily. We agree that science cannot reject supernaturalism altogether (how could it disprove that prayer has no other-worldly effects?), but it can investigate claims about the supernatural (the phrase I used before and the phrase Doug was using), as soon as those claims begin to involve the material world. Just to clarify, and I apologize if I'm misreading or being pedantic, I don't think it's enough to say that we can test claims about the supernatural as soon as those claims begin to involve the natural world. I think it has to be stated more rigorously than that. The supernatural claim has to make specific predictions about how the natural world will be affected. Science can then test the predicted effect. James Randi does this all the time, for example. But a broader claim - say, that God answers prayer - is immune to such testing precisely because it involves the willful act of a supernatural entity that we can neither control nor predict. If someone prays that a loved one would recover from a disease and they do, that is viewed as confirmation of the efficacy of prayer; if they don't, then that is viewed simply as the will of God that the loved one not recover. If you can't make a prediction, you can't truly test the idea because any outcome would fail to disconfirm it. I don't want to get into an argument defending ID. Others do it better. And I don't find ID persuasive. But I wonder what will happen to those who do. Let me ask people on the listserv this next question: Should the government force private religious schools to explicitly deny ID? (If it is like banning the phlogistonistic view of chemistry or teachings contrary to the germ theory of disease, should we even hesitate?) I think it is self-evident that the government should not force private religious schools to explicitly deny ID, or any other belief they have. Private religious schools should be allowed to teach whatever they want, as they are private. However, that doesn't mean, for instance, that government-run universities can't set standards of admission that take into account what is being taught and whether it adequately prepares a student for college level work (as in the current lawsuit against the UC system). Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Government has not mandated that religious schools deny ID or any form of creationism, but science programs at the state universities have no need of that sort of information, and so they deny entrance to kids trained in those topics. Not quite. They deny entrance to kids not trained in real science. If they were saying it is not enough that you took a standard biology course, you also have to have not learned anything about ID in some other course, this would be a very different case. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed DarrellSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:58 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Let the marketplace of ideas sort it out. If ID has any validity in science, it will be in demand -- and if so, the private schools that teach it will have graduates in the forefront of that science who will be highly in demand. The story of Semmelweiss might remind us that sometimes religious ideas can have practical applications, and when they do the practical applications will manifest themselves. Isn't that the issue in the suit against the University of California system? Those companies and agencies who employ graduates of the biology programs of the California state universities (both UC and CS) also have no need of ID, which is one of the drivers of the requirement of the schools, I suspect. Agricultural giants like ADM and pharmaceutical leaders like Genentech have little use for ideas that don't or can't produce marketable products, and they hire accordingly from the ranks of university graduates. Unless government steps in to shore up ID, ID will fade away if it is not workable science. That is true of almost all science applications. Ed Darrell Dallas "Christopher C. Lund" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to get into an argument defending ID. Others do it better. And I don't find ID persuasive. But I wonder what will happen to those who do. Let me ask people on the listserv this next question: Should the government force private religious schools to explicitly deny ID? (If it is like banning the phlogistonistic view of chemistry or teachings contrary to the germ theory of disease, should we even hesitate?)Chris ___ 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.
Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is this: the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic explanation possible. That explanation is random variation and natural selection (fully elaborated, with multiple mechanisms of selection). That explanation is sufficient to explain the origin of species, and that explanation does not assume purpose or guidance or design. That is as much as science can say.The point that most people miss is this: Neither does that explanation deny or preclude purpose or guidance or design. It says only that purpose, guidance, and design are not part of the naturalistic (scientific) explanation. If some people believe that God designed and guided evolution and gave it purpose, that's a supernatural (religious) claim that science can neither confirm nor deny. Ditto if some people believe that God intervened at critical junctures to keep evolution on track, or that the apparently random variations in individuals are not random at all but result from God manipulating DNA strands. Ditto even for the people who believe that God planted false evidence that seems to support evolution in the fossil record (and now in the genomes of various species)to test our faith or confuse us or mislead us. (There is a New Testament verse said to support this theory.) None of that is science, none of it is falsifiable, and science has nothng to say about any of it.When folks like Richard Dawkins say that evolution is purposeless, he has either left science and started talking about religion -- he believes God did not guide evolution and that it has no purpose -- or he is speaking carelessly and what he really means is that purpose is not part of the scientific model. This sloppy usage, if that is what it is, does real harm to the public discourse. Purpose is no part of the scientific model, but neither does science negate religious claims of supernatural purpose or intervention.This clarification, even when understood, comforts some believers but not all. Just as some believers want the support of the state for their faith, some also want the support of science. Even a model that says evolution could have happened without divine guidance is too threatening. Thatreaction follows partly from a tendency in some parts of the society to treat science as real and religionas not real, or at least doubtful. I understand why secularists view science as more real than religion, but why would believers view it that way? Especially why would those who claim to be among the most intense believers view science as more real than religion? It seems to me as an outsider that the demand for scientific confirmation of religion is more a sign of weak faith than of strong faith. Of course there is originalist precedent in Christian tradition for seeking empirical confirmation of faith -- the Apostle Thomas did not believe he was talking to the resurrected Jesus until he put his hand in Jesus' side and felt the wound. But that story is no precedent for creating a wound that wasn't there, or otherwise phonying up the "scientific" confirmation. Douglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax)-Original Message-From: Christopher C. Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:06 PMTo: Douglas LaycockSubject: RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A TwistI realized, at some point in this colloquy, that I'm carrying around a bit of suspicion of the left and increased concern for the right. I can't help but think it's probably related to the time I spent at AUFrom: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo: "Law Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A TwistDate: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:40:09 -0600Government has not mandated that religious schools deny ID or any form of creationism, but science programs at the state universities have no need of that sort of information, and so they deny entrance to kids trained in those topics. Not quite. They deny entrance to kids not trained in real science.If they were saying it is not enough that you took a standard biology course, you also have to have not learned anything about ID in some other course, this would be a very different case.Douglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed DarrellSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:58 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A TwistLet the marketplace of ideas sort it out. If ID has any validity in
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
I think Doug has stated this well. But perhaps it understates the challenge presented by evolution -- if science can explain so much, then what is left? It also understates the challenge to the Biblical literalists -- if evolution is correct, then the Biblical story is wrong. If the Biblical story is wrong in any detail, it is all suspect. If it is suspect, then what? This is the line I've heard not only from young-earther creationists, but also from those who accept the geological and astronomical data and information and see in the Biblical creation stories another sort of truth or perhaps allegorical truth. To them, evolution challenges even that remaining confidence.I understand the all or nothing viewpoint -- though I reject it. Just read Prof. Rick Duncan's recent sig for this attitude.SteveOn Nov 23, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is this: the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic explanation possible. That explanation is random variation and natural selection (fully elaborated, with multiple mechanisms of selection). That explanation is sufficient to explain the origin of species, and that explanation does not assume purpose or guidance or design. That is as much as science can say.[snip]This clarification, even when understood, comforts some believers but not all. Just as some believers want the support of the state for their faith, some also want the support of science. Even a model that says evolution could have happened without divine guidance is too threatening. