Prof. Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe University has written a wonderfully insightful essay on the Cobb County evolution textbook disclaimer case for the American Enterprise Online. At the end of the essay, Knippenberg concludes: One begins to wonder whether liberal toleration is a sham, offered only to the most docile, and whether liberalism isn’t itself the very sort of orthodoxy it claims to eschew. You can read the essay here.
Note: This is the fourth part of a multi-part series. You can read the first three installments here and here and here. Some in the newsmedia have been attempting to portray Judge Jones as a conservative Republican who is devoutly religious. Frankly, I don’t care whether Judge Jones is either conservative or religious. My concern is whether he is fair and accurate as a judge. But I do object to the media’s attempt to reinvent Judge Jones in order to insulate his decision from criticism. The media are cultivating the impression that Judge Jones must have been fair and impartial (his sloppy and biased opinion notwithstanding) because he is a deeply-religious conservative who should have been initially sympathetic to the Read More ›
Michael Medved interviewed Stephen Meyer, program director for the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, for an hour on his national radio program recently…. Also, Granville Sewell, a mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, has a stimulating critique of Neo-Darwinism at The American Spectator.
Note: This is the third part of a multi-part series. You can read the first two installments here and here. In his decision in the Dover intelligent design case, Judge Jones places great weight on the early intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). According to Judge Jones, early drafts of this textbook supposedly show that intelligent design is merely repackaged creationism. However, Judge Jones seriously misrepresents the facts about Of Pandas and People, and he also misapplies the relevant legal standards. Before addressing the merits of Judge Jones’ assertions regarding Pandas, something needs to be said about the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones placing so much weight on Read More ›
Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can read the first installment here. It’s becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of “facts” in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion that are unambiguously factually wrong—even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn’t even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with. Here are some of the more egregious examples.