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.
When it comes to genocide, you can't get easily get beyond 100 percent, which would mean killing all the men, women and children in a conquered city.
Is there a percentage breakpoint at which mass murder becomes genocide? I'm willing to settle for calling it mass murder. It still seems kinda wrong either way, don't it?
We are up early on a Saturday, no? Haven't had coffee yet.
Do you other guys believe this? If so, I've got a few questions to ask.
In broad terms, yes, although there can be a bit of overlap depending on what exactly you'd be willing to define as "life". But in general the origin of life occurred via "pre-evolutionary" processes (even if some unspecified "designer" was involved), whereas evolution itself can only begin once something *already* exists which undergoes replication in a heritable fashion.
Now what are your questions?
Or in my case, up really late on a Friday...
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
So do we get another brilliant writeup about Friday's activities?
Just want differences of opinion discussed in science, no big deal really.
No one has suggested restricting free speech or free inquiry. Bark up all the trees you want, wrong or not.
So, not only are your demands out of line, they are inappropriate to the subject at hand.
Or not.
Which by the way is not the nuts and bolts of ID, but the freedom to engage in debate on it in public.
Go right ahead and debate in public. That's what we're doing right now.
Including wether you like it or not in schools.
Ah, but here's where you cross the line. Schools differ from the free public forum of ideas in several ways.
First, the students are a captive audience. Unlike members of the public at large, they're not free to tune out the "free exchange of ideas" or walk away or otherwise opt out. This has two consequences: 1. It's not really a "free exchange of ideas" if you're forced to sit down, shut up, and listen (especially if you're going to be tested on the material and your grade depends on it). 2. If we're going to force kids (or anyone) to listen to material, we have a real responsibility to make sure it's worth listening to, and not just some faction's idea of what they want to cram into a captive audience's heads.
Second, we don't build schools and fund them and enforce mandatory attendance in order to have kids listen to, or participate in, "debates". We do it because we have a vested interest in ensuring that the next generation gains the knowledge it needs in order to become functioning adults and effective members of the society they'll be in charge of running eventually. As such, we shouldn't be wasting time on doing dog-and-pony "debate" shows for them, we should be spending the limited school hours bringing them up to speed on various subjects -- including science in general and biology in particular -- and teaching them the skills they need.
So by getting all high and mighty about restricting "debate" in schools (by which you mean *presenting* students with a public debate, not having them actually engage in one themselves), you're at best misguided, and at worst highly disingenuous. Schools aren't about "debate" or "free expression". They're about learning, and not just anything -- learning solid, useful information. And somehow I have the feeling you'd suddenly stop beating your chest about "free debate in schools" if, say, Communists, animal-rights nutballs, Muslim extremists, or NAMBLA started lobbying for "equal time" in schools so that they could have ongoing "debates" about their positions, or "teach the controversy"...
If you want to argue that evolutionary biology itself isn't up to snuff as a school subject, you're welcome to try. But don't start waving Torquemada around just because (and I'm being *really* charitable here) "ID" is a field in its infancy and not solid or well-grounded enough to qualify as a worthwhile school subject, and we'd rather not waste students' time with preliminary fluff. If we let your "this isn't really a science but we hope this wooden puppet will become a real boy someday" stuff into the schools, where do we draw the line? Why not "crystal energy", "Feng Shui", "N-Rays", "cold fusion", and "Scientology"?
But, really, it's worse than that. "ID" as it stands currently isn't even an honest preliminary research program, it's a pack of misrepresentations, known fallacies, pseudoscience, misguided attacks on biology, and propaganda. And to be blunt, it's not really appropriate for us to be called Torquemadas just because we think bull***t doesn't belong in classrooms.
What *kind* of "differences of opinion", exactly? Pick *any* position, in *any* field or issue, and you can find someone with a "different opinion", albeit often an irrational fringe one. How are you going to distinguish between "differences of opinions" that are allegedly worthwhile to be "discussed" in classrooms, and which ones are a waste of time? Shall we give equal time to the Socialists who want students in Business and Accounting classes to learn their "difference of opinion" about capitalism and free markets being evil and oppressive?
I learned about communism and socialism in school - didn't you? Are you saying all in the scientific community have no arguments with the TOE? I doubt that is what you are saying because it isn't true and I'm sure you are also just seeking the truth.
Well, that was an intelligent reply. What are you so afraid of? That more and more students will reject TOE? Why do you care? And why are you so antagonistic towards anyone who believes differently than you?
Why not teach all the controversies...
Acupuncture
Alchemy
Astrology
Chakra theory
Clairvoyance
Dianetics
Eugenics
Essentialism
Folk psychiatry
Graphology
Götaland theory
Homeopathy
Lunaception
Melanin Theory
Modern geocentrism
New Chronology
Orgonomy
Palmistry
Parapsychology
Perpetual motion
Personology
Phrenology
Physiognomy
Precognition
Pseudoarchaeology
Pyramidology
Time Cube
Telekinesis
Telepathy
Vedic science
Spell-check!
I thought evolution was about how one species became another. No one questions adaptations. We question how apes became human.
Actually some of those have been around quite some time - it would be interesting to get more information. I bet you would make a good teacher since you are open to these different ideas.
The people defending ID in Dover do not question Ape to human evolution. They do not question common descent at all.
What people would that be? Are you saying those who promote ID believe humans descended from apes? LOL
It's a waste of time. Spell-check and mate.
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.
