Thursday, March 23, 2006
Publishing After Perishing
.
Michael Behe apparently can’t wait for the upcoming tenth anniversary reissue of Darwin’s Black Box, which he has already promised will vindicate him and show those nasty Darwinists that they were wrong about how his testimony went in Dover, to mount a campaign to recover a modicum of respect within the ID crowd:
In a rush to publish, the Discovery Institute has already come out with an entire book responding to Judge Jones’ decision in Kitsmiller v. Dover. As usual, the Discovery Institute hacks can’t help tap dancing on their own saucy bits:
Despite Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempts to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow -- unquestionable in schools and fundamentally compatible with all "true" religion -- are exposed by these critical authors as a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism.
But, of course, (all together now!) ID has nothing to do with religion!
Michael Behe apparently can’t wait for the upcoming tenth anniversary reissue of Darwin’s Black Box, which he has already promised will vindicate him and show those nasty Darwinists that they were wrong about how his testimony went in Dover, to mount a campaign to recover a modicum of respect within the ID crowd:
The book also includes a lengthy response to the ruling from Dr. Michael Behe, entitled "Whether ID is Science: Michael Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller v. Dover." Dr. Behe was the lead expert witness for the defense at the trial.
But don’t forget, Michael, that the Discovery Institute has been adamant that "ID did not field its 'A' game in Dover" (even though you were the "lead witness"), which should let you know where you really stand.
.
Comments:
<< Home
I'd look it up if I weren't so lazy, but I'm sure that the 'judicial activism' objection was predicted while the trial was in progress.
# posted by 
: 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
I thought the saying is "Publish and be damned" not "Be damned and then publish."
# posted by : 1:30 PM
: 1:30 PM
Actually, Jack, you are probably thinking of Judge Jones saying in his decision (p. 137):
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
And that is a good line, Ian.
Post a Comment
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
And that is a good line, Ian.
<< Home
