Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Factualizing Religion
.
Timothy Sandefur is over at The Panda's Thumb kicking sand in the face of the 98 pound weakling of the law, Casey Luskin. The occasion is Luskin's article in that bastion of legal scholarship, Liberty University Law Review.
Luskin's thesis is that criticizing Intelligent Design creationism = attacking a religious viewpoint. He combines this with an insistent denial that ID is a religious viewpoint, which is an amusing effort to stick to the Discovery Institute party line, but is not, strictly speaking, illogical. His position is that, if we assume the fact (which is a fact, but he assumes, rather than believing it) that ID creationism is a religious viewpoint, why, then, it violates the First Amendment to disparage it: "Sylvia Mader's 2007 introductory biology textbook, Essentials of Biology…plainly communicates that ID runs counter to the factual scientific data," he writes. "If she is correct that ID is a religious viewpoint, is it appropriate for state schools to use her textbooks that unambiguously claim ID is empirically wrong?"
Sandefur is exactly right about this:
The correct answer is, yes, it's perfectly constitutional and perfectly appropriate ...
The neutrality requirement in the First Amendment forbids the government from taking a position on the truth or falsehood of a religious doctrine in religious terms, but it may take a position on any matter on areligious or non-religious terms. That is, the Constitution forbids the government from endorsing or propagating or censoring the doctrinal truth of a religious proposition, but it does not forbid the government from endorsing or propagating the factual truth of a proposition, even if those propositions turn out to be the same in content. It does not forbid the government from reaching a conclusion, and stating or endorsing that conclusion, from secular premises, even if that conclusion happens to clash with someone's religious view. Government may not take religious positions, but it take secular positions that happen to clash with positions endorsed by a religious viewpoint.
This is obviously the lesson of Edwards vs. Aguillard. The state can teach the secular science from physics, astronomy, geology and other sciences that unambiguously claim that the sort of biblical literalism that insists the Earth is only 6,000 years old is empirically wrong. The government cannot teach that belief in the Bible is wrong or that YEC is bad theology, but teaching the evidence of science is perfectly permissible, even if it has the "spillover effect" (in the words of 1st Amendment expert, Kent Greenawalt) that it contradicts those beliefs.
Go read Sandefur's article. It's well worth the effort ... especially since it might be his last, given his insult to Poseidon.
.
Go read Sandefur's article. It's well worth the effort ... especially since it might be his last, given his insult to Poseidon.
.
Comments:
<< Home
As you know, there are science trained Young Earth Creationists who sincerely and honestly believe that the "evidence" for an old Earth is flawed. They think that they have empirical evidence for a young Earth, consistent with the age deduced in the Bible.
Can they teach that in public schools as long as they don't mention the Bible?
What you're doing is setting up a situation where the correctness of science is being decided by a court of law. According to you and Sandefur, it's okay to teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that's the truth. It's not okay to teach that it's 6000 years old because that's a lie.
That's a very dangerous situation. I don't want lawyers and judges to be in the position of deciding what is scientifically correct and what isn't.
As you also know, I think that science disproves most of the basic tenets of Christianity, including the existence of a soul, life after death, the resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the efficacy of prayer. As long as I sincerely and honestly believe that there is empirical evidence in support of my belief, am I allowed to teach it in American public schools?
Can they teach that in public schools as long as they don't mention the Bible?
What you're doing is setting up a situation where the correctness of science is being decided by a court of law. According to you and Sandefur, it's okay to teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that's the truth. It's not okay to teach that it's 6000 years old because that's a lie.
That's a very dangerous situation. I don't want lawyers and judges to be in the position of deciding what is scientifically correct and what isn't.
As you also know, I think that science disproves most of the basic tenets of Christianity, including the existence of a soul, life after death, the resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the efficacy of prayer. As long as I sincerely and honestly believe that there is empirical evidence in support of my belief, am I allowed to teach it in American public schools?
"According to you and Sandefur, it's okay to teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because that's the truth. It's not okay to teach that it's 6000 years old because that's a lie."
