Re: Fwd: [asa] The Swift-Boating of Judge Jones

From: Austerberry, Charles <cfauster@creighton.edu>
Date: Mon Dec 18 2006 - 15:11:08 EST

I appreciate what I see as a consensus on this list that both Judge
Jones and, for example, Michael Behe, need not be subjected to
over-analysis of their respective publication and speaking records in
order to weaken their positions. Their arguments can be directly
evaluated, using those very records. Let's reserve our fine-toothed
analyses of "form" (Did they cite their sources sufficiently? Do they
have a sufficient number of publications in prestigious journals?) for
authors we're not sure we should even take seriously.
 
I'll let others decide whether Judge Jones, in writing his Dover
decision, borrowed more than the usual amount of language from
documents supplied by those who won the case. Ditto for whether he erred
in (presumably) not citing Lambert's work as a source for some of his
commencement address at Dickinson College. What's more important to me
is the logic of the arguments made. I think they deserve to be taken
seriously.
 
Some goes for Behe. I don't much care how many papers he's published -
I'm not on his rank and tenure committee. I'm interested in whether his
argument for irreducible complexity is solid. I don't think it is, but
I do appreciate that he seems consistent and honest. I also appreciate
that he, unlike some ID proponents, accepts that theistic evolutionists
can be orthodox in their Christian faith. I appreciate that he, unlike
some ID proponents, openly accepts the evidence for common ancestry. I
appreciate that he was willing to testify in the Dover case. Though I
found Kenneth Miller's testimony much more compelling, I think Behe's
also deserved to be taken seriously - and I think it was, at least by
Jones.
 
Jones probably should have cited his sources better. Behe probably
should have better scrutinized "Of Pandas and People" before
contributing to it. I don't know how much respect Jones and Behe have
for each other, but I hope it's there, however grudging. In my opinion,
both Jones and Behe, along with Ken Miller, Guillermo Gonzalez, and
Francis Collins, serve as role models for how debate about evolution and
intelligent design should be handled. Some on both sides of the debate
seem to misrepresent even their own (let alone their opponents')
arguments for short-term sound-bite gain at the expense of clarity.
Certain TV preachers and other media personalities, politicians, and
even some professors and lawyers, are among those who maybe could learn
from Jones, Behe, Miller, Gonzalez, and Collins.
 
Cheers.
 
Chuck
 
Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Hixson-Lied Room 438
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178

Phone: 402-280-2154
Fax: 402-280-5595

e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu

Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu <http://nrcse.creighton.edu/>

________________________________

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:57:22 -0800
From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [asa] The Swift-Boating of Judge Jones

The continuation of the Swift boating is continuing with the Discovery
Institute accusing Jones of plagiarising his Commencement Address at
Dickinson College
Seems the DI is intent on destroying this judge and fellow Christian
for his Kitzmiller ruling.

Sad and disgusting.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/did_judge_jones_plagiarize_sch.html
#more

- ----Begin Quote---

Judge Jones appears to have engaged in unattributed copying outside
the courtroom as well. Compare the following passages and decide for
yourself whether this new finding constitutes plagiarism.

Judge Jones' Commencement Address at Dickinson College (2006):

    "...our Founding Fathers... possessed a great confidence in an
individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental
laws through the exercise of his or her reason... The Founders
believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church
or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational
inquiry... this core set of beliefs led the Founders... to secure
their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church
and state." (http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html)

Compare that to Frank Lambert's, The Founding Fathers and the Place of
Religion in America (Princeton University Press, 2003):

    "The Founding Fathers... had great confidence in the individual's
ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through
the exercise of his or her reason. To them, true religion was not
something handed down by a church or contained in the Bible but rather
was to be found through free rational inquiry...the framers sought to
secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between
church and state."

    (Frank Lambert, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in
    America, pg. 3 (2003). You can also find this material online at
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7500.html)
- ----end quote---

________________________________

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 18 15:12:25 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 18 2006 - 15:12:25 EST