ï
Correction. Beckwith's e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I
ovelooked the period after "francis".
Ross Heckmann
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:26
PM
Subject: Re: NRO Article
Very truly yours,
Ross S. Heckmann
Attorney at Law
Arcadia, California
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:24
PM
Subject: Re: NRO Article
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 Darwinism grown so concerned about the correctness of their
own theories that they have to resort to the ad hominum in response to a
challenge to the Darwinian citadel that takes seriously Darwinâs own
methodology?
I haven't read the NRO
article, but I will testify under oath to scholarly fraud on the part of the
Discovery Institute if asked. Serious misrepresentations have been
made before official bodies in at least four states.
Truth is a
defense in libel. I think the author could be in the
clear.
There is not a single publication in any juried science
journal that supports anti-Darwinian hypotheses since the Arkansas trial in
1981. I have searched without success to find a single laboratory that
is doing work that might lead to the publication of such an article.
There is no biology program at any major research university where one may
learn problems of Darwinian theory, nor one where one may learn a hypothesis
of intelligent design or creationism to teach in its place.
Prof. Beckwith and others from the Discovery Institute claim that
school boards may question Darwin and teach intelligent design without legal
repercussions, however.
To my experience, Leiter may be too
harsh on the kid at Harvard, but the kid's only defense would be that he
trusted Beckwith and Beckwith's publishers to have gotten the facts
right. I do not think Beckwith's book could survive a good cross
examination.
There is a fair amount of what scientists would call
fraud, what would be prosecutable were it done under federal research aegis,
against Darwinian theory. It's quite a scandal, even if not well
known. Among other false claims made against science by the campaign
against Darwin in the past several years are these: That the No Child
Left Behind law requires "intelligent design" to be taught (before the Ohio
School Board) (the law has no such requirement); that a sense of the Senate
resolution is as good as law (it has no force of law); that moth researchers
now question whether Kettlewell's research on peppered moths shows natural
selection (to a person, the researchers say Kettlewell's research does show
natural selection, though it is not clear that the species of titmouse which
did the predation in Kettlewell's experiments is the sole predator); that
"intelligent design" has been supported in peer review science publications
(this is from a press release from the Discovery Institute, and it is
false).
At the Texas textbook hearings last summer I spoke with a
fellow who suggested it's not academic fraud if the view is a genuine
religious belief.
I've read Leiter's site. He goes
rather easy on the critics of science and teaching Darwin,
IMHO.
Darwinians appreciate any criticism that is based in data, and
they appreciate a great debate on science any day. The problem is that
the critics will not do science, and instead ask for political action to
stifle science. It raises the ire of scientists that few others are
concerned at such academic dishonesty. When a book states one position
on an issue and cites the major researchers and their latest works for
support, one would expect that those researchers and their publications
would indeed support that position. When the facts are otherwise, one
would be justified in questioning the appropriateness of the citation.
How would a court deal with an lawyer who cites cases, or law review
articles, which argue exactly the opposite of the point being
cited?
Hundreds of scientists, including all the Texas Nobelists in
physiology and medicine, rose up to call for an end to such shenanigans, and
the Texas School Board voted 11 to 4 to approve books without the
shenanigans. Beckwith testified in favor of the shenanigans, and I
don't have a difficult time believing that a good review of his book might
suffer from too little study of the issues.
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.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|
