Re: [asa] thinking was prosecutors and not that of the judge

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 14:33:29 EDT

On 5/4/07, Terry M. Gray <> wrote:
> Rich,
> Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with this in any depth
> right, but I just wanted to say that I find the Dover ruling to be
> atrocious. Not because I'm an ID sympathizer, but because it's
> radically demarcationist in its definition of science. It
> incorporates a fairly naive philosophy of science--one that makes
> easy disposal of ID, YEC.

I agree with that. I'll give an example for you. String theory is not tested
and may not even be testable. Many scientists complain "it's not science".
Yet, there is no great movement to ban string theory from the classroom. In
the past, you have eloquently defended the historical sciences vis-a-vis the
experimental ones and such demarcations also make this not science. Having
bright-white-line demarcation is not helpful. Having said all that, I still
believe that the NAS definition of a scientific theory is superior to
Behe's. What I am trying to propose is a kind of a "smell test" for proposed
demarcations, even fuzzy ones. Does it exclude generally recognized science
like the bright-white-line demarcation proposed by some? Then the definition
is too narrow. Does it include generally recognized non-science? Then the
definition is too broad.

The demarcation question is IMHO appropriate but what makes the decision
particularly atrocious is that the wrong parties are deciding it, namely
unelected judges versus elected school boards. I don't think the judge had a
choice because it appears that precedent and the desire of both parties to
answer is ID science question hemmed him into this kind of decision. In
other words, it's because Judge Jones was not an activist judge that this
happened. (I do understand that the judge was piling on reasons in order to
not be reversed and that contributed to the problem.) David O., am I off
base here?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 4 14:33:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 14:33:53 EDT