Church-State Studies, Baylor University
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://francisbeckwith.com>
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Example: Evolution should not be
taught because Genesis (at least in the view of some, certainly not including
me) teac
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Example: Evolution should not be
taught because Genesis (at least in the view of some, certainly not including
me) teaches otherwise. (Alternatively, students should be discouraged
from learning about evolution
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
What would be an example of “values” trumping science? Now, I’ve read articles and books in which authors offer arguments as to why certain scientific experiments and research are unethical. Because of these suggested
: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
In a
message dated 8/23/2005 3:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
facts are what they are. Many American students have been driven
away from the natural sciences
In a message dated 8/23/2005 11:21:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
accusation that he was antagonistic to religion was and remains patently
false. The fact of the matter was that the kid had made no demonstration
of the academic horsepower required, and I
In a message dated 8/23/2005 7:36:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious
discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology
professor required students to pass his classes in bi
In a message dated 8/23/2005 3:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
facts are what they are. Many American students have been drivenaway
from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of
somereligionists.
But you didn't say that at all: you said th
Didn't mean to kick off a different fight. Yes, I know what Dini's website said originally -- quickly worded, and open to opportunistic misinterpretation by a publicity-seeking legal firm, but the fact remains that Dini asked only that kids explain the scientific version of evolution to indicate t
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Although I defend (and defended at the time) the professor’s academic freedom to be discretionary in writing letters of recommendation, I don’t think that Ed’s depiction of what actually happened is completely accurate. The
of Law
-Original Message-
From: Ed Darrell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005
4:35 PM
To: Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a repor
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology professor required students to pass his classes in biology before he'd write them a recommendation to medical school. He also required kids to explain evolut
ences.
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:41 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Unfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are
ligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Michael,
Ask Pascal about the role of faith in inspiring reason. Ask Newton.
For that matter, ask Einstein.
It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the
mischaracterization that those
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Michael,
Ask Pascal about the role of faith in inspiring reason. Ask Newton.
For that matter, ask Einstein.
It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the
mischaracterization that those who find design in
In a message dated 8/22/2005 9:02:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
those
who find design in nature
It would be
illuminating to learn under what conditions one would not "design in
nature." Verificationist and Falsificationist philosophical theories aside,
ubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
There is no secular purpose here. ID is not science. It is a cover
for the theology of a particular religious group. To say that one
should teach religious objections of a particular religious group in
science class clearly viola
& Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the
decision. The case was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular
purpose. The Court did not hold that any particula
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. F
In a message dated 8/21/2005 10:47:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
district court in Edwards issued summary judgment, based in large
part on the decision in McLean. It is worth remembering that in
that case, in deposition, each of the creationists' expert
At 12:23 PM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Yes, a scientific view could be religious -- and this is why it is so
important that what is claimed as science be science.
Darwin was Christian when he discovered evolution. He had no religious
intent in publishing the theory. As some wag noted, evolu
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. For Smith, it better comports wi
I think Ed's point extends beyond science to other parts of the school
curriculum as well. History, art, literature, and other subjects may
reinforce or conflict with various religious beliefs. Generally speaking, I
don't think the Establishment Clause is violated when that occurs
incidentally
Frankie Beckwith wrote:
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time?
Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an
interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend
support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g
Yes, a scientific view could be religious -- and this is why it is so important that what is claimed as science be science.
Darwin was Christian when he discovered evolution. He had no religious intent in publishing the theory. As some wag noted, evolution allows atheists to be "intellectually
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time?
Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an
interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend
support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g., the Big Bang lends
supp
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law
was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum ever adopted
in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You
have to read quotations in context!
Of course you have to read quot
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum ever adopted in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You have to read quotations in context!
I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum ever adopted in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You have to read quotations in context!
I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: The Court held that the purpose of the legislature
was to bring religion into the classroom.It was the legislature's bad
purpose that was the problem. If the Court had found that the
legislature had a secular purpose, the Act would not have been
vulnerable to a facial
The district court in Edwards issued summary judgment, based in large part on the decision in McLean. It is worth remembering that in that case, in deposition, each of the creationists' experts was asked whether there was science backing creationism. Under oath, each said there is no science behi
Ed: The Court held that the purpose of the legislature was to bring religion into the classroom.It was the legislature's bad purpose that was the problem. If the Court had found that the legislature had a secular purpose, the Act would not have been vulnerable to a facial attack. The Court did not
Rick Duncan wrote:
Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case
was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The
Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion
and not science. Indeed, no book or creation science curriculum wa
When read in conjunction with the decision in McLean v. Arkansas, which was used by the Louisiana district court, what Edwards says is that science, backed by data and corroborated by experiment, must be taught in science classes.
