It seems to me this language presents a kind of King Canute conundrum. It makes a legislative statement, a legislative finding, that is at least contestable if not clearly contrary to fact. Were I challenging, I'd challenge the first sentence as factually inaccurate, especially where it says
Title: Message
Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote:
Messrs.
Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated.
For
the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no
proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in
sciencefiction). It does importantly
paragraph, how are you going to enforce the prohibition contained
in the proviso?
From: Gibbens, Daniel
G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006
12:48 AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Draft ID statutory
language
Belowisdraft language fora
Ed Brayton's suggestions were much cooler-headed than my post; if there is to be legislation, he offers some ways to make it almost workable.I am nervous about legislatures stepping into a role where what is known by science is determined by a majority vote of people who are almost completely
Title: Message
Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state
legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has
passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort
may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare
requested.
Obviously the draft
is an
Title: Message
Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote:
Belowisdraft
language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills
filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this
session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So
comments and criticismare
