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.
<< Science can be wrong for decades. >>
It was wrong for centuries about cosmology.
<< In the case of Darwinian macro-evolution, it's been just over 100 years. >>
It's been about 150 years since Darwin wrote his book -- and since that time, the evidence has been piling higher and higher in support of his general idea. Of course, the theory has been adjusted and improved as more evidence has been added -- just like other scientific theories are.
The Copernican theory was revolutionary [hehehe] for its time -- but it has stood the test of time, even though it has had to be adjusted regularly since that time. Unless and until another theory comes along that better explains the preponderance of the evidence -- AND solves the problems of the currently default theory -- it will remain the default theory. Same with evolution.
<< It's nice of you to recognize that evolution may be wrong. Maybe we're getting somewhere. >>
No scientist denies that any theory may be wrong -- or has gaps in knowledge concerning how it works. But no competing theory has come along that even comes close to its predictive and explanatory power. It won't do to just throw out bon mots that amount to nothing more than an argument from incredulity [I can't see how it can be so -- so it must not be so.].
<< Isn't that the entire point of the trial in Dover; that there is at least one competing idea about how life came to be? >>
Nope. As has been explained hundreds of times in here, to deaf ears -- evolution is not about "how life came to be." It is about "how VARIETY of life came to be."
<< Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing ideas? >>
They are not. They are simply disgusted with ideas that do not really compete scientifically, but which attempt to horn in, anyway. Show some actual evidence to compete -- and it will get attention. Any scientist worth his salt would almost kill to be the one to overthrow a default theory with a new one that works better.
There just hasn't been one -- or even the beginnings of one.
Sorry if that upsets you. Science doesn't care about your feelings -- or mine -- or anyone else's.
M
Soon we'll have people posting that "Dembski doesn't speak for Intelligent Design." (Later the same will be said of Behe, etc.)
You mean, sort of like claiming over and over that scientists are persecuting IDers, because they won't let them teach ID in high school?
Automatically writing yourself into that history as being on the side of the good is worse. The 20th century saw the murder of between 50 and 100 million people by secular governments. Governments that swore to protect their people from the evils of religion, among other things. Governments that outlawed religion. Personally I am more frightened by those that hate religion than the religious.
The church genocided Anabaptists, Muslims, Gnostics, Jews, Witches, and Albigensians--and that's without the help of modern methods of accounting, record-keeping, transportation and warfare. There is nothing that was done in the prison camps of Germany that outshone the Inquisition for cruel and ingenious ideas for murdering your theological opponents as slowly, painfully, and degradingly as possible.
As far as your demands for proof. That is funny you offer none whatsover for you views,
Science doesn't operate on proof. Yet proof is what is required if you want to proffer an ID claim that you can see a mysterious hand at work, absent any positive forensic evidence whatsoever.
you simply defame religious people in the name of an incomplete and highly edited historical perspective.
What religeous people did I defame? The catholics? The catholics officially condone Darwinian evolutionary theory as of 1996. Calling a schism of christianity that believes things that are preposterous, in the light of contemporary science, cranks--is the truth. And truth is an adequate defense against charges of slander. I have defamed no major religeous group as a whole, and you owe me an apology, or a counterdemonstration of my claim of innocence.
Than you wave your arm and demand the names of ten scientists that have published serious articles with numerous qualifiers supplied by you.
Numerous qualifiers? How numerous, exactly? You mean, refereed publication? Golly, what a stern taskmaster I am.
You haven't done it and neither will I.
I cite every scientist that has ever published a refereed paper in the journal of micro-biology.
Tell you what. Cite me 5, other then Behe, Hoyle, and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Dembski,-- actual research scientists who've published a popular book on the subject, enumerating the scientific data that supports ID, and explaining why it does.
In any case your entire response was just littered with bad prose lurid imagery of people being burned at the stake, etc. and isn't worthy of a line by line refutation
We're fairly accustomed to stealth creationists who haughtily declare themselves the winners in a battle they couldn't locate on a map if they tried.
Creationist-Bozos-on-parade placemarker.
