Monday, June 20, 2005

Lippard v. Menuge

Victor:I just saw Menuge's response on your blog.I retract my statement about Sternberg which was based on hismembership in the "Baraminology Study Group," which has as its purpose the study of the original kinds of living things created by God.Apparently Sternberg is not a believing member, according to this website: I stand behind my otherstatements on this issue, however--Menuge has said nothing thatrefutes the critiques of Meyer's unoriginal and poor quality paper that I cited.

The ethical complaints about Leonard are not so much about the contentof his dissertation as they are about the improper procedures whichallowed him to get to the dissertation defense stage withoutappropriate members of his dissertation committee, a situation whichhas now been rectified by putting the head of the biology departmenton his committee. Menuge's statement that "their key complaint is that it is unethical to have taught students about the controversy about Darwinism, because there isn't one." I don't believe that is the key complaint, and that's certainly not why OSU has taken theactions that it has. Again, I point to the discussion at the Panda'sThumb, which Menuge has not acknowledged or addressed in any way:
The Caldwell issue is nothing I've commented on, but I recommend readingattorney Timothy Sandefur's commentary on the suit here, which pointsout far more egregious misrepresentations by Caldwell than those he asserts from Scott: Jim Lippard

No comments: