Judge Jones to be keynote speaker at "Darwin's Reach" conference
The National Center for Science Education announced that Judge John E. Jones III -- the judge who decided the Kitzmiller v. Dover Intelligent Design case -- is slated to be a keynote speaker at a conference titled "Darwin's Reach -- Celebrating Darwin's Legacy Across the Disciplines" to be held at Hofstra University's Cultural Center. As I have noted many times on this blog, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against ID and the Dover defendants -- regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept -- by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the Constitution's establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,
.
. . . .this much is very clear. 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. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
Also, the subtitle of the conference -- "Celebrating Darwin's Legacy Across the Disciplines" -- is very biased. There are some things about Darwin's legacy -- e.g., Darwinism's influence on Nazism, the suppression of academic and intellectual freedom -- that are nothing to celebrate. Maybe a better main title would be "Darwin's Overreach" (but that would be biased, too).
Protests of (1) Judge Jones' upcoming speech at the conference and (2) the biased subtitle of the conference may be sent to:
hofculctr@hofstra.edu, Hofstra Univ. Cultural Center
president@hofstra.edu, Office of the President
Herman.A.Berliner@Hofstra.edu, Provost
Liora.P.Schmelkin@hofstra.edu, Senior Vice Provost
Steven.R.Costenoble@hofstra.edu, Associate Provost
proszk@Hofstra.edu, Associate Provost
Daniel.R.Rubey@hofstra.edu, Dean of Library and Information Services
.
Labels: Judge Jones (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/17/2008 03:38:00 AM
20 Comments:
They're still accepting proposals. Why don't you send them an abstract and see if you can't present there? You could even meet Judge Jones and tell him off in person! Of course, since you're an unemployed (semi-retired?) engineer, you'll have to hitch hike your way to the conference... or maybe you could ride your bike backwards. Like you have to worry about making the trip.
Yes, I am retired (I say so in my Blogger.com profile) -- however, that is different from being unemployed. Do you call every retired person "unemployed"?
Also, I consider your comments about my financial situation to be gossip about my private affairs. Take heed if you want your comments to be retained here.
Sir,
(1) Clicking through the link you provide to Judge Jones's speech reveals that the line you attribute to him in the cartoon is from within an indirect statement inside a quotation. He is quoting on a source's claim about what the founders believed.
(2) If I celebrate your birthday, would you suggest that makes me biased, even though there might be things about your legacy which I would prefer not to celebrate?
(3) In the sense of "legacy" you're employing, the Spanish Inquisition is part of Jesus's legacy. Would you prefer that Jesus not be celebrated for this reason?
Thanks.
Anonymous Rex said,
>>>>> Then you should stop bringing them up yourself. <<<<<
No, I never brought up the subject of my financial situation.
I warned you people.
So are you going to send a proposal or not? You still have time (until the end of June, if I remember correctly) to get something in. PZ goes to conferences. Ed Brayton goes to conferences. Larry? Not. Hmmmm.
Why is it that obnoxious abusiveness is so strongly correlated with ignorance? Can the correlation coefficient really be 1.0 as it seems? Am I missing something?
>>>>> Clicking through the link you provide to Judge Jones's speech reveals that the line you attribute to him in the cartoon is from within an indirect statement inside a quotation. He is quoting on a source's claim about what the founders believed. <<<<<<
So he's off the hook just because it's a quotation (it's actually a quote mine)?
>>>>>> If I celebrate your birthday, would you suggest that makes me biased, even though there might be things about your legacy which I would prefer not to celebrate? <<<<<<
"Celebrate" in this context means something positive.
>>>>>> So are you going to send a proposal or not? <<<<<<
Would you travel across the country just to give a 20-minute speech, the maximum time allowed?
One of the topics is "evolution and the courts," and a good paper could be put together using this blog's great amount of material on that topic. This blog has dozens of posts under such post labels as Kitzmiller v. Dover, Expert opinions about Kitzmiller, Selman v. Cobb County, Establishment Clause, Judge Jones, and Attorney fee awards. This blog is not copyrighted and others are welcome to use this blog's material in their own works. Attribution would be appreciated where appropriate.
Rhetorical Question said...
>>>>> Why is it that obnoxious abusiveness is so strongly correlated with ignorance? Can the correlation coefficient really be 1.0 as it seems? Am I missing something? <<<<<
Why is censorship so strongly correlated with dogmatism? Can the correlation coefficient really be 1.0 as it seems? Am I missing something?
What do the Christmas tree ornament, the odd yellow flower, and the six flying caterpillars represent?
BTW, in that vein, it is unlikely that everyone understands the significance of my name. It is short for "Anonymous the First, Dei Gratia Rex Et Indiae Imperator". The title lapsed between 1947 and 1952, so I have claimed it.
>>>>> What do the Christmas tree ornament, the odd yellow flower, and the six flying caterpillars represent? <<<<<<
The "Christmas tree ornament" is a rotten tomato, the "odd yellow flower" is banana peel, and the "six flying caterpillars" represent motion.
>>>>> Clicking through the link you provide to Judge Jones's speech reveals that the line you attribute to him in the cartoon is from within an indirect statement inside a quotation. He is quoting on a source's claim about what the founders believed. <<<<<<
>So he's off the hook just because it's a quotation (it's actually a quote mine)?
It's not a matter of being on a hook or off a hook. Rather, as a judge it's a big part of his job to situate his legal decisions in relation to statues and previous decisions and their authors' intentions. So, here he's citing a historian characterizing those intentions. That is a perfectly neutral stance with respect to whether the founders OUGHT to have had those intentions.