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."Benjamin Franklin ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Douglas Laycock wrote: I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is this: the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic explanation possible. That explanation is random variation and natural selection (fully elaborated, with multiple mechanisms of selection). I know this is nitpicky, and a tad bit off the subject of this list, but I would add here that not all mechanisms of evolution are selective. The question of just how ubiquitous natural selection is as the dominant means of fixing traits in a population is a matter of some disagreement among evolutionary biologists, but all would agree that there are non-adaptive mechanisms, like genetic drift, that are also a factor. How much of a factor is still a bit up in the air, but it's clear that not all traits have to be selected for in order to be passed along. When folks like Richard Dawkins say that evolution is purposeless, he has either left science and started talking about religion -- he believes God did not guide evolution and that it has no purpose -- or he is speaking carelessly and what he really means is that purpose is not part of the scientific model. This sloppy usage, if that is what it is, does real harm to the public discourse. Purpose is no part of the scientific model, but neither does science negate religious claims of supernatural purpose or intervention. I agree with this, and I have often criticized Dawkins and others. It's reasonable to say that we don't see any evidence of purpose or teleology in evolution, that reading intent or purpose into the evidence is superfluous. But then insisting that there is no guidance is also superfluous. From the standpoint of biological research, it's just not a relevant question. The evidence is clear that life has evolved and that we share a common ancestor with other species. Whether that was intended or not, we simply can't know because there are too many contingent factors. Consider this: had the dinosaurs not gone extinct as the (likely) result of the Chixilub meteor impact 65 million years ago, human beings would almost certainly not have evolved as mammals would have continued to be confined to small ecological niches due to predation. Human existence, then, is likely contingent on that event. Can we rule out the notion that said meteor was sent intentionally by God to facilitate the eventual evolution of human beings? Of course we can't. Science can answer the "how" question; it can't answer the "why" question. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Agreed. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed BraytonSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:59 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Douglas Laycock wrote: I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is this: the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic explanation possible. That explanation is random variation and natural selection (fully elaborated, with multiple mechanisms of selection). I know this is nitpicky, and a tad bit off the subject of this list, but I would add here that not all mechanisms of evolution are selective. The question of just how ubiquitous natural selection is as the dominant means of fixing traits in a population is a matter of some disagreement among evolutionary biologists, but all would agree that there are non-adaptive mechanisms, like genetic drift, that are also a factor. How much of a factor is still a bit up in the air, but it's clear that not all traits have to be selected for in order to be passed along. When folks like Richard Dawkins say that evolution is purposeless, he has either left science and started talking about religion -- he believes God did not guide evolution and that it has no purpose -- or he is speaking carelessly and what he really means is that purpose is not part of the scientific model. This sloppy usage, if that is what it is, does real harm to the public discourse. Purpose is no part of the scientific model, but neither does science negate religious claims of supernatural purpose or intervention.I agree with this, and I have often criticized Dawkins and others. It's reasonable to say that we don't see any evidence of purpose or teleology in evolution, that reading intent or purpose into the evidence is superfluous. But then insisting that there is no guidance is also superfluous. From the standpoint of biological research, it's just not a relevant question. The evidence is clear that life has evolved and that we share a common ancestor with other species. Whether that was intended or not, we simply can't know because there are too many contingent factors. Consider this: had the dinosaurs not gone extinct as the (likely) result of the Chixilub meteor impact 65 million years ago, human beings would almost certainly not have evolved as mammals would have continued to be confined to small ecological niches due to predation. Human existence, then, is likely contingent on that event. Can we rule out the notion that said meteor was sent intentionally by God to facilitate the eventual evolution of human beings? Of course we can't. Science can answer the "how" question; it can't answer the "why" question. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies. (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.) It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious teaching. The University's teaching of ID as myth seems to suggest that it will teach (or at least imply) that ID is false. (Surely, no one would miss the point if some professor taught a class entitled, Special Topics in Religion: Christianity and other Religious Mythologies or Wicca: How Could It Be Something Other Than Mythology?) To the extent the class teaches ID is false, it is unconstitutional, no? The conclusion that this class is unconstitutional will surely be embraced by those who support intelligent design. And this the counterintuitive point: shouldn't it also be embraced by those who are earnest opponents of it? After all, opponents of ID object to it principally because they see it as inherently religious. It's therefore unconstitutional when taught by the government as true. But doesn't the same principle act to protect ID from being taught by the government as false? (The obvious analogy is perhaps prayer - the government should have no power to encourage it, but also should have no power to discourage it.) Chris Lund ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
