Title: Re: NRO Article
Here’s the portion of my book that deals with the Santorum Amendment. (Maybe this will clarify things a bit). I took it off of the pre-edited manuscript version, so I would appreciate if the members of this list not post it or send it to anyone. This is part of the Intro
This is the email I sent to Professor Leiter, who seems to think there's a conspiracy afoot.
Professor Leiter,
Feel free to quote from this email if you wish. The reason I didn't list myself as Beckwith's teaching assistant is simple. I have a long record of internet and print journalism that
Leiter is very upset that I didn't address the merits of his attack on VanDyke, just the fact of the attack. What he doesn't understand is that not many people have much interest in Leiter's views on biology. On the other hand, left-wing profs hassling conservative students for their deviations
I have two responses: First, no sense of the Senate resolution has the force of law, according to the U.S. Senate Counsel. U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Legislation, Laws, and Acts (see "Simple Resolutions") Any suggestion otherwise is false. This is well-est
Lawrence Van Dyke has written an extensive reply to Professor Leiter,
and asked that I forward it to the list. I tried earlier, but it is
apparently too large for the listserver to handle. It is available at http://fedsoc.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_fedsoc_archive.html#107931360182005218.
Ed
Darrell has made some specific new claims of fraud below. (at least if
done under federal research aegis). A couple I have been able to review are
worth exploring further.
1. Among other false claims made
against science by the campaign against Darwin in the past several years are
In a message dated 3/15/2004 5:04:37 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the record: I am not a proponent of including intelligent design or creation science in school age text books. I can't claim to have made any study of the ID arguments, but I have it on authority from ve
My colleague Brian Leiter is a distinguished scholar of Nietzsche,
of legal realism, and of other law-and-philosophy topics. He is an
indefatigably hard worker; he is highly productive and well read across a
remarkable range of issues. He is also combative. He is a harsh judge of
any
I took the liberty to forward our discussion to Francis Beckwith, as per
Ed Darrell's invitation. Here is his reply, which I am sending to the
list with Beckwith's permission.
John Eastman
-Original Message-
From: Beckwith, Francis J.
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:31 PM
To: Eastman, Jo
For the record: I am not a proponent of including intelligent design or creation
science in school age text books. I can't claim to have made any study of the ID
arguments, but I have it on authority from very religious scientists that I trust that
they are basically bogus.
So lets grant my po
Rather than get in a "what is science" debate with
you or Leiter, I should note that law professors throw around terms like fraud
at their own peril. That said, as a committed believer in the existence of
an intelligent designer (that is, God), I actually thought Leiter did a good job
of "f
Here is Professor Leiter's response to the NRO piece; he doesn't back
down an inch.
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/000950.html#000950
Chris
From: Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Relig
I suppose one could point to the failure to examine the premises of Beckwith's book may be one. Passing off as a scholarly examination something which is really an apologist's essay may be a bit fraudulent. Sorta like pretending many commentators are in fact reporters. Though I don't believe tha
In a message dated 3/15/2004 4:25:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the specific fraud that Leiter complains about?
Here is a link to Leiter's piece: The Leiter Reports: Editorials, News, Updates: Harvard Law Review Embarrasses Itself (http://webapp.utexas.edu/blog
ï
Correction. Beckwith's e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I
ovelooked the period after "francis".
Ross Heckmann
- Original Message -
From:
Ross S.
Heckmann
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:26
ï
In case somebody is interested in
contacting Prof. Beckwith to allow him the opportunity to defend himself,
according to http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/bio.html,
Prof. Beckwith's e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I am
sending a copy of this e-mail to that e-mail address.
Ve
"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 J
"Perhaps someone should invite Prof. Beckwith to join this list, and we could discuss
the issue more directly. As the NRO author points out, Prof. Leiter is respected in
his field. Perhaps he knows what he writes about."
Leiter or Beckwith?
--
Nathan Oman
http://www.tutissima.com
http://www.
In a message dated 3/15/2004 4:00:52 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope no one takes seriously
1. that the editor of the harvard law review is so easily cowed or
2. that any single academic has such power to ruin another's career
two over-the-top points made in the
Here is another take on the same Harvard Law Review article.
It Just Takes One (Doubt and About)
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/harvard-design/
(CSICOP's website)
Ed Darrell
Dallas
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, un
I hope no one takes seriously
1. that the editor of the harvard law review is so easily cowed or
2. that any single academic has such power to ruin another's career
two over-the-top points made in the nro article.
Seems being over the top and alarmist is not all on one side.
--
Prof. Steven D
In a message dated 3/15/2004 2:49:56 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scholarly fraud? That is a pretty serious accusations and, from what I have learned of the science on the subject, clearly false. Has Leiter opened himself up to a libel claim? Have the devotees of Darwinis
The tyrannical orthodoxy
of the Darwinian crowd is truly amazing. Herein the key charge by University
of Texas
professor Brian Leiter:
"The author of this
incompetent book note [a review of Francis Beckwith's book on intelligent
design]. . . is one Lawrence VanDyke, a student editor o
I found an article at National Review Online that I thought you'd like to
see:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/baker200403150909.asp
FYI. An interesting religionlaw article.
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscr
Prof. O'Brien:
Several weeks ago you offered a translated copy of the French Stasi report to
participants on Eugene Volokh's religionlaw listserve. Is that still available? If
so I would appreciate very much getting a copy. Thanks in advance.
Steven G. Gey
Fonvielle & Hinkle Professor of Li
It can be found here:
http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.sgreply.pdf.
Although the court of appeals' decision does not affect any federal statute
or practice, the U.S. is a Respondent in the case by virtue of being a
(prevailing) defendant in the proceedings below. And Supreme Court Rule 2
26 matches
Mail list logo
