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.
I'm expecting the post-modernist, politically correct theory of the spontaneous, holistic, biocosism. (That sentence drove the spell-checker crazy.)
How about 'The Immaculate Biospectrum'?
Uh huh. This theory finds many strong proponents amongst those who think eubonics, spanglish, and pigeon ought to be taught as an acceptable alternative to autocratic, elitist english spelling and grammar.
I'd suggest that at the heart of the civilization conspiracy is the notion that some ideas are better than others, and therefore, deserve primacy of consideration, and in that regard, the democratic spirit does not outrank scientific, or most any other form, of intellectual achievement.
No, they would have to rely on the "argument from consequences." For example they could argue that Darwinism leads to people wearing stripes with plaid.
Or...
they could just have a little meeting, come up with a new and snazzy name for creationism/intelligent design, and spend the next few years lying about how it isn't about creationism, intelligent design, or religion, and we can all go through this again, and again, and again...
That response can stand on it's pompous silly self! I will say that Science in this and many cases is not a house undivided nor is it a house untainted with the stench of politics. Your irrelevant analogies notwithstanding, ID wether there are the dreaded Creatists in their midsts or not, deserves airing. As I said before, free inquiry means exactly that(on a turtle) people are not disqualified by their religion. 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!)
Are you related to Richard Thompson, by any chance?
this cross examination is so absurd, so perfect an exemplar (even... charicature?) of the extreme edge of ID lunacy, that I am forced to consider the possibility that the IDiot's Counsel might have been bribed or planted by Darwin Central.
Oh I see, that is good, now I am a proboble supporter of ebonics, how about uber-ebonics, I like that better. I don't think you really understand which ideas of civilization are really better than others...Free scientific inquiry is the best idea, Darwin can be scrutinized, it doesn't matter if it is religious people that are doing the questioning. It doesn't matter how many bad anaolgies you and others use to change the subject or to feebly denigrate those that disagree with you, the civilized idea that took years to develop is free inquiry and freedom of expression and speech. You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.
Only the Master knows for sure.
Your novel interpretation of the constitution is not shared by everyone, sorry. The constitution allowed exactly that and more at its inception, therefore it didn't express what you seem to think it did. Also, in spite of your uninformed characterization of ID as religion, it is not. You either say that because you are repeating what you've heard, or you are intentionally misinforming. ID proposed the idea that evolution as presented by Darwin does not answer all the questions. There are many like me that are not reliegious and are not creationists that are not threatened by discussion of that possibility.
Which, while true, does not, discredit sciences major findings to a significant degree, nor serve as a means of qualifying laypersons to decide what is taught in a science classroom, any more than a group of grammar teachers arguing descriptive vs. prescriptive dictionaries qualifies the illeterate to teach english.
Your irrelevant analogies notwithstanding, ID wether there are the dreaded Creatists in their midsts or not, deserves airing.
It gets them periodically, along with hundreds of other ideas that may or may not pan out eventually. Way more than they deserve, in fact, usually. There are many scientists that have expressed opinions and hopes about ID explaining anomolies we currently can't explain. But no one outside the creationists and their gullible audience mistakes this for science on the level of Darwinian evolutionary theory, any more than they mistake SETI for mainline astronomy.
As I said before, free inquiry means exactly that(on a turtle) people are not disqualified by their religion.
Free inquiry does not mean laypersons get to decide what is in science textbooks. Unlike the case when Galileo was jailed and Bruno was burned, when the shoe was on the other foot, no IDist is being prosecuted for their beliefs--they are running around loose, sharing their opinions quite broadly, in case you haven't noticed.
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!)
This is an argument based on a picture of scientific behavior straight out of a Fu Machu comic. ID is not being rejected by science because it might be true, many scientists think it might be true, it is being rejected because, true of false, it clearly isn't remotely a science. It hasn't done its homework, and it brings no compelling positive forensic evidence to the table; as anyone not have a science-conspiracy snit can easily observe.
More bad and pointless analogies...
Woo Hoo!
Our side doesn't have a history of burning its scientific opponents at the stake.
Darwin Central sees all, knows all, and controls all.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
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.