The easiest way to get something into the science books would be
Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion and not science. Indeed, no book or creation science curriculum was even part of the record
Rick Duncan wrote:
Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not
be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science"
was religion and not science. It held only that the particular law (the
"Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular
pur
Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science" was religion and not science. It held only that the particular law (the "Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular purpose. Even here, the Ct ac
Gene Summerlin wrote:
Ed,
There is a huge difference between mutation
creating variation which combined with natural selection results in a
given population and saying that genetic mutations can take an organism
from being a fish to being a giraffe. Even with respect to variation,
.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
BraytonSent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:49 PMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Findings on
Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Gene Summerlin wrote:
The idea that "pharyngeal ar
As a further note on the connection between this and EC jurisprudence,
there is a major lawsuit going on right now in Pennsylvania over this
and the central question will be whether ID is a scientific theory or
merely old-fashioned creationism dressed up in vaguely
scientific-sounding language.
Gene Summerlin wrote:
The idea that "pharyngeal arches" mutated into
gills in fish and lungs in other animals is really far fetched from a
practical genetic standpoint. Mutations occur very rarely in a given
population and are generally deleterious. It is also true that
mutations are
m: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of West,
EllisSent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:27 PMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Gene, I will make an
attempt to relate this thread to religion la
: Saturday, August 20, 2005
4:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
The idea that "pharyngeal arches" mutated
into gills in fish and lungs in other animals is really far fetched from a
practical gene
osolaw.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
BraytonSent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:06 AMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Findings on
Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You call "c
Sanford Levinson wrote:
tomorrow's NYTimes will have a very interesting story
on the Discovery Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?ei=5094&en=88f0b94e7eb26357&hp=&ex=1124596800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Among other interesting quot
tomorrow's NYTimes will have a very interesting story on the
Discovery Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?ei=5094&en=88f0b94e7eb26357&hp=&ex=1124596800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Among other interesting quotes is the following:
"All ideas go throug
No, I'm not saying high schools are more sophisticated -- the opposite, actually. In college classes discussions may be had in state-sponsored schools on topics and proposals that would be impermissible in high schools for establishment clause violations. I don't think there's a lot of litigation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:56:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
." But if you give a perfectly plausible account for how a
complex biochemical system might have evolved, complete with tracing
the possible mutations, locating
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has
long been discredited.
And the reason it is a test subject on the MCAT would be . . . .
. ?
I
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:56:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
." But
if you give a perfectly plausible account for how a complex biochemical system
might have evolved, complete with tracing the possible mutations, locating
gene duplications, and so forth,
In a message dated 8/20/2005 8:31:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, in
any case, it's a college level exam. There is no way this outline could
be presented as evidence of what high school texts and curricula
say.
You seem to be suggesting that the level of
Great question. I was unsure from the outline presented that just what it was suggested that students were asked to know. Generally a med student needs to know the development of mammalian embryoes; it looked to me as if the MCAT wanted students to know the phrase, and I would guess they want stu
Might I suggest (a) that the limited number of participants in this
thread (and related ones in the recent past), and (b) the
comparative advantage of most list members in law rather than
the philosophy of science, indicates that perhaps the thread has
played itself out?
Content-Type: multipart
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the
notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long been discredited.
And the reason it is a test subject on the MCAT would be . . . . . ?
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You call "critics" those that complain that it is "inaccurate"
to "call them gill slits." Language matters. How can science be
served by making words meaningless. Because gills are related in some
way (functionality) to lungs, why not call them lungs. In f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Darwin's Black Box, a description is offered of the cascade
of proteins and hormones that are released when the integrity of the
epidermis is disrupted (when the skin is cut). The proposition is
offered that were conditions wrong, the clotting begun
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have methods for determining good science from bad, or
current science from disproven science.
Here we agree and disagree. Utter silence from that side
Rick Duncan wrote:
I am not (nor do I have any desire to be) a scientist. But I do teach
and write about free speech, and when I hear that the powers that be
are trying to suppress a new idea, my 1A instincts are triggered and
go into high gear.
