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
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
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
-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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
-
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
w
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