A couple of quick observations: 1. Insofar as ID claims status as science, then it is fair game for any critique -- including one that claims it is myth. It cannot claim protection as religion without surrendering its claim to scientific status. 2. Religious studies programs commonly study religion as myth. I am not sure what establishment objection could arise in this case that differs from those. David - Original Message - From: Christopher C. Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:56 PM Subject: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies. (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.) It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious teaching. The University's teaching of ID as myth seems to suggest that it will teach (or at least imply) that ID is false. (Surely, no one would miss the point if some professor taught a class entitled, Special Topics in Religion: Christianity and other Religious Mythologies or Wicca: How Could It Be Something Other Than Mythology?) To the extent the class teaches ID is false, it is unconstitutional, no? The conclusion that this class is unconstitutional will surely be embraced by those who support intelligent design. And this the counterintuitive point: shouldn't it also be embraced by those who are earnest opponents of it? After all, opponents of ID object to it principally because they see it as inherently religious. It's therefore unconstitutional when taught by the government as true. But doesn't the same principle act to protect ID from being taught by the government as false? (The obvious analogy is perhaps prayer - the government should have no power to encourage it, but also should have no power to discourage it.) Chris Lund ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Christopher C. Lund wrote: The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies. (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.) It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious teaching. Hey, that works for me. That means that ID is, in fact, a religious teaching and not a scientific theory and means it cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. ID advocates can't have it both ways, claiming that it's not religious idea but a scientific theory when trying to get around establishment clause problems on one level, then claiming it is a religious idea and not a scientific theory to claim an establishment clause violation at another level. Of course, the entire question is based upon a false premise. Of course a public university can teach that religious ideas are false. The Noahic global flood is a religious claim, but any geology course at any public university in the nation will teach that no such global flood ever took place. Belief in a flat earth is a religious belief based upon interpretation of the bible, and so is geocentrism; both of those religious ideas are debunked in public university classrooms every day, as well they should be. The germ theory of disease completely negates the religious views of the Christian Science Church and Mary Baker Eddy; that doesn't mean that university hospitals are violating the establishment clause by teaching it. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans -- then it is true that government cannot say those claims are false. I well recognize that the examples between the dashes are a first approximation and not an adequate definition. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:01 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Christopher C. Lund wrote: The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies. (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.) It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_cou rse Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious teaching. Hey, that works for me. That means that ID is, in fact, a religious teaching and not a scientific theory and means it cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. ID advocates can't have it both ways, claiming that it's not religious idea but a scientific theory when trying to get around establishment clause problems on one level, then claiming it is a religious idea and not a scientific theory to claim an establishment clause violation at another level. Of course, the entire question is based upon a false premise. Of course a public university can teach that religious ideas are false. The Noahic global flood is a religious claim, but any geology course at any public university in the nation will teach that no such global flood ever took place. Belief in a flat earth is a religious belief based upon interpretation of the bible, and so is geocentrism; both of those religious ideas are debunked in public university classrooms every day, as well they should be. The germ theory of disease completely negates the religious views of the Christian Science Church and Mary Baker Eddy; that doesn't mean that university hospitals are violating the establishment clause by teaching it. Ed Brayton ___ 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. ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Does anyone know of anything really good that's been written on this very distinction that Doug is suggesting, for purposes of Religion Clause law? Thanks Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans -- then it is true that government cannot say those claims are false. I well recognize that the examples between the dashes are a first approximation and not an adequate definition. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:01 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Christopher C. Lund wrote: The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies. (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.) It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_cou rse Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious teaching. Hey, that works for me. That means that ID is, in fact, a religious teaching and not a scientific theory and means it cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. ID advocates can't have it both ways, claiming that it's not religious idea but a scientific theory when trying to get around establishment clause problems on one level, then claiming it is a religious idea and not a scientific theory to claim an establishment clause violation at another level. Of course, the entire question is based upon a false premise. Of course a public university can teach that religious ideas are false. The Noahic global flood is a religious claim, but any geology course at any public university in the nation will teach that no such global flood ever took place. Belief in a flat earth is a religious belief based upon interpretation of the bible, and so is geocentrism; both of those religious ideas are debunked in public university classrooms every day, as well they should be. The germ theory of disease completely negates the religious views of the Christian Science Church and Mary Baker Eddy; that doesn't mean that university hospitals are violating the establishment clause by teaching it. Ed Brayton ___ 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. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Douglas Laycock wrote: Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans -- then it is true that government cannot say those claims are false. I well recognize that the examples between the dashes are a first approximation and not an adequate definition. That's a reasonable distinction. But ID is clearly in the first camp and not the second and therefore to teach that it is false would not be an EC problem. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Well, a course being offered by a faculty member at a university which teaches just about anything is not going to be treated as governmental establishment is it? Surely a university professor could teach that all religions are bunk without the professor or university running afoul of the establishment clause. Steve ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Hmm -- would a course at a public university called Why Christianity is the True Religion be constitutionally permissible? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:25 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Well, a course being offered by a faculty member at a university which teaches just about anything is not going to be treated as governmental establishment is it? Surely a university professor could teach that all religions are bunk without the professor or university running afoul of the establishment clause. Steve ___ 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. ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
I agree. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:20 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Douglas Laycock wrote: Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious -- claims about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's desires for humans -- then it is true that government cannot say those claims are false. I well recognize that the examples between the dashes are a first approximation and not an adequate definition. That's a reasonable distinction. But ID is clearly in the first camp and not the second and therefore to teach that it is false would not be an EC problem. Ed Brayton ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
But, conversely, are all those course at public universities titled "Greek Mythology" (e.g., this link) constitutionally impermissible? Allen In a message dated 11/22/2005 1:26:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm -- would a course at a public university called "WhyChristianity is the True Religion" be constitutionally permissible? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:25 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Well, a course being offered by a faculty member at a university which teaches just about anything is not going to be treated as governmental establishment is it? Surely a university professor could teach that all religions are bunk without the professor or university running afoul of the establishment clause. Steve ___ 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.
RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Title: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Imagine that a religion commits itself to a phlogistonistic view of chemistry. Surely the chemistry department can teach that it is false. Would anyone seriously believe that the Establishment Clause would prevent that? Perhaps ID isn't "false" in the same way that phlogiston is, but surely the University of Kansas can teach that there is not a scintilla of what is ordinarily called "scientific evidence" for the proposition. Or, to take an example that I earlier offered (and which no one responded to), the archeology department can surely teach that there is not a scintilla of evidence for an Israelite presence in Egypt or the Sinai or for the proposition that there was a conflict between the Lamanites and the Nephitesduring the pre-Columbian period in North America. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed BraytonSent: Tue 11/22/2005 3:00 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Christopher C. Lund wrote: The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, "Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.") It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious teaching.Hey, that works for me. That means that ID is, in fact, a religiousteaching and not a scientific theory and means it cannot be taught inpublic school science classrooms. ID advocates can't have it both ways,claiming that it's not religious idea but a scientific theory whentrying to get around establishment clause problems on one level, thenclaiming it is a religious idea and not a scientific theory to claim anestablishment clause violation at another level.Of course, the entire question is based upon a false premise. Of coursea public university can teach that religious ideas are false. The Noahicglobal flood is a religious claim, but any geology course at any publicuniversity in the nation will teach that no such global flood ever tookplace. Belief in a flat earth is a religious belief based uponinterpretation of the bible, and so is geocentrism; both of thosereligious ideas are debunked in public university classrooms every day,as well they should be. The germ theory of disease completely negatesthe religious views of the Christian Science Church and Mary Baker Eddy;that doesn't mean that university hospitals are violating theestablishment clause by teaching it.Ed Brayton___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. ___ 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.
Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
I don't want to interrupt the debate, which I am enjoying. I just want to observe that Christian Scientists are not in the least offended by the teaching of the germ theory of disease, even if they may not take the class. They would prefer to have someone preface a statement that the germ theory "completely negates" their religious views with a qualifier, like "in my opinion," or some such. Christian Scientists aren't saying that, within the framework and context of material observations, the physical scientists are not seeing what they are seeing. The conflict is not at that level; it is rather in different views of reality. That is, Christian Scientists aren't saying the physical reality is different (like a flat earth), they're saying that reality isn't physical at all, it is entirely spiritual. And when this is seen (and such seeing is not limited to Christian Scientists), the perception and experience of the physical changes. Sorry for the digression. -- Daniel Bort ___ 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.