It's not because it's a lie. It's not okay to teach in a US science class that the Earth is 6000 years old because doing so would promote an element of religious doctrine which can have no legitimate secular purpose because, as a scientific proposition, that the Earth is only 6000 years old has been shown to be false. That some creationists honestly believe the 'scientific evidence' supports their YEC views is because their version of science is that science is the practice of interpreting evidence in whatever way is required to make it conform to a literal reading of one of the Genesis creation stories. That version of 'science' can't be taught, as science in a US classroom because it too is false and thus its teaching has no secular purpose while it would serve to advance a particular religious view.
"That's a very dangerous situation. I don't want lawyers and judges to be in the position of deciding what is scientifically correct and what isn't."
Well, as the Dover Panda Trial showed, they're not necessarily bad at it. Usually when it falls to courts to decide what is and is not good science it is because the public or their politicians are trying to foist bad science (if it even rises to being merely wrong) on others. At that point, 'letting the scientists decide' has left the building. From what I've seen, courts are better at deciding what is and isn't good science than the general public and politicians are. The processes of discovery and cross-examination can do wonders in exposing bullshit that otherwise easily survives and thrives in what passes for public policy debate these days. I'd have a lot more confidence I'd get a result soundly based in evidence and reason from a court than I would from the general public, politicians or media on issues like climate change or evolution (or criminal justice under Canada's New Government (TM)).
It's not because it's a lie. It's not okay to teach in a US science class that the Earth is 6000 years old because doing so would promote an element of religious doctrine which can have no legitimate secular purpose because, as a scientific proposition, that the Earth is only 6000 years old has been shown to be false. That some creationists honestly believe the 'scientific evidence' supports their YEC views is because their version of science is that science is the practice of interpreting evidence in whatever way is required to make it conform to a literal reading of one of the Genesis creation stories. That version of 'science' can't be taught, as science in a US classroom because it too is false and thus its teaching has no secular purpose while it would serve to advance a particular religious view.
"That's a very dangerous situation. I don't want lawyers and judges to be in the position of deciding what is scientifically correct and what isn't."
Well, as the Dover Panda Trial showed, they're not necessarily bad at it. Usually when it falls to courts to decide what is and is not good science it is because the public or their politicians are trying to foist bad science (if it even rises to being merely wrong) on others. At that point, 'letting the scientists decide' has left the building. From what I've seen, courts are better at deciding what is and isn't good science than the general public and politicians are. The processes of discovery and cross-examination can do wonders in exposing bullshit that otherwise easily survives and thrives in what passes for public policy debate these days. I'd have a lot more confidence I'd get a result soundly based in evidence and reason from a court than I would from the general public, politicians or media on issues like climate change or evolution (or criminal justice under Canada's New Government (TM)).
# posted by 
: 4:40 PM
: 4:40 PM
As I see it, science exists, in part, as methodology for trying to decide between competing claims about the natural world. People can and do believe many different and even contradictory things. Science is what you use if you want to find out which of them is closer to the way things are.
If someone believes that the world is only 6000 years old because that is a tenet of his faith then he should be free to do so. If he wants to teach that to his children at home or to his fellow-believers in church then that should be his choice to make.
However, while he is entitled to teach his own children what he believes he should not be entitled teach my or other children, who are not of his faith, that it is true without them also being taught that the overwhelming majority of the evidence indicates a world that is 4.54 billion years old. He may not be lying, in the sense of deliberately stating as true something he knows is not - he may genuinely believe the earth is 6000 years old and that all the evidence for a much greater age is flawed - but the science class of a public school is not the place to teach individual beliefs. It is where students should be taught the data - that which exists regardless of individual beliefs - and the explanations that have been constructed around that data and for which that data becomes evidence. The fact that the data and the explanations may be in conflict with some religious doctrine is no reason for them not to be taught in the science classroom.
As for courts deciding questions of science, you could do worse. They are, after all, forums in which evidence for and against a specific claim is marshaled and presented for rigorous, detailed and extended scrutiny.
There are two areas where the court and the laboratory differ, however. The first is that, in a trial, the arguments are deployed so as to persuade non-scientists, whether a jury or judges, which is the stronger case. In science, this is decided 'in house', by scientists themselves. The second is that a court has to reach a verdict at the end of a trial. It has to decide innocence or guilt, whether a case is proven or not proven. In a sense, unlike science, the law is relying on a single test of the evidence to decide the issue while science is free to determine that the evidence is, at that point, inconclusive and the question should be left open until better data becomes available.