You want ID? OK, here is ID. Still like it?
Maori created the first man, Mwuetsi, who became the moon. Maori gave him a ngona horn filled with ngona oil and told him he would live at the bottom of the waters. Mwuetsi objected and said he wished to live on the land. Maori reluctantly agreed, but said Mwuetsi would give up immortality if he did. After a while Mwuetsi complained of loneliness, so Maori sent him a woman, Massassi (the morning star), to keep him company for two years. Each night they slept on opposite sides of a campfire, until one night Mwuetsi jumped over the flame and touched Massassi with a finger he had moistened with the ngona oil. In the moning Massassi was huge, and soon gave birth to plants and trees until the whole earth was covered by them. At the end of two years Maori took Massassi away. Mwuetsi wept for eight years, at which time Maori sent him another woman, Morongo (the evening star), saying that she could stay for two years. On the first night Mwuetsi touched her with his oiled finger, but she said she was different than Massassi, and that they would have to oil their loins and have intercourse. This they did, this night, and every night thereafter. Every morning Morongo gave birth to the animals of creation. Then she gave birth to human boys and girls, who became full-grown by that very same evening. Maori voiced his displeasure with a fierce storm, and told Mwuetsi he was hastening his death with all this procreation. Morongo, ever the temptress, instructed Mwuetsi to build a door to their habitat so that Maori could not see what they were doing. He did this, and again they slept together. Now in the morning Morongo gave birth to violent animals; snakes, scorpions, lions, etc. One night Morongo told Mwuetsi to have intercourse with his daughters, which he did, thereby fathering the human race.http://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/
Try this link for more information, if you dare: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
It's shocking, but fully 50% of people are below the median! Something must be done!
But you're not willing to cut the scientists any slack. They have spent decades studying the field, but you come along and veto all of that study because of ... what?
More than 50% of people have below-median health care.
Do you other guys believe this? If so, I've got a few questions to ask.
"You mean, sort of like claiming over and over that scientists are persecuting IDers, because they won't let them teach ID in high school?"
I never made that specific charge, you must have your rants mixed up.
"The church genocided Anabaptists, Muslims, Gnostics, Jews, Witches, and Albigensians--and that's without the help of modern methods of accounting, record-keeping, transportation and warfare. There is nothing that was done in the prison camps of Germany that outshone the Inquisition for cruel and ingenious ideas for murdering your theological opponents as slowly, painfully, and degradingly as possible."
My you do go on. Genocided them all eh. Slowly, painfully, and degradingly as possible. You're really into the very lurid details of their death. Do you read about their actual deaths a lot, Dr Kevorkian? Seems you want to put there death on a higher plane than the mere murdering of millions during the 20th century by governments that were supposedly an improvement on the homicidal, genocidal religious governments of the past. Your use of the word Genocide in your favorite historical tragedy belies your attempt to explain away or ignore the vastly larger numbers of people killed in the 20th century, by non-religious governments. The larger numbers comes from the obvious fact of larger populations and more efficient killing machines. Anyway, you pre-occupation with only one slice of historical injustice tells the whole story. In your mind it is only the religious that we need to fear. Well, not so, my dear Doctor Jack. Not so.
"Science doesn't operate on proof. Yet proof is what is required if you want to proffer an ID claim that you can see a mysterious hand at work, absent any positive forensic evidence whatsoever"
You are not the determinator of what is required. You do not make the rules. The above statement is quite strange really, science doesn't prove, those that challenge it must prove. Right, sure...Great stuff!
"you simply defame religious people in the name of an incomplete and highly edited historical perspective"
Yes, that is what you do, you defame them by bringing into an argument in the 21st century, the behavior of religious people hundreds of years ago, you bring it into every discussion. Into every comment and reply near as I can tell. Yet you boldly claim you do not and laughingly demand an apology. It is you that needs to appologize. For butchering the subject the way you do.
