Incidentally, while writing the last post, I stumbled upon the McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project, a pretty cool resource with lots of material on the case.
6 Comments
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on November 12, 2004 10:00 AM.
Dover creationism update was the previous entry in this blog.
The Tangled Bank awaits your contribution is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Categories
- Announcements (7)
- Assault on Science (455)
- Bathroom Wall (13)
- Book Reviews (71)
- Conferences (24)
- Darwin's Finches (1)
- Designoids (9)
- Education and Legal (148)
- Eugenics (1)
- Evolution (667)
- Evolution Education (13)
- Expelled (69)
- Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
- Humor (151)
- ID/Creationism (97)
- Icons (2)
- Journal Club (32)
- Legal Issues (131)
- Manufactroversy (14)
- Medicine and Evolution (21)
- Metatalk (97)
- MustRead (7)
- News Roundup (29)
- Origin of new genes and new information (3)
- Prebiotic Chemistry (8)
- Question of the Day (6)
- Question of the Moment
- Quote of the Day (14)
- Religion and Politics (14)
- Research News (62)
- Resources for Biologists (23)
- Shoptalk (29)
- Slightly Off Topic (79)
- Steve Steve (71)
- Sticky (3)
- Their Own Words (20)
- Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (12)
- War on Science (47)
- What motivates creationism (23)
Hi Timothy,
That was an excellent website. One of the witnesses against the creationist side was Dr. Harold Morowitz who is now a professor at my school, George Mason University.
Morowitz’s insights into creationist misuse of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is right on the mark.
However, it is interesting Morowitz is now accpeting grants from the Templeton Foundation.
See : http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.p[…]=14;t=000704
I get an error from that link.
The canonical URL for the McLean Documentation Project is
http://antievolution.org/projects/m[…]te/index.htm
Wesley
Fantastic resource. Langdon Gilkey, a theologian testifying for the plaintiffs (i.e. one of the good guys), was a prof of mine in college and spoke often about that case. I believe he’s since retired and is now Emeritus at UVA. He also wrote a book on the trial, “Creationism on Trial.” Terrific discussion of the differences between scientific and religious inquiry.
I’ve heard philosophers criticise Ruse, but I’ve never heard any Gilkey criticism.
Mr. Cordova said:
Why is that interesting? The Templeton Foundation is interesting in rapprochement. They do not have a religious agenda which supports creationism.
The foundation’s website says:
http://www.templeton.org/
Update