While there is always the chance that the verdict might go against science at trial, I believe it has a much better chance of making its case in a court of law that it does in the bear-pit of the mass communications media or pointless staged debates.
If someone believes that the world is only 6000 years old because that is a tenet of his faith then he should be free to do so. If he wants to teach that to his children at home or to his fellow-believers in church then that should be his choice to make.
However, while he is entitled to teach his own children what he believes he should not be entitled teach my or other children, who are not of his faith, that it is true without them also being taught that the overwhelming majority of the evidence indicates a world that is 4.54 billion years old. He may not be lying, in the sense of deliberately stating as true something he knows is not - he may genuinely believe the earth is 6000 years old and that all the evidence for a much greater age is flawed - but the science class of a public school is not the place to teach individual beliefs. It is where students should be taught the data - that which exists regardless of individual beliefs - and the explanations that have been constructed around that data and for which that data becomes evidence. The fact that the data and the explanations may be in conflict with some religious doctrine is no reason for them not to be taught in the science classroom.
As for courts deciding questions of science, you could do worse. They are, after all, forums in which evidence for and against a specific claim is marshaled and presented for rigorous, detailed and extended scrutiny.
There are two areas where the court and the laboratory differ, however. The first is that, in a trial, the arguments are deployed so as to persuade non-scientists, whether a jury or judges, which is the stronger case. In science, this is decided 'in house', by scientists themselves. The second is that a court has to reach a verdict at the end of a trial. It has to decide innocence or guilt, whether a case is proven or not proven. In a sense, unlike science, the law is relying on a single test of the evidence to decide the issue while science is free to determine that the evidence is, at that point, inconclusive and the question should be left open until better data becomes available.
While there is always the chance that the verdict might go against science at trial, I believe it has a much better chance of making its case in a court of law that it does in the bear-pit of the mass communications media or pointless staged debates.
# posted by : 11:45 PM
: 11:45 PM
As I see it, science exists, in part, as methodology for trying to decide between competing claims about the natural world. People can and do believe many different and even contradictory things. Science is what you use if you want to find out which of them is closer to the way things are.
If someone believes that the world is only 6000 years old because that is a tenet of his faith then he should be free to do so. If he wants to teach that to his children at home or to his fellow-believers in church then that should be his choice to make.
However, while he is entitled to teach his own children what he believes he should not be entitled teach my or other children, who are not of his faith, that it is true without them also being taught that the overwhelming majority of the evidence indicates a world that is 4.54 billion years old. He may not be lying, in the sense of deliberately stating as true something he knows is not - he may genuinely believe the earth is 6000 years old and that all the evidence for a much greater age is flawed - but the science class of a public school is not the place to teach individual beliefs. It is where students should be taught the data - that which exists regardless of individual beliefs - and the explanations that have been constructed around that data and for which that data becomes evidence. The fact that the data and the explanations may be in conflict with some religious doctrine is no reason for them not to be taught in the science classroom.
As for courts deciding questions of science, you could do worse. They are, after all, forums in which evidence for and against a specific claim is marshaled and presented for rigorous, detailed and extended scrutiny.
There are two areas where the court and the laboratory differ, however. The first is that, in a trial, the arguments are deployed so as to persuade non-scientists, whether a jury or judges, which is the stronger case. In science, this is decided 'in house', by scientists themselves. The second is that a court has to reach a verdict at the end of a trial. It has to decide innocence or guilt, whether a case is proven or not proven. In a sense, unlike science, the law is relying on a single test of the evidence to decide the issue while science is free to determine that the evidence is, at that point, inconclusive and the question should be left open until better data becomes available.
While there is always the chance that the verdict might go against science at trial, I believe it has a much better chance of making its case in a court of law that it does in the bear-pit of the mass communications media or pointless staged debates.
If someone believes that the world is only 6000 years old because that is a tenet of his faith then he should be free to do so. If he wants to teach that to his children at home or to his fellow-believers in church then that should be his choice to make.