As for your pompous demands that I cite 5 or ten or whatever scientists. Let me say again, it is not for you to demand anything. You do not set requirements, you are not empowered to demand, at some arbitrary point that I go on a mission to bring you something. You are not King, and I am not Hobbit. The belief in free speech and free inquiry, even by people that may be wrong, does not require scientific source. So, not only are your demands out of line, they are inappropriate to the subject at hand. Which by the way is not the nuts and bolts of ID, but the freedom to engage in debate on it in public. Including wether you like it or not in schools.
"We're fairly accustomed to stealth creationists who haughtily declare themselves the winners in a battle they couldn't locate on a map if they tried."
"We're acustomed"...oh is there a bunch of you guys, are you a fraternity or what? Do you have a secret handshake? "Stealth Creationist" Puh leaze! You are such a waste of time. I've figured out your religious hatred act. You can hide behind your briefcase full of studies and selective history but Jack the man shines through. As far as my inability to win an argument I can't find with both hands on a haughty map, you really need to study the advice that brevity is the soul of wit, and try and apply it to your prose. Good night Jack, enjoy your Torquemada.
So thats ID, gee thanks Coyoteman, I thought it was something else. Thanks for clearing that all up for me. Yeah, I still like it.
I never made that specific charge, you must have your rants mixed up.
Oh really? Let's review your submissions:
Those of you that think so, can find yourselves being prominently featured in all kinds of history books throughou time( a hint...your not the fairy...your the Gremlin!)
I find it incredible, but on the other hand for Darwin to come along and close the door to all debate is nothing short of intellectual thuggery.
You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.
Oh Yes You Do! those that do the burning are alway full of themselves...so convinced of their superior humanity, and the lack of it in the burnee! That pretty much describes the views of the religion haters around here.
You and other do not have the right to burn them at the stake so to speak, to order them away.
Was this you, or is someone else running around here posting as ronnieb?
I did not bring up the issue about who killed the most people: religeous or secular governments, but thanks for making my point. Only paucity of resources and victims deprived the religeous authorities of the all-time genocide championship crown.
You are not the determinator of what is required. You do not make the rules.
No, I don't, I differ from you, however, in that I have a rough notion of what the rules are.
The above statement is quite strange really, science doesn't prove, those that challenge it must prove. Right, sure...Great stuff!
The is an incorrect characterization of the problem.
If ID had positive forensic evidence, like, say, "kilroy was here"+all the contents of the Voyager probe, written out in the junk DNA, or videotape of the UFO that dropped the seeds of life into our early ocean, than you could perhaps make a scientific case.
If however, you wish to make a case based on the notion that what we presently know about DNA precludes natural explanations, than you have the much beefier task of demonstating that there is no possible permutation of events that could have led up to the evolutionary leaps ID wishes to question.
In all of the annuls of science you will not find a similar case: where a scientific principle is established on the basis of the demonstation of the impossibility of any of its infinite alternatives. I venture to guess that no real scientist could even suggest how to begin to approach this task.
You said there was an active debate going on in the scientific community. It would seem not too incredible to ask you to demonstrate some slight evidence of that debate, but apparently, and not too surprisingly, you aren't up to the task. I'm not overly surprised at your response--shell game artists employ similar reasoning to defend their legitimacy, for similar reasons: there ain't no pea under any of the shells.
I dunno, I think you have to ask the Grand Master of the Lodge, Patrick Henry.
"Stealth Creationist" Puh leaze! You are such a waste of time. I've figured out your religious hatred act.
Squawk, Squawk, Squawk.
You can hide behind your briefcase full of studies and selective history but Jack the man shines through.
I've made some fairly simple points, drawing on nothing much more than what we all were taught in freshman world history class in high school. No briefcases full of studies were harmed in the making of this production.
As far as my inability to win an argument I can't find with both hands on a haughty map, you really need to study the advice that brevity is the soul of wit,
You mean, like the example you set here?
and try and apply it to your prose. Good night Jack, enjoy your Torquemada.
The furious hissing of a de-clawed kitten who couldn't argue it's way out of a paper bag. I rest my case on this largely pointless and irrelevant, gratuitously insulting, feeble attempt at a refutation.
That is a pretty clear statement that evolution is only about change, not the origin of life.
All of that and much, much more.
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.