ADVERTISEMENTS

Oh, just a word more on Dr. Michael Egnor's most recent outbreak of foot-in-mouthitis. In his "reply" to Timothy Sandefur a few days ago, Dr. Egnor insisted:

The term creationist in this debate refers to young earth creationism. I?m not a young earth creationist. Therefore when Mr. Sandefur calls me a ?creationist,? he?s misrepresenting my views.

It is always well to keep track of creationists' statements, particularly Egnor's, because you can count on them changing frequently, depending on the rhetorical advantage of the moment. That's a sad result of not having a principled argument in favor of a consistent logical position but, instead, campaigning solely to evade the Constitutional prohibition against turning public school science classes into an opportunity for religious proselytizing.

Not very long ago, Egnor reacted to the announcement of the
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) that it would move its annual meeting from New Orleans to Salt Lake City because of Louisiana's passage of a law permitting the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution to be taught in the states' schools. Despite the "debate" being on exactly the same issue, Egnor, in support of a blatant threat of a politically enforced de-funding of evolutionary biology, had quite a different definition of "creationist":

... [m]ost Americans are creationists, in the sense that they believe that God played an important role in creating human beings and they don't accept a strictly Darwinian explanation for life.

It would be interesting to know the process by which Dr. Egnor decides which side of his mouth to speak out of at any one time.
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.