Thanks, Mark, for the followup info. Your post appears to suggest
that Wolfe/NFL may have misrepresented the extent of the plagiarism,
to obtain an endorsement from Rev. Owen. [If that is not a fair
description of the claim in your post, please feel free to clarify.]
Anyway, I would hope that he would publically retract his endorsement,
as it may have been obtained under false pretenses.

Insasmuch as Wolfe has misrepresented himself as author of
Hovannessian's
work, plus portions of "Darwin on Trial", the possibility that he
misrepresented himself to get endorsements from Rev. Owen (and perhaps
Cousens, Kulvinksas, as well) seems plausible. I specifically
mentioned
that possibility in my comments here.

Mark:
>Whether he was given accurate information is perhaps debatable, but I
>don't see any basis for condemning the reverend or his church based on
>what information he was given.

Tom:
The discussion here was critical - as it should be. The head of a
church
endorsing a book by an active plagiarist, is inappropriate. Again, he
can retract the endorsement.

My post regarding the validity (or lack thereof) for the writings that
are
the basis for the church, is a separate issue, not related to the
issue
of plagiarism.

Tom Billings