However, while he is entitled to teach his own children what he believes he should not be entitled teach my or other children, who are not of his faith, that it is true without them also being taught that the overwhelming majority of the evidence indicates a world that is 4.54 billion years old. He may not be lying, in the sense of deliberately stating as true something he knows is not - he may genuinely believe the earth is 6000 years old and that all the evidence for a much greater age is flawed - but the science class of a public school is not the place to teach individual beliefs. It is where students should be taught the data - that which exists regardless of individual beliefs - and the explanations that have been constructed around that data and for which that data becomes evidence. The fact that the data and the explanations may be in conflict with some religious doctrine is no reason for them not to be taught in the science classroom.
As for courts deciding questions of science, you could do worse. They are, after all, forums in which evidence for and against a specific claim is marshaled and presented for rigorous, detailed and extended scrutiny.
There are two areas where the court and the laboratory differ, however. The first is that, in a trial, the arguments are deployed so as to persuade non-scientists, whether a jury or judges, which is the stronger case. In science, this is decided 'in house', by scientists themselves. The second is that a court has to reach a verdict at the end of a trial. It has to decide innocence or guilt, whether a case is proven or not proven. In a sense, unlike science, the law is relying on a single test of the evidence to decide the issue while science is free to determine that the evidence is, at that point, inconclusive and the question should be left open until better data becomes available.
While there is always the chance that the verdict might go against science at trial, I believe it has a much better chance of making its case in a court of law that it does in the bear-pit of the mass communications media or pointless staged debates.
# posted by : 11:46 PM
: 11:46 PM
Oops, sorry about the duplications, John, but I got an error message on the first two attempts to post indicating that they had failed due to length.
# posted by : 11:54 PM
: 11:54 PM
Ian:
Not to worry. Blogger's comments function is screwed up again (it's given me quite a lot of trouble lately too).
Larry:
Can they teach that in public schools as long as they don't mention the Bible?
In what sort of class? In a comparative religion class? Sure. In a science class? No.
The courts don't determine the correctness of science in these cases, they determine what counts as "science" to the scientific community.
Now sure, there will be minority opinions in the community and courts recognize and allow for that. And there will be "on the edge" science over which there is no consensus but that is not a problem for the courts in these sort of cases, since they essentially apply only to K-12 education, where no one is about to be teaching such science anyway. (In other cases, the courts err on the side of caution and exclude such science from court until there is more of a consensus, particularly as to the method involved. It is, of course, way more complex than that but I can't give you a law school semester's worth on the admissibility of scientific evidence in the comments.)
In other words, the courts are deciding only what fits in the category of "science" and what fits in the category of "religion."
The larger question here is whether the government, through schools, can teach science with the implicit/explicit statement that science delivers "truth," even when it contradicts religious beliefs. The answer under our Constitutional scheme (and, no, we're not about to change it to make a Canadian curmudgeon happy) is that the government can do it as long as we can say that "science" is "secular," i.e. not based on secular religious belief (as evidenced by the fact that the scientific community includes people of many different philosophical/theological beliefs).
Not to worry. Blogger's comments function is screwed up again (it's given me quite a lot of trouble lately too).
Larry:
Can they teach that in public schools as long as they don't mention the Bible?
In what sort of class? In a comparative religion class? Sure. In a science class? No.
The courts don't determine the correctness of science in these cases, they determine what counts as "science" to the scientific community.
Now sure, there will be minority opinions in the community and courts recognize and allow for that. And there will be "on the edge" science over which there is no consensus but that is not a problem for the courts in these sort of cases, since they essentially apply only to K-12 education, where no one is about to be teaching such science anyway. (In other cases, the courts err on the side of caution and exclude such science from court until there is more of a consensus, particularly as to the method involved. It is, of course, way more complex than that but I can't give you a law school semester's worth on the admissibility of scientific evidence in the comments.)
In other words, the courts are deciding only what fits in the category of "science" and what fits in the category of "religion."
The larger question here is whether the government, through schools, can teach science with the implicit/explicit statement that science delivers "truth," even when it contradicts religious beliefs. The answer under our Constitutional scheme (and, no, we're not about to change it to make a Canadian curmudgeon happy) is that the government can do it as long as we can say that "science" is "secular," i.e. not based on secular religious belief (as evidenced by the fact that the scientific community includes people of many different philosophical/theological beliefs).
P.S.
... as long as we can say that "science" is "secular," i.e. not based on secular religious belief.
Opps. "sectarian" religious beliefs.