Such is the case with ID--when I read about pe
Rick Duncan wrote:
My problem is with the government school monopoly, which creates a
captive audience of impressionable children for (to quote JS Mill)
"moulding" children in a mold designed (or evolved) by those who
control the public school curriculum. With Mill, I believe that a free
soci
The relationship of the brachial arches in different mammals, for
example, demonstrates evolutionary heritage. Critics complain it's
inaccurate to call them gill slits. Well, yeah -- they only develop into
gills in gilled animals. But the heritage relationship is shown whether
In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:26:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No
textbook in the past decade, and maybe in the past 40 years, that I have
found, claims ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. It's a red herring
(there are those fish again!) to claim that is a
Right! The decision in Lee v. Weisberg is unnecessary if the rabbi (or preacher in the next case, or physician in this hypo) has enough grace and wit to say something inspirational or comforting without having to explicitly resort to religious exhorting. Imagination and consideration for the audi
Yes, the blood clotting example is testable in field observations. It turns out that some mammals lack some of the things Dr. Behe termed critical, or "irreducibly complex," and yet their blood coagulates just the same (some dolphins, for example). Deeper investigation reveals several different w
Jim
writes:
I believe you have a heart. I suggested nothing to the
contrary. I think a physician who believes his competence is confined to
the clinical observation that brain and heart function has irreversibly
ceased is not aware of all of his competencies, and doesn't refl
But of course, the issue here is whether that's exactly so. In Texas, a group of biologists argued with publishers to get rid of ancient drawings. What was substituted was actual photographs that some would argue show that. It's not that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- but it is that embryon
Rick
writes:
Whether it is good science or bad science is for elected
officials in charge of the schools--not federal courts--to decide.
This is actually quite a bizarre notion. It may be, as a
matter of constitutional law, that public school officials have the legal right
to make all s
It's a test of whether it's real science with real, practical applications.
Diabetics are kept alive through practical applications of evolution theory that ID advocates claim do not work. Some people have a real stake in this debate. Those who apply evolution to treat diabetes are rewarded w
In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:02:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I
have seenis a concerted effort to debunk ID's claim to be
science.
I wonder.
In Darwin's Black Box, a description is offered of the cascade of proteins
and hormones that are released when
sinter gave the link. It's a superb, and I believe devastating, review.
sandy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:21 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonia
Rick's question below proceeds from a false premise; public school
classrooms are not the public square. None of the posts have suggested
that ID should be banned from the public square; the first amendment
pretty obviously would forbid that, and on that point I suspect we would
all agree.
I see
In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have
methods for determining good science from bad, or current science from
disproven science.
Here we agree and disagree. Utter silence from that side of the aisle
when I mentioned the lon
In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There
are companies traded on the NYSE whose sole raison d'etre is
evolution.
This observation, is, frankly, strange to me. The meaning of the EC
is derived from placing one's future public trad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:21 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Sandy reads the EC as requiring a book, that could lawfully be taught in
dy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:21 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Sandy reads the EC as requiring a book, that could lawfull
I'm sure Sandy understands that and was making quite a different point, as he himself made clear in his follow up.On Aug 19, 2005, at 5:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that what Sandy says just doesn't work in the real world of patients and physicians. Patients expect more from clinic
In a message dated 8/19/2005 4:59:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, it
seems to me that your are ignoring the "physician qua physician" part of
Sandy's post -- a physician has no special expertise or knowledge or training
from her professional training to d
Jim, it seems to me that your are ignoring the "physician qua physician" part of Sandy's post -- a physician has no special expertise or knowledge or training from her professional training to damn my child to heaven or hell than you do.SteveOn Aug 19, 2005, at 4:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In
In a message dated 8/19/2005 4:39:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are all sorts of ways to provide comfort.
But a nonbelieving physician would simply be lying if he/she said "I'm sure
you're son is in heaven." S/he could say, "I have some sense of how you
ch I believe
we know absolutely nothing.
sandy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:33
PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Findings on
Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
In a message dated 8/19
In a message dated 8/19/2005 4:15:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A physician qua
physician simply has no professional competence to say, "I'm sure you're son
is in heaven" OR "You're son's life has no meaning other than the meaning you
choose to give it."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick
DuncanSent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:21 PMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Sandy reads the EC as requiring a book, that could lawfully be taught in
the public schools, to be
Sandy reads the EC as requiring a book, that could lawfully be taught in the public schools, to be labelled "pseudo science" before being assigned. This view of Sandy's about the EC strikes me as "pseudo law."
