McLean

| 6 Comments

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

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

from Cosmic Joy page 280:

What emerges from all this is the return of “mind” to all areas of scientific thought. This is good news from the point of view of all varieties of natural theology. For a universe where mind is a fundamental part of reality more easily makes contact with the mind of god than does a mindless world.

page 298: Like Dyson and Henderson and Teilhard, I find it hard not to see design in a universe that works so well. Each new scientific discovery seems to reinforce that vision of design. As I like to say to my friends, the universe works much better than we have any right to expect.

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:

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.

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:

The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science through a rigorous, open-minded and empirically focused methodology, drawing together talented representatives from a wide spectrum of fields of expertise.

http://www.templeton.org/

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

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter