Posted on 10/07/2005 7:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
To keep this all in one daily thread, here are links to two articles in the York Daily Record (with excerpts from each), which has been doing a great job of reporting on the trial:
Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder.
About the time that Richard Thompson, head law guy at the Thomas More center and chief defender of the Dover Area School Board, started his third year of cross-examination of philosopher Barbara Forrest, it was easy to imagine that at that moment, everyone in the courtroom, including Forrest, who doesn’t believe in God, was violating the separation of church and court by appealing to God for it to please, Lord, just stop.It wouldn’t have been so bad if there was a point to the ceaseless stream of questions from Thompson designed to elicit Lord knows what. He’d ask her the same question 18 different times, expecting, I guess, a different answer at some point. And he never got it.
Thompson, who said he’s a former prosecutor, should have known better. Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and expert on the history of the intelligent design creationist movement, was a lot smarter than, say, some poor, dumb criminal defendant.
Here is a summation of Forrest’s testimony: She examined the history of the intelligent design movement and concluded that it’s simply another name for creationism. And what led her to that conclusion? The movement leader’s own words. They started out with a religious proposition and sought to clothe it in science. The result was similar to putting a suit on your dog.
[anip]
Thompson was in the midst of asking Forrest whether she had heard a bunch of things that some people had said to indicate, well, to indicate whether she’d heard a bunch of things that some people had said, I guess, when the topic came up.
Thompson asked whether she had ever heard a statement by some guy — frankly, this one caught me off-guard and I didn’t catch the guy’s name — who said that belief in evolution can be used to justify “cross-species sex.”
This came on the same day that Thompson grilled Forrest about her opposition to the so-called Santorum amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that seemed to encourage, sort of, the teaching of intelligent design. Our U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is a friend of the intelligent design people.
He also has a strange obsession with bestiality, commenting that court decisions that uphold the right to privacy would lead to — naturally, and you know you were thinking it — man-on-dog sex.
Dover science teachers testified that they fought references to intelligent design.
Defense attorney Richard Thompson [he represents the school board] said differing opinions on whether teachers and administration worked in cooperation to create the Dover Area School District’s statement on intelligent design comes down to perspective.
|
The religious right should be fighting better battles than this one.(loud whisper----the euthanasia battle, as well as abortion) Although I believe in God and agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is only a theory--intelligent design is basically a faith question trying to pass itself off as science.
I'm in.
They're paying this guy money for this?
Dembski on his blog has already concluded Dover's probably going to lose. What he's hoping is that this will be a narrow decision; that the court will find that Dover erred without finding that ID is a form of creationism and therefore constitutionally excluded from public schools. Conversely, it looks like the ACLU is shooting for all the marbles. And they might well win them.
That pretty much sums it up.
He also has a strange obsession with bestiality, commenting that court decisions that uphold the right to privacy would lead to — naturally, and you know you were thinking it — man-on-dog sex.
The more I learn about this intelligent design hoax, the more I learn there's some very sick and sick minded people pushing it.
Thanks for the ping!
You've got to figure that these type of people are used to dealing with a brainwashed congregation that drinks up that kind of kool-aid. Now, instead of being happy with their freedom of religion, they want to push taliban style fanaticism into science class and lose in court. It would seem that reasonable people in the religious community would call them on it but they sit silent even as the major advocates of the intelligent design hoax slink back into the shadows and wash their hands.
The editorial board of the Oracle, the student newspaper of the University of South Florida, wrote, “Intelligent design is not just dressed up creationism.” Those who dismiss the position “undermine their own academic credibility. People who think dogma is only found in religion should think again.”
Space aliens are certainly credible. The last sentence is true, however.
The worst of all possible outcomes for them. They would have to go back into the creation science labs, sweep away all the cobwebs, raise the lightening rod, and do some science.
These ID people are an insult to dogs.
I guess then we'll have to throw out any scientific work done by non-atheists that lived before Darwin.
Why? I don't think you seem to understand - the affront of ID is not that it acknowledges God, but that it tries to place God under the dominion of science.
Not only does this lead to premature scientific conclusions, I think it's insulting to God. But then again, the latter is only my personal opinion.
Or just find another euphemism for the same phoney nonsense.
"This is Originated Complexity. It's not creationism, and not intelligent design, oh no, this is new, and scientific"
ABOMINATION!!!
Not the doggies! That's what the sheep are for. </Redneck_mode>
Well, he's actually right on this one. If there is a right to privacy in the constitution, then the state has no power to outlaw bestiality, adult incest, or polygamy.
Based on some of the responses by evolutionists towards creationists and Christians it appears that the affront IS God. The vitriol directed towards those who profess fatih of any kind is very concerning. Post 10 is a good example. There are others if you peruse other creation/evolution threads.
That's why defeating intelligent design in court is not enough. We've got to fight them state by state, school district by school district.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.