1. Science and society
How do scientific theories (or philosophical theories about science) impact commonsense views, public policy, etc.
Science at the Bar: determining what is science and what is not.
Studies of non-human primates: how do they challenge longstanding views that humans are unique in the animal kingdom? And, if we are not so different from other primates, what are ethical responsibilities to them?

2. Science at the bar Larry Laudan v. Michael Ruse Laudan:
McLean vs. Arkansas was a “hollow victory”
Ruse’s ruse

3. Science at the bar Judge Overton
Creation Science is not science because it does not contain “the essential features of science”
It does not appeal to natural law
Its claims are not testable or falsifiable
Its proponents and claims are dogmatic rather than tentavie
Laudan’s alternative: CS is testable and many of its claims are patently false.

4. Science at the bar
A far more serious problem is that the way science was portrayed in the case is a false stereotype
Many scientific claims also cannot be tested in isolation and the logic of falsification is severely limited by that
Many scientific claims are not viewed by scientists of the day as open to negotiation; there is a degree of dogmatism about core commitments among scientists.
We don’t insist that in order for something to have happened or to exist we must know what laws explain it (for example, we know evolution occurred and continues to but there are no laws in evolutionary theory).

5. Science at the bar
In what respects was the portrait of science “a false stereotype”?
Not all sciences have laws in the sense presumed here
It is not clear that there really is any definition or set of criteria that succeed in defining science and demarcating it from other endeavors
In short, the “pro-science” defenders are defending a philosophy of science which is every bit as outmoded as the “science” of creationism

6. Pro Judice
Ruse
To say that science appeals to law is not asserting that we know all the laws.
Science does not break with law… it does not appeal to miracles.
The Constitution does not prohibit the teaching of weak or bad science. It prohibits the teaching of religion.

7. A third approach?
Rather than an argument by analogy, the argument should be understood as invoking the following kind of reasoning
Where ‘O’ is the object or phenomenon to be explained and ‘H’ is a proposed hypothesis to explain ‘O’, we can ask:
What is the likelihood of O if H? (Not what is the probability of H given O?)
O: Noise in the attic
H: Gremlins are up there bowling

8. A third approach? O: Noise in the attic
H: Gremlins are up there bowling
Although the probability of H is very low, if anything at all,
P(H/x)
The likelihood of O if H is high
P (x/H)

9. A third approach?
O: The intricate and functional designs of organisms and their parts
H1: They are the product of a designer
H2: They are the product of random, natural processes
P(O/H1) > P(O/H2)
But we are reminded again that there are no crucial tests in science…
H3: They are the product of natural selection
Is P(O/H1) = P(O/H3)?
If so, we can ask what is P(H1/O)? And what is P(H2/O)?