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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]
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.

Reply via email to