Also, Timothy McVeigh's deadly Oklahoma City bombing was part of the legacy of Jesus in the same way the Holocaust was in the legacy of Darwin (though probably to a greater degree, even). To whom is it appropriate to protest Jesus's legacy?
>>>Would you travel across the country just to give a 20-minute speech, the maximum time allowed?
I do (I even travel internationally to present). PZ does. I think Ed does too (and he's not even an academic). I'm guessing Behe does, if anyone accepts his papers to present (they're often presented blind, meaning the persons reviewing the submissions don't know who is responsible for the abstract), Dumbski probably does (same story as with Behe).
Anonymous said (Friday, April 18, 2008 11:12:00 AM) --
>>>>>> It's not a matter of being on a hook or off a hook. Rather, as a judge it's a big part of his job to situate his legal decisions in relation to statues and previous decisions and their authors' intentions. So, here he's citing a historian characterizing those intentions. <<<<<<
So is he off the hook because his quotation came from an historian?
He is supposed to be citing court precedents and not historians. His quotation about "true" religion is not supported by Supreme Court precedent and is in fact contrary to Supreme Court precedent -- this idea of "true" religion is not even given "honorable mention" in the establishment clause histories given in Supreme Court decisions. And anyway, the quotation shows extreme hostility towards organized religions whereas he is supposed to be neutral towards organized religions.
Anonymous said (Friday, April 18, 2008 4:54:00 PM) --
>>>>>Would you travel across the country just to give a 20-minute speech, the maximum time allowed?
I do (I even travel internationally to present). <<<<<<
Well, you must be quite a bigshot to travel internationally to attend or even be featured at conferences, yet you won't use your real name here. Makes me wonder why you are hiding.
>>>>>> I'm guessing Behe does, if anyone accepts his papers to present (they're often presented blind, meaning the persons reviewing the submissions don't know who is responsible for the abstract), Dumbski probably does (same story as with Behe). <<<<<<
Behe and Dembski are prominent and therefore it would be an advantage to them to submit papers under their own names. I am wondering if I can write a paper myself and then have someone else present it -- or maybe I could co-author a paper and then the other author could present it.
I'm no bigshot (I wish, sometimes) -- it's something most academics do. I'm in the humanities though. I comment anonymously here to avoid being associated with the muck on this site (I will return to using my moniker Manuel to avoid confusion).
I can see Behe's abstract to biology conferences being automatically rejected if it weren't for blind review. It wouldn't surprise me if they accepted his paper just to have a contrarian view everyone likes to criticize, either. I have no knowledge of conferences in that field.
Some conferences allow for presentations read in abstentia. You would have to ask the organizers. I doubt that anything you write could be accepted at this or most academic conferences, but I wouldn't rule it out (they might like having you there to beat up on, or just to fill voids in a panel, topic, etc., that is, as some sort of affirmative action, in this case most likely for wackos).
Manuel
>I am wondering if I can write a paper myself and then have someone else present it<
Who would be silly enough to present one of your papers?
>or maybe I could co-author a paper and then the other author could present it.<
You could possibly co-author a paper with Jim Sherwood. It could come in the form of a limrick.
Manuel driveled,
>>>>>> I doubt that anything you write could be accepted at this or most academic conferences, <<<<<
Why is that? Because I don't have credentials in any of the disciplines of the conference? Look at Fatheaded Ed Brayton -- he blogs on ScienceBlogs and Panda's Thumb and he is not even a college graduate, let alone a professional in a technical field.
I could write several papers by using only the material I have on this blog. I have hundreds of articles here -- many of them based on a lot of research -- that are related to Darwinism. Just look at the post label list in the sidebar -- each of those labels represents up to 20 articles.
ViU driveled,
>>>>> Who would be silly enough to present one of your papers? <<<<<
Well, the presenter could be designated as a co-author, even if I write all or most of the paper.
I wrote, Larry quoted and wondered cluelessly:
>>>>>> I doubt that anything you write could be accepted at this or most academic conferences, <<<<<
Why is that? Because I don't have credentials in any of the disciplines of the conference?
I sincerely doubt that anything you write could have the appearance of being intelligible. It doesn't matter what your credentials are (you have none), but the prereq is that you have a properly functioning brain. Your blog proves that you do not.
Larry blathered: I could write several papers by using only the material I have on this blog.
Quality counts. Your blog has none. Zero. Zip. Nada. That's why I doubt anything you submit will get accepted (you can try, though, I'm encouraging you to do so).
Larry quoted ViW and again misunderstood his (?) point: ViU driveled,
>>>>> Who would be silly enough to present one of your papers? <<<<<
Well, the presenter could be designated as a co-author, even if I write all or most of the paper
Why would anyone want to associate with an idiot like you, as author or co-author? That's what ViW meant.
You can send them an abstract and if hell freezes over and it's accepted, you don't have to go. It would be correct and polite to send the organizers notice that you will not attend, but if you tell them that when you send the abstract, your proposal will probably be rejected immediately (without commenting on the merits, or, more realistically, the lack thereof).
Manuel
>>>>> Why would anyone want to associate with an idiot like you, as author or co-author? <<<<<<
Well, these two engineering professors didn't mind.
Okay, how about someone in the past five years? Ten? Twenty? Thirty years ago? That's how far back...
Anyway, so what's stopping you from sending an abstract? Afraid they're going to turn you down (you should be, but still... that doesn't keep you from running this *$%^ blog.
Manuel
Post a Comment
<< Home