Or, I should add, it's Constitutional equivalent, atheism.
... as long as we can say that "science" is "secular," i.e. not based on secular religious belief.
Opps. "sectarian" religious beliefs.
Or, I should add, it's Constitutional equivalent, atheism.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that at some point in the near future it becomes absolutely clear that supernatural beings actually exist and that they have an interest in us and our planet. In other words, we have proof of the existence of God.
Would it still be illegal to teach creationism in American public schools?
Would it still be illegal to teach creationism in American public schools?
Of course, that would depend on what you mean by "creationism." Anything dependent on particular sectarian beliefs, such as the biblical account of creation would still be unconstitutional (unless there was consensus in the scientific community that it was a particular god).
And scientific evidence of "supernatural" beings wouldn't necessarily prove the existence of a creator god, so it would depend on the exact evidence you're talking about as to whether it could be taught that there was some generic "creator."
And scientific evidence of "supernatural" beings wouldn't necessarily prove the existence of a creator god, so it would depend on the exact evidence you're talking about as to whether it could be taught that there was some generic "creator."
Ian H Spedding FCD says,
As for courts deciding questions of science, you could do worse. They are, after all, forums in which evidence for and against a specific claim is marshaled and presented for rigorous, detailed and extended scrutiny.
Interesting.
In most Western industrialized nations the question of what is and what isn't science is decided by educators. That's why evolution is usually taught in the public schools in those countries. Creationism isn't taught.
Are you saying that you prefer the American system where the issue is decided by lawyers and judges and not by education professionals and scientists?
Also, what do you think of Justice Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)? Is that an example of "doing worse"?
Lawyers and legislatures all over America are passing laws restricting the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism. Much of this activity has been found to be unconstitutional because it violates separation of church and state. That's fine, but don't confuse that American legal issue with science.
What is, and what is not science, is not going to be decided by an American judge. I disagree strongly with the decision by Judge Jones in KITZMILLER, et al. when he strays from the legal question of whether there's a religious motivation behind the actions of the Dover school board.
He endorses a particular view of science that was espoused by some of the accommodationist witnesses but there are other, equally valid, points of view that he never heard.
As for courts deciding questions of science, you could do worse. They are, after all, forums in which evidence for and against a specific claim is marshaled and presented for rigorous, detailed and extended scrutiny.
Interesting.
In most Western industrialized nations the question of what is and what isn't science is decided by educators. That's why evolution is usually taught in the public schools in those countries. Creationism isn't taught.
Are you saying that you prefer the American system where the issue is decided by lawyers and judges and not by education professionals and scientists?
Also, what do you think of Justice Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)? Is that an example of "doing worse"?
Lawyers and legislatures all over America are passing laws restricting the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism. Much of this activity has been found to be unconstitutional because it violates separation of church and state. That's fine, but don't confuse that American legal issue with science.
What is, and what is not science, is not going to be decided by an American judge. I disagree strongly with the decision by Judge Jones in KITZMILLER, et al. when he strays from the legal question of whether there's a religious motivation behind the actions of the Dover school board.
He endorses a particular view of science that was espoused by some of the accommodationist witnesses but there are other, equally valid, points of view that he never heard.
Are you saying that you prefer the American system where the issue is decided by lawyers and judges and not by education professionals and scientists?
It's only decided by lawyers and judges when the education professionals have failed. Now, if you want to rail against our decentralized educational system, I'm all with you but that's not our Constitution's fault. And we're actually working on getting national standards right now.
He endorses a particular view of science that was espoused by some of the accommodationist witnesses but there are other, equally valid, points of view that he never heard.
That was a miniscule part of the case that amounted to no more than a passing comment that science was not necessarily incompatible with religion, which even you admit unless you now think deism is ruled out by science too. The point that Sandefur and I made is, in effect, that the case did not turn on that. If you want to teach that atheism and science are coextensive, however, you'll have to do it in a comparative religion/philosophy course ... along with all the other non-empiric opinions.
It's only decided by lawyers and judges when the education professionals have failed. Now, if you want to rail against our decentralized educational system, I'm all with you but that's not our Constitution's fault. And we're actually working on getting national standards right now.
He endorses a particular view of science that was espoused by some of the accommodationist witnesses but there are other, equally valid, points of view that he never heard.
