Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

From: <>
Date: Sat Dec 31 2005 - 05:26:23 EST

David Opderbeck wrote
> What I'm shocked at, honestly, is that scientists such as yourself seem so
> comfortable with this decision. I understand that you think the result and
> opinion were correct, so I suppose it seems to some people that the right side
> "won" this time. What about the next time and the next and the next? Is
> nasty, brutish litigation between warring interest groups how we want to debate
> important and interesting questions about science, faith and truth in our
> society? Why would anyone committed to the scientific enterprise be happy about
> that?

It's not so much comfortable as relieved....

As I see it, the problem, for those of us who have "sworn to uphold
the honor of the badge" (in science), is that matters of defining science
have been put in the hands of the courts and politicians in the first place.

It's clear from the exchange between yourself and Pim (whoever is right),
that there are differences in the way that scientists and law professionals
operate. It would be just as bad to put inexperienced people such as myself
in the position making serious legal decisions in your place, as it is to put

lawyers, judges and juries in our position to decide matters of science.

Moreover, the chance that even we finally agree on anything, when such
things are cast in legal language, well meaning and honest laws are more
likely to harm and punish the innocent while further enabling the wicked
and corrupt.

And don't think I believe our system is good. No system is without
dishonesty, fraud and vested interest, and used in ways that only
bring harm to itself and the people it was meant to aid.

> You have to be pretty naive, though, to believe that the Dover case wasn't
> at least in part politically motivated.

But I wonder who is the worst politician here. Provocation (who
started it) may be a matter of debate. Huxley didn't help matters
to hijack evolution as a platform for his atheism, for example. Loud noise
makers have popped up in every generation since. But the response _by
Christians_ has done yet far more dishonor to Christ and the message of
the gospel. Science becomes the real victim and any real discussion about
the limits of science, faith-science issues, and how to educate people about
science is obscured by these special interests __on both sides__.

I don't think it is good that this ends up in the courts at all. I'm only
grateful that __this time__ at least, the judge seems to have decided in a
way that __appears to me__ to be fair.

Anyway, welcome to the ASA discussion list <grin>.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Received on Sat Dec 31 05:32:28 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 31 2005 - 05:32:28 EST