In a message dated 3/17/2004 1:19:46 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What would your view be of a high school science text book that, for example, noted that Darwinian therory offers no explanation for how matter came to exist in the first place? Or, that macro-evolution is
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NRO Article
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
As a former philosophy professor I can't resist making two points:First, as Hume insists, any world at all must reveal some structure however chaotic. Thus the ID position seems to be clearly unfalsifiable. What empirical facts could exist convincing IDists that there exists a world without an
Academics
Subject: Re: NRO Article
Hmm. Science does provide lots of information about
origins and about how processes began. Except for the answer to Why is
there anything instead of nothing? We can't yet look behind the big bang.
But we understand chemistry pretty well. And how it began
from evil or suffering is convincing.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:05
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NRO Article
As a former philosophy profess
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 of
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
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
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 nro
"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 thespecific fraud that Leiter complains about?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
truly yours,
Ross S. Heckmann
Attorney at Law
Arcadia, California
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NRO Article
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:44:30 -0500
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
essage -
From:
Steven
Jamar
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 5:44
PM
Subject: Re: NRO Article
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
somet
Title: Re: NRO Article
Heres 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