That was a miniscule part of the case that amounted to no more than a passing comment that science was not necessarily incompatible with religion, which even you admit unless you now think deism is ruled out by science too. The point that Sandefur and I made is, in effect, that the case did not turn on that. If you want to teach that atheism and science are coextensive, however, you'll have to do it in a comparative religion/philosophy course ... along with all the other non-empiric opinions.
There's good science and there's bad science. As I understand it, American courts don't care whether you teach good science or bad science. The only issue that concerns them is whether religion is being promoted in the public schools.
So, why did it matter to Judge Jones whether Intelligent Design was good science or not? If it was bad science and not religious then it's OK to teach it, right?
Is there a constitutional reason why you can't teach astrology or homeopathy in public schools?
I don't think so. If I'm right then courts aren't actually in the business of deciding the difference between good science and bad science. It should be perfectly acceptable to teach that the Earth is only 220,000 years old because that doesn't promote any religious viewpoint, right?
The reason you can't teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. It has to do with the fact that the conclusion is motivated by the Bible.
So, why did it matter to Judge Jones whether Intelligent Design was good science or not? If it was bad science and not religious then it's OK to teach it, right?
Is there a constitutional reason why you can't teach astrology or homeopathy in public schools?
I don't think so. If I'm right then courts aren't actually in the business of deciding the difference between good science and bad science. It should be perfectly acceptable to teach that the Earth is only 220,000 years old because that doesn't promote any religious viewpoint, right?
The reason you can't teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. It has to do with the fact that the conclusion is motivated by the Bible.
Sandefur says,
That is, the Constitution forbids the government from endorsing or propagating or censoring the doctrinal truth of a religious proposition, but it does not forbid the government from endorsing or propagating the factual truth of a proposition, even if those propositions turn out to be the same in content.
I strongly believe that science conflicts with most religious claims. I believe it is perfectly scientific to say that science opposes miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. It is scientific to say that science rules out the efficacy of prayer and the existence of souls. It is scientific to say that morality comes from humans and not from gods.
Am I allowed to teach all those things in public schools? It's clear that if I'm allowed to do that I'm insulting a great many highly religious students, and their parents.
John would argue that I am not allowed to do so because I'm wrong. He doesn't believe that science refutes most religious beliefs. He says that I am stating a metaphysical position and not a scientific one. Judge Jones and many of the witnesses at the Dover trial agree with John. Surprisingly (to John), others disagree.
Who is going to decide whether I'm right or John is right? Is it lawyers and judges who will make the decision?
That is, the Constitution forbids the government from endorsing or propagating or censoring the doctrinal truth of a religious proposition, but it does not forbid the government from endorsing or propagating the factual truth of a proposition, even if those propositions turn out to be the same in content.
I strongly believe that science conflicts with most religious claims. I believe it is perfectly scientific to say that science opposes miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. It is scientific to say that science rules out the efficacy of prayer and the existence of souls. It is scientific to say that morality comes from humans and not from gods.
Am I allowed to teach all those things in public schools? It's clear that if I'm allowed to do that I'm insulting a great many highly religious students, and their parents.
John would argue that I am not allowed to do so because I'm wrong. He doesn't believe that science refutes most religious beliefs. He says that I am stating a metaphysical position and not a scientific one. Judge Jones and many of the witnesses at the Dover trial agree with John. Surprisingly (to John), others disagree.
Who is going to decide whether I'm right or John is right? Is it lawyers and judges who will make the decision?
[i]Is there a constitutional reason why you can't teach astrology or homeopathy in public schools?
I don't think so. If I'm right then courts aren't actually in the business of deciding the difference between good science and bad science. It should be perfectly acceptable to teach that the Earth is only 220,000 years old because that doesn't promote any religious viewpoint, right?[/i]
Well, I'm no attorney, but from my observation, the bottom line is because the only instances that have ever gone to court are those of people trying to sneak religious teaching into science classrooms. I'm not aware of, for example, pro cold fusion advocates trying to put their theories on the public school curriculum. So until there is such a case, we'll just have to wait and see.
