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.
Oh BS. Most pro-evolution Freepers are believing Christians, including me. Occaisionally some non-believer might make an intemperate remark, but these are usually directed only at young earth creationists (YECs), not Christians in genereal. Furthermore, such comments are seldom as nasty as YEC comments about non-believers. Heck, YECS aren't below be nasty toward their fellolw Christians who just happen disagree with their ultra-literalist interpretation of scripture.
exactly what the hell are these buffoons smoking? catnip?
I'd love to see a step by step flowchart of the "logic" they use to infer that the ToE "justifies" the sexual perversion known as "zoophilia".
But there's proof!
"You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family."
---Robert Darwin to son Charles
It's one thing for these creationists to always be preaching to the choir, so to speak. They'll always get agreement, support, and even praise for their arguments. (I assume even a nutcase like Jack Chick gets tons of adoring fan mail.) But when they get out into the rest of the world, they can find that folks look at them like they're stark raving bonkers.
these particular folks are not nutbags... they are a few too many nuts short to qualify
No, it isn't...intelligent design is just that, the proposition that the evolutionary process was possibly assisted by an outside power. Taht power NEED not be god, Intelligent design attacks the dogmatic adherence to Darwinism, in the face of good questions. Darwinism is offered up as the answer to all questions. I for one, do not beleive for one moment in the 6 day creation, or any of the Old Testament stories of creation, 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. Many of the proponents and supporters of ID are indeed, creationists, but most of them are like me. Regular attendees of the Church of the Big Bang, that have many questions and don't like the thug posted at the door to the classroom, be he Creationist or Darwinist.
One really, really has to go to that link and read the FULL account to get the full effect. The stunner was when he said the JUDGE suggested to the plaintiff's attorneys that they object, so he bring the cross-x to an end, because it had gone so far afield and, in the judges words: "it's not helping me."
Waaaaaaaa!
From the characterization of the questions the judge DID allow in, I get the impression the judge is making SURE this case isn't going to get overturned on appeal, for denying defendants their chance to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink, into evidence during cross exam.....
I also suspect the plaintiffs' attorneys sense victory, and they aren't bothering to object very much to this rambling incoherent cross-exam because 1) they know it isn't going to hurt their case, and 2) why give the defense a point on which to try to appeal a decision against them?
Very interesting account of the case, I must say....
Wow...that is hilarious...so whole segments of the population are just idiots. They have no questions or thoughts which you condescend to respect, perhaps they are 4/5 of a human in your view...Taliban...whoa...heavy stuff, how about Nazi's( a bit overdone..Taliban, has a better ring, much more contemporary and, indeed, holding a creationist view is to be compared to clitoris removal and chopping off hands of petty thiefs, and the complete denail of civil rights to half of the population. Yeah, they deserve that and worse..How about Uber Taliban, that captures the historical connection we all constantly seek, and at the same time, gives it a 21st century feel. I like it. Uber Taliban....
Personally, I'm up in arms that they don't teach about fairies and gremlins in history class. There is absolutely no scientific proof that fairies and gremlins don't exist, and if they did, it would certainly explain many puzzling facts of history. I think this affront to we wee-people-ists is nothing short of intellectual thuggery.
No it DOES NOT! Your description is a Ferry boat on top of a Canoe. Darwinism is not a monolithic truth, impervious to challenge for all time. The qualities of ID are not the point, however, the point is do the citizens have any say over their institutions, namely their schools which they pay for. I really don't care if you believe Turtles on Tops of Turtles means something, or not, but I do care if you somehow justify stopping discussion of what I would call the eternal question because you have made up your mind. ID is on the right side of intellectual curiosity.
How about algorithm at inception?
Brilliant....Actually they do teach about Fairies and Gremlins in History Class. Some of us haven't figured that out yet.
Maybe we need a Top Ten list : 'next "alternative to evolution" once ID is flushed down into the great sewage lagoon of pseudoscience'
That flush just fertilizes the next infestation of weeds.
Whereas, what ID has to say, is so utterly respectful and courteous toward the hundreds of thousands of biological scientists who slave away to expand the story of Darwinian evolution in concrete detail, after having spend a fortune and a good part of their lives becoming qualified to do so.
As I recall, we don't normally consult lay opinions about what is taught in science class, for the same reason we don't hire the deaf to teach music, or the illiterate to teach english. If we wanted children to graduate from school with their brains as mushy as they started, we wouldn't waste the money on schools. When laypersons want to use the color of law to countermand what scientists want to put in science textbooks, it is an affront no rhetoric in these threads comes remotely close to matching.
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.