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.
As in, "Nun daß mein Komputer so gefübart ist, sehe ich keine andere Wahl als es neu zu
formatieren?"
Omiting something that is highly respectable science is tolerable. Teaching something that ain't highly respectable science, and claiming it is, is not tolerable. It's fraudulent.
You're going to have Homeland Security all over this thread. Better switch to English. You'll blend in that way.
I wouldn't worry about Homeland Security, but I wouldn't let your kids see it.
I'm also aware most people in the U.S. make less than $60,000 a year working menial jobs while there's a shortage of qualified people to take the better paying jobs. If you think dumbing down schools in the U.S. to appease your silly superstitions is smart, go for it. There's plenty of students in India and elsewhere training for those science qualified jobs while Central Americans swarm the borders to work your menial jobs for less.
I really wish I could speak some language.
Although the article didn't directly mention the fruitfly tests, they are the most common tests cited to prove the most mutations are bad hypothesis.
The tests done with fruit flies were done to prove morphology changes are produced by changes in the gene. It did its job quite well. The problem with deleterious mutations they encountered was due to the size of the gene modification needed to enable observation of the changes. Had they used smaller modifications, they would have been unable to see any changes. This shows, not that most mutations are deleterious but that large mutations tend to be deleterious. The vast majority of mutations in nature are not deleterious but neutral.
What I find interesting about this claim is that the change from artiodactyl to cetacean does not need any large scale changes but was accomplished through small morphological changes akin to those that produced munchkin cats.
Try English ;^)
I did. It didn't work, I stumble over all the big words.
I hear Ebonics is easy to learn - just listen to Gangsta Rap.
That was pretty funny. Got any more good ones?
What Evolutionists CS/IDers have tried to do within our Education Establishment is scientifically unscientifically explain away the supernatural natural. In so doing they have made science CS/ID the laughing stock of intellectual endeavors.
...CS/ID the laughing stock of intellectual endeavors.
That was pretty funny. Got any more good ones?
You guys are the ones who believe intentional blindspots will result in clearer truth. Here is a hint:
Intelligence is not natural.
wow!
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.