I don't think so. If I'm right then courts aren't actually in the business of deciding the difference between good science and bad science. It should be perfectly acceptable to teach that the Earth is only 220,000 years old because that doesn't promote any religious viewpoint, right?[/i]
Well, I'm no attorney, but from my observation, the bottom line is because the only instances that have ever gone to court are those of people trying to sneak religious teaching into science classrooms. I'm not aware of, for example, pro cold fusion advocates trying to put their theories on the public school curriculum. So until there is such a case, we'll just have to wait and see.
# posted by : 4:37 PM
: 4:37 PM
So, why did it matter to Judge Jones whether Intelligent Design was good science or not? If it was bad science and not religious then it's OK to teach it, right?
I'll try again. Jones wasn't deciding whether it was good science or bad science. He was deciding whether it was science or not science according to the scientific community. This was important because, although it had already been established that the board's motive for teaching science was religious, that might have been overcome one way or another. So he also examined if there might have been a secular purpose for teaching ID. If it was science, that would be a secular purpose that might make it constitutional to teach, as I noted above.
Is there a constitutional reason why you can't teach astrology or homeopathy in public schools?
Not unless they are religious. The question of whether or not they should be taught would then just be a political issue for the elected school board ... unfortunately.
The reason you can't teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. It has to do with the fact that the conclusion is motivated by the Bible.
It's a little more complicated than that but yes. However, the reason you can teach as a fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is because that is science.
I strongly believe that science conflicts with most religious claims.
Last time I looked you are not the scientific community. When and if you publish peer-reviewed articles supporting that conclusion, with the scientific community substantially agreeing with your results and the method you used to reach them, maybe we'll have to consider it. Until then, you are no more the arbiter of what is science than the creationist school board.
Who is going to decide whether I'm right or John is right? Is it lawyers and judges who will make the decision?
Again, the courts don't decide what is science or not, the scientific community does. All the courts do is take evidence on what the scientific community considers to be science. When and if you ever get the scientific community to recognise your beliefs as "science" (under oath!) then you may be able to teach it.
I'll try again. Jones wasn't deciding whether it was good science or bad science. He was deciding whether it was science or not science according to the scientific community. This was important because, although it had already been established that the board's motive for teaching science was religious, that might have been overcome one way or another. So he also examined if there might have been a secular purpose for teaching ID. If it was science, that would be a secular purpose that might make it constitutional to teach, as I noted above.
Is there a constitutional reason why you can't teach astrology or homeopathy in public schools?
Not unless they are religious. The question of whether or not they should be taught would then just be a political issue for the elected school board ... unfortunately.
The reason you can't teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. It has to do with the fact that the conclusion is motivated by the Bible.
It's a little more complicated than that but yes. However, the reason you can teach as a fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is because that is science.
I strongly believe that science conflicts with most religious claims.
Last time I looked you are not the scientific community. When and if you publish peer-reviewed articles supporting that conclusion, with the scientific community substantially agreeing with your results and the method you used to reach them, maybe we'll have to consider it. Until then, you are no more the arbiter of what is science than the creationist school board.
Who is going to decide whether I'm right or John is right? Is it lawyers and judges who will make the decision?
Again, the courts don't decide what is science or not, the scientific community does. All the courts do is take evidence on what the scientific community considers to be science. When and if you ever get the scientific community to recognise your beliefs as "science" (under oath!) then you may be able to teach it.
I said ...
I strongly believe that science conflicts with most religious claims.
John replied ...
Last time I looked you are not the scientific community. When and if you publish peer-reviewed articles supporting that conclusion, with the scientific community substantially agreeing with your results and the method you used to reach them, maybe we'll have to consider it. Until then, you are no more the arbiter of what is science than the creationist school board.
I'm pretty sure that if I asked scientists in secular states (USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.) a majority of them would agree with my statement. Science conflicts with most religious claims.
You seem to think that the "scientific community" would not agree.
How do lawyers decide what the "scientific community" says is science? Is it when 51% of all scientists agree? Is it when a bunch of prominent philosophers agree?
Let's say there's a high school teacher who agrees with me and teaches that most religious claims are refuted by science. That will become a really tough case for the courts and I have no idea how lawyers would go about determining whether the teacher was expressing a legitimate scientific opinion or not.
Don't you have to allow for the fact that a person could hold a legitimate scientific opinion on this issue even though it might be a minority opinion within the scientific community? Or, are you going to censure all opinions that don't conform to that of the "scientific community" (whatever that is)?