Cheers, Rick DuncanSanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me put the quest
2005 12:55 PMTo: 'Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics'Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
If the argument from
design was demolished in the 18th Century, as Sandy argues, then it must
have been on philosophical or religious grounds, rather th
Let me put the question this way for Sandy and Mark: Do they really
believe it would violate the EC for a public school to assign, say, Behe's
Darwin's Black Box for a high school science class? Is this
really the same thing as wanting to teach "malevolent design" or "the Protocols
of the El
In a message dated 8/19/2005 1:56:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note
that the second part of Bobby's explanation of why intelligent design was
rejected is an explicitly theological argument about the nature of any posited
deity. (Aside: I believe many philosop
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
I not only read it, but I reviewed it for Journal of Law and Religion in Fall 2001.
Frank
On 8/19/05 1:25 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:14:15 P.M. Easte
In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:14:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And do
Mark and Sandy really equate Behe's scholarship with the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion and Holocaust Denials?
I wonder whether anyone on this list has read Darwin's Black Box?
On equiva
Mark Graber writes:
"And for better or worse, the reference to theProtocols of the Elders of Zion quite clearly demolishes the claim thatevery diverse opinion should be taught. The argument for teachingintelligent design depends entirely on whether it is sufficiently in thescientific mainstream
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
In a
message dated 8/19/2005 11:41:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
But, of
course, ID is not a new idea. It is the classic "argument from
design"
With due respect to Frank Beckwith, a great many people disagree with
his theory of ethics, indeed a great many prominent philosophers
disagree with his theory of ethics, which is not to say that the claim
that morality is universal and unchanging is not legitimate, only it is
contestable and it is
In a message dated 8/19/2005 12:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the
other hand, if they can be universally applied, and there are in fact
universal, unchanging bits of knowledge we call the moral law, then we have
the problem of accounting for that knowled
In a message dated 8/19/2005 11:41:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But, of
course, ID is not a new idea. It is the classic "argument from design"
that was put forth (and, for most of us, demolished) in the 18th
century.
The standard demolition is
two
I think I have heard some on this list and elsewhere say that ID could permissibly be taught in public schools as "philosophy" or "mythology" but not as "science." Is that right?
Does the EC really determine which subjects, among those that can lawfully be taught in public schools, may be label
The distinction between malevolent and non-malevolent design depends on a prior
notion of what is good and bad. However, if the latter are merely relative to
culture and/or the individual, such judgments cannot in principle be
universally applied with integrity unless they are not relative. On t
Steve: I am not afraid of anyone teaching secular subjects. I do it myself, all the time.
My problem is with the government school monopoly, which creates a captive audience of impressionable children for (to quote JS Mill) "moulding" children in a mold designed (or evolved) by those who control
Mark and Sandy are just making my 1A point for me. They ridicule and disparage ID in an attempt to marginalize it and keep it out of the public square. Let me put the question this way for Sandy and Mark: Do they really believe it would violate the EC for a public school to assign, say, Behe's Dar
Doesn't seem to me to be anything nefarious about science journals refusing to publish things that are not good science. Will they miss some things and get it wrong? Oh yeah. But we know that ID is not good science.It may be good philosophy or even good religion or politics. But ID folk seem to
I presume malevolent design should also get equal time, based on the
claim that whatever "intelligence" is responsible for this really has it
in for humans. And, of course, there is the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion, a world-wide best seller, etc.
Mark A. Graber
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/19/05
Rick writes:
I am not (nor do I have any desire to be) a scientist. But I do teach and write
about free speech, and when I hear that the powers that be are trying to
suppress a new idea, my 1A instincts are triggered and go into high gear.
But, of course, ID is not a new idea. It is the
I am not (nor do I have any desire to be) a scientist. But I do teach and write about free speech, and when I hear that the powers that be are trying to suppress a new idea, my 1A instincts are triggered and go into high gear.
Such is the case with ID--when I read about people trying to discredit
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Ed:
I appreciate your comments. I admit I am a tad bit sensitive about this. I do think thought that the way Forrest and Branch frame my appointment that it appears that we were part of some internal Baylor scheme to win the
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
