Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recently a new battle has emerged between science and religion. The battle has focused on intelligent design (ID) and the numerous legal, philosophical and educational concerns surrounding it. Resolution of these concerns centers on two questions: Is ID science? And is ID religion? Despite the fact that ID does not meet the standards of scientific rigor, ID proponents have been able to create a remarkably well-designed marketing plan aimed at imposing a theistic naturalism in schools and scientific discourse. Both the ID movement and some of its most vociferous opponents have a vested interest in suggesting that science, especially evolutionary biology, and religion are incompatible. This book presents a philosophical and legal counterpoint by demonstrating the compatibility between religion and evolutionary biology and the incompatibility between ID and mainstream science.

Many legal theorists and judges agree on one major premise in the field of law and religion: that religion clause jurisprudence is in a state of disarray and has been for some time. In Masters of Illusion , Frank S. Ravitch provocatively contends that both hard originalism (a strict focus on the intent of the Framers) and neutrality are illusory in religion clause jurisprudence, the former because it cannot live up to its promise for either side in the debate and the latter because it is simply impossible in the religion clause context. Yet these two principles have been used in almost every Supreme Court decision addressing religion clause questions. Ravitch unpacks the various principles of religion clause interpretation, drawing on contemporary debates such as school prayer and displaying the Ten Commandments on courthouses, to demonstrate that the neutrality principle does not work in a pluralistic society. When defined by large, overarching principles of equality and liberty, neutrality fails to account for differences between groups and individuals. If, however, the Court drew on a variety of principles instead of a single notion of neutrality to decide whether or not laws facilitated or discouraged religious practices, the result could be a more equitable approach to religion clause cases.

Judges do not have the luxury of addressing metaphysical questions when they must decide a case, and lines are often drawn, even if imperfectly so. [...]having some sort of balancing test, whether the Compelling Interest test or another test, prevents people from becoming laws unto themselves by weighing religious conduct against the state interest in limiting that conduct. Colorado would have a strong argument that granting for-profit entities religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws could lead to broader discrimination. [...]since the anti-discrimination law involved is a public accommodation law, the state could argue that if an exemption is mandated there would be places in Colorado where LGBT couples could be denied a particular service entirely. The question is whether there is a less-restrictive means for the state to accomplish its interest. Since the state has acknowledged that it would not force bakers to bake cakes with other messages with which they disagree,9 there is a good chance that the law is not narrowly tailored, or that it is being applied in a way that is discriminatory. [...]the pain they suffered as a result of Phillips' denial to bake their cake - even before he knew what sort of a design they wanted (or whether they wanted a design at all) - caused them to file a claim with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which brought for-profit corporations under the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has been the subject of widespread support and criticism. Some have lauded the Hobby Lobby decision as an important step in protecting religious freedom. Others have derided it as an affront to the civil rights of corporate employees. This Article suggests a third perspective, namely, that Hobby Lobby harms, rather than helps, religious freedom. Both legally and politically, Hobby Lobby is likely to lead to a reduction in protection for religious individuals and entities that have traditionally been included under the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is particularly troubling because the Hobby Lobby decision is legally flawed. The Article takes seriously the reality that many religious people do not experience religion as a divisible phenomenon that they can separate from the rest of their lives. Sometimes this requires exemptions to generally applicable laws if there is a legal mechanism for doing so, but cases involving large, for-profit entities like Hobby Lobby raise additional concerns. In these cases, religious individuals seek exemptions in the name of the company, which imposes the owners' religious tenets on corporate employees. This creates a confrontation between \"lived religion\" and the legal or civil rights of others. Over time, as courts create precedent in cases involving for-profit entities, the rights of religious individuals and religious entities will likely be weakened. Moreover, the legislative, legal, and public response to Hobby Lobby does not bode well for religious accommodation claims in the long run, and, sadly, will have a negative impact on accommodation claims brought by religious individuals and entities.

Japanese \"Establishment Clause\" law, cases under Article 20 and Article 89 of the Japanese Constitution, is heavily based on situations involving Shinto shrines or Shinto rituals. For a number of historical, theological, and cultural reasons, this should not be surprising. The history and evolution of this area of jurisprudence from the Meiji era to the most recent cases creates a fascinating legal and cultural journey. This article suggests that it is certainly correct to view these cases as a core of Japanese Establishment of Religion jurisprudence, but they are not a \"line\" of case law. Rather, they represent two loosely connected lines of cases and one era that involved state establishment. This article suggests that the cases from 1997 until the present are far more consistent with the language and history of Articles 20 and 89 of the Japanese Constitution.

Numerous volumes have been written about the history of law and religion in the United States. This history has been used to argue both for and against the separation of church and state. Numerous decisions by the United States Supreme Court reflect this use of history. Yet frequently the interaction between law and religion in American history is far more complicated and textured than it is portrayed by those who wish to use it to effect legal norms. There is no one story of law and religion in U.S. history, and thus no one side in the broader church–state

As the scientific historian Ronald Numbers explained, not many creationists adhered to any view of scientific creationism until the early part of the twentieth century. To the extent that science was inconsistent with creationism, most creationists either rejected the scientific evidence or viewed it as part of God's plan. Eventually, however, this changed, and a growing number of creationists began to claim the mantle of science. Movements such as the flood geology movement began to emerge. Flood geology seeks to explain geological phenomena that point to an old Earth as really being evidence of the great flood for which Noah built his ark, as recounted in Genesis. The goal of many of these movements was to use science to support the idea of a young Earth (this was certainly true of the flood geologists). Even those who accepted an old Earth sought to disprove the validity of evolution through natural selection.This shift represented a new shift in religious apologetics. Religious apologists, such as Cambridge University professor, Anglican clergy member, and naturalist William Paley, presumed that God was the driving force behind the natural world and focused their work on describing that world in detail. God explained the complexity they saw in living organisms and the cosmos, but there was no reason to deny that God did the creating. Paley and other – I will use the term natural theologians – documented the natural world, but their goal in doing so was not to prove a religious point or disprove a scientific one. They had no scientific basis to doubt a divine creator at that time, just as in earlier eras, those studying the cosmos had no way of knowing that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.Concepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious.…These concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as a philosophy or as a science.Introduction to Intelligent DesignEvery day in public schools, universities, houses of worship, and coffee shops, a battle rages over where humanity came from or, more specifically, how humans came to be human. Much of the debate is focused on whether a supposedly new concept of human origins – intelligent design (ID) – should be taught in public schools. Yet few people know much, if anything, about this concept: how it came to the fore, and what it means for law, science, faith, and the future of America.ID advocates have a vested interest in this confusion. ID is, at least partially, a response to the success of modern science, especially evolutionary biology and cosmology, in explaining natural phenomena. Yet the form ID has taken is primarily an attempt to respond to several important cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and to win in the court of public opinion – not exactly an auspicious baseline for a so-called scientific theory. This book explains that the essence of ID lies in a solid marketing plan and an attempt to avoid legal constraints, not in promoting a serious scientific alternative to evolutionary biology and biochemistry.