Re: Dover Case Questions

[Steven Jamar]

I think this is beside the point.  The key thrusts of ID are, it seems to me, (1) there is a creator, and (2) the teaching of evolution is inconsistent with that.  So, to the minds of the IDers, evolution itself is the cancer to be excised and attacked.  It is not that evolution might be right, but that it is wrong because the Bible says something else and is the literal word of god. Most Christians  have no difficulty believing in some version of a creator god and in accepting the earth as 5 billion years old, the universe as 13.7 billion years old, that dinosaurs lived and died out a long time ago (65 million years ago), etc., and in accepting that life evolved. But some people do have trouble and see in the approach of science and the discoveries of science a fundamental inconsistency with the existence of god. But god has proven to be a pretty tough nut to crack -- it survived the Copernican revolution, Einstein, and Newton.  It will survive Darwin too.   The dangerous aspect in the ID challenge of wanting to put it in science is the undermining of science and the teaching of science. The constitutional aspect is the establishment of religion by saying that science is subject to religious beliefs. Steve On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Christopher C. Lund wrote: Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does seem completely irrelevant.  But the reason why we have this fight is because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine whether it is taught as true.  If it's taught outside of science class, it will likely be taught from a purely descriptive point of view: this is how ID movement historically developed, it had these progenitors, it was motivated by these concerns, etc.  But if it is taught as science, however, then it will be taught as true (or at least as a strong candidate for being true).  That's why Dover wanted this in the science curriculum, and why Dr. Mirecki (no friend of ID) wanted it taught in a religious-studies class. Whether it's being taught in science or religious-studies class, I think, is just a proxy for whether it's being taught descriptively or as true.  I would assume that nothing of substance would change if Dover moved the discussion of ID into a religion class, but then there tried to teach ID as true -- but do others disagree? Chris On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Dover case has me so confused that I can’t see what its  implications are beyond its narrow facts.  A couple of questions  came to mind as I read it.  Maybe someone can help me sort them out. 1.  One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said last night on one  of the news shows that “all this” (ID) would be fine if relegated  to a class on “comparative religion” or philosophy.  Why should the  ostensible subject matter or title of a class make any difference?   The case wasn’t about policing the content of science classes but  rather the establishment clause.  It seems like it ought not matter  which door the establishment effort enters.  What am I missing here? _______________________________________________ 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. --  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/ A word is dead When it is said, Some say. I say it just Begins to live That day. Emily Dickinson 1872

_______________________________________________
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.