Lawyers and courts have no business deciding what counts as science and what doesn't.
I strongly believe that science conflicts with most religious claims.
John replied ...
Last time I looked you are not the scientific community. When and if you publish peer-reviewed articles supporting that conclusion, with the scientific community substantially agreeing with your results and the method you used to reach them, maybe we'll have to consider it. Until then, you are no more the arbiter of what is science than the creationist school board.
I'm pretty sure that if I asked scientists in secular states (USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.) a majority of them would agree with my statement. Science conflicts with most religious claims.
You seem to think that the "scientific community" would not agree.
How do lawyers decide what the "scientific community" says is science? Is it when 51% of all scientists agree? Is it when a bunch of prominent philosophers agree?
Let's say there's a high school teacher who agrees with me and teaches that most religious claims are refuted by science. That will become a really tough case for the courts and I have no idea how lawyers would go about determining whether the teacher was expressing a legitimate scientific opinion or not.
Don't you have to allow for the fact that a person could hold a legitimate scientific opinion on this issue even though it might be a minority opinion within the scientific community? Or, are you going to censure all opinions that don't conform to that of the "scientific community" (whatever that is)?
Lawyers and courts have no business deciding what counts as science and what doesn't.
I'm pretty sure that if I asked scientists in secular states (USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.) a majority of them would agree with my statement.
No, Larry. It's not whether they agree with your (philosophical) conclusion, it is whether they think it is science subject to the same peer review process of checking results and methods. If you think it is science, where are the scientific papers showing that science disproves religion in general?
How do lawyers decide what the "scientific community" says is science?
Oh, here, go read Daubert v. Merrell. Trying to explain the law to you is like trying to explain biology to a creationist. Yes, the courts do allow for minority opinions in science, as I told you before.
Lawyers and courts have no business deciding what counts as science and what doesn't.
And, as I said before, they don't.
No, Larry. It's not whether they agree with your (philosophical) conclusion, it is whether they think it is science subject to the same peer review process of checking results and methods. If you think it is science, where are the scientific papers showing that science disproves religion in general?
How do lawyers decide what the "scientific community" says is science?
Oh, here, go read Daubert v. Merrell. Trying to explain the law to you is like trying to explain biology to a creationist. Yes, the courts do allow for minority opinions in science, as I told you before.
Lawyers and courts have no business deciding what counts as science and what doesn't.
And, as I said before, they don't.
Top-notch article on Blogger: Thoughts in a Haystack.
.
It is really among the most reliable that I�ve come across in
a long time.
My homepage; Shooting Games
.
It is really among the most reliable that I�ve come across in
a long time.
My homepage; Shooting Games
# posted by : 6:52 PM
: 6:52 PM
Hey there,
I just found your site: Blogger: Thoughts in a Haystack when I
was browsing stumbleupon.com. It looks as though someone enjoyed your website so much they decided to bookmark
it - good job!
Feel free to surf to my weblog :: Gas Mileage
I just found your site: Blogger: Thoughts in a Haystack when I
was browsing stumbleupon.com. It looks as though someone enjoyed your website so much they decided to bookmark
it - good job!
Feel free to surf to my weblog :: Gas Mileage
# posted by : 6:54 PM
: 6:54 PM
Write more, thats all I have to say. It looks like you relied on some reputable sources to make
your point. You clearly know what you're talking about.
Look into my webpage iPod golf
your point. You clearly know what you're talking about.
Look into my webpage iPod golf
# posted by : 6:05 PM
: 6:05 PM
Admiring the time and energy you put into your
blog and in depth information you provide. It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same old rehashed
material.
My blog ... Golf Putting
blog and in depth information you provide. It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same old rehashed
material.
My blog ... Golf Putting
# posted by : 6:32 PM
: 6:32 PM
supreme
jordan shoes
supreme clothing
kobe shoes
canada goose jacket
jordan 4
steph curry shoes
jordan shoes
calvin klein outlet
stephen curry shoes
Post a Comment
jordan shoes
supreme clothing
kobe shoes
canada goose jacket
jordan 4
steph curry shoes
jordan shoes
calvin klein outlet
stephen curry shoes
<< Home
