Premium
Litigating Scientific Creationism, or “Scopes” II, III,…
Author(s) -
McINTOSH WAYNE V.
Publication year - 1985
Publication title -
law and policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.534
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1467-9930
pISSN - 0265-8240
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1985.tb00358.x
Subject(s) - publicity , power (physics) , politics , balance (ability) , adversary , creationism , epistemic community , position (finance) , sociology , darwinism , neutrality , political science , law and economics , plan (archaeology) , presentation (obstetrics) , law , public administration , public relations , economics , epistemology , medicine , philosophy , statistics , physics , mathematics , finance , quantum mechanics , radiology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , archaeology , history
This paper is concerned with the institutional role of courts in dealing with long term political conflict. Such conflict is likely to involve group mobilization on both sides; the analysis therefore utilizes a judicial interest group approach, presenting evidence from the on‐going policy debate surrounding presentation of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools. The findings demonstrate the importance of courts in developing public policies, not only by articulating policy, but also by affecting subsequent moves by interest groups to promote their agendas elsewhere in the system. Many extended conflicts may not be resolved in institutional settings, but they may be repetitively reformulated and translated to engage the decisionmaking process of specific forums in on‐going activities. In successive moves, each adversary attempts to shift the balance of power to its respective advantage, where, paradoxically, the parties may change sides as the debate travels full circle. The analysis also illustrates the advancement of the creation science advocates' game plan, beginning with a publicity‐oriented strategy, which is a hallmark of the relatively “amateurish” litigant, and eventually moving to a result‐oriented position, a more “professional” approach to the courts.