Posted on 10/27/2005 6:13:51 AM PDT by gobucks
"When science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern".
These are the most important words from Miers 1993 speech, and it is these words that are central to the Dover Intelligent Design trial.
The plantiffs are doing whatever possible to get the courts to defend their version of what 'science' means. The bottom line is that the real issue in both fights is over 'law'. Miers is a born again Christian from Texas.
The last time a Protestant Southern Conservative was seated on SCOTUS was at minimum 7 decades ago. Dover is about I.D. being taught in science classrooms, but the scientists state it is 'not science'.
Science determines facts. So the issue for lawyers in the end is 'who owns what "science" means? Scientists or Lawyers?
From the perspective of Mier's speech, which I'm thinking she actually did write, it is clear about the purpose of the 'Law'. Law is used to govern people. Law is used to govern little kids sitting in science class too.
Thus Darwin and SCOTUS and abortion all intersect with what 'law' means. It is clear Christain Conservatives are at a cross roads: either we will be represented in Gov't, at least peripherally via Miers and I.D. being taught as science, or the Lawyers will win, and Miers will be withdrawn and the plantiffs will muzzle the Dover school board.
Either way, the Christians will be getting more attention. The former promotes 'grace' thinking, and the latter will motivate Christians to different venues of action.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This isn't talked about nearly enough in the press, but the intersection is plain to me.
Miers just withdrew. Doesn't matter now.
Thus Darwin and SCOTUS and abortion all intersect with what 'law' means. It is clear Christain Conservatives are at a cross roads: either we will be represented in Gov't, at least peripherally via Miers and I.D. being taught as science, or the Lawyers will win, and Miers will be withdrawn and the plantiffs will muzzle the Dover school board.
Where science determines the facts, the law can affectively govern. However, when science can not determine the facts and decisions vary based on religious beliefs, than government should not act.
Explain how this doesnt matter.
It does, I was just referring to the fact that Miers withdrew.
Interesting. But the problem was (and I am not the most Miers informed person here) that very little was actually known about her viewpoint.
But to have "scientists" making laws, and what is accepted (currently) as "scientific fact" determining laws, is extremely (searching for a word) - heinous. Science should be servant, not master.
Steeeeerike one!
...
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.