BTW, while one may believe that intelligent design is not completely excludable as a possibility by evolution theories, that belief does not make it science. And much of the so-called evidence for intelligent design and supposedly against evolution has in fact been rebutted many times over. And presenting it as though it were all correct or valid science could be a species of that protean concept of fraud.
Biological science, at least at the pre-college level, is not about philosophical possibilities. And we ought not require science teachers to enter that minefield more than necessary.
Steve
On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 05:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"And let none of the many law professors who are readers of this site be mistaken: Mr. VanDyke has perpetrated a scholarly fraud, one that may have political and pedagogical consequences (italics mine)."--
What is the specific fraud that Leiter complains about?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"The modern trouble is in a low capacity to believe in precepts which restrict and restrain private interests and desires."
Walter Lippmann
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
