Robert Pennock om teistisk jurisprudens
lördag 2 januari 2010
Robert T. Pennock
"(...) no judge would take seriously a plaintiff who sought damages against someone for laying a curse upon his car or a defendant who pleaded innocent on the grounds that the crime had actually been committed by a ghost. A lawyer would be laughed out of court who argued that judges and juries should consider "alternative theories" that a crime was committed by a supernatural intelligence. The [intelligent design creationists] call for a "theistic science" is similarly unworkable."
Robert Pennocks hemsida.
Källa: R. T. Pennock och M. Ruse, But is it Science: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Prometheus Books (2009).
[Länk till detta inlägg] upplagd av Johan Karlsson @
13:18 
Prenumerera på Inlägg [Atom]
Länkar
Arkiv
Citat:
[ID] is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for 'both theories' would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?Richard Dawkins
Om denna sida:
Evolutionsteori.se drivs av Anders Hesselbom och Johan Karlsson
