Replies

Many of us here (myself included) opposed the President's choice of Miers for the Supreme Court, especially after we learned of her speech in the 90's where she seemed to endorse Roe. Will you oppose Alito if it appears he'll join Scalia & Co. in opposing the ACLU interpretation of the Establishment Clause? Will any of the others here oppose his confirmation and hold out for a more liberal judge?

Harvard makes its own rules. There is no major university that doesn't have a quota system for admissions.

I'm just pointing out that where quota systems exist, groups will push and shove for advantage. I don't see this as having anything to do with the establishment clause.

I rather doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn established precedents to allow teaching nonsense. The main outcome of the Dover decision is to make it clear that ID, as put forward by the Discover Institute and the "Pandas" book, is dishonest foolishness.

The best reason for oppose teaching ID in science class is it will put a religious claim on the dissecting table. When religion tries to play by the rules of science, it tends to lose. Whatever you believe about miracles, they are shy about leaving evidence. I don't think you want religious beliefs subjected to the requirement that they must be supported by evidence.

The Discovery Institute has this fantasy that they will change science. Fat chance. Science is bound by only one abiding requirement: ideas must produce or suggest research. Sterile ideas will never take hold, and ID is the granddaddy of sterile ideas. ID advocates, particularly on this forum, think that research should be stopped, because the goal is inherently immoral or destined to be futile.

"Will you oppose Alito if it appears he'll join Scalia & Co. in opposing the ACLU interpretation of the Establishment Clause?"

Interesting point, puroreau, and an interesting decision to make come crunch-time. Surely there are many who do not consider themselves 'one-issue' and rebel at the notion of applying litmus tests, but, even for them, there must exist out there somewhere a 'deal-killer' which would compel them to withdraw their support, if not just outright make an active switch in their support.

Is a relatively trivial issue such as ID v Evolution sufficient to cause the Science Community to overhaul its constitutional convictions?