Dover science teacher testifies [Evolution trial, thread for 12 Oct]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 12 October 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

When Bertha Spahr opened the box containing Dover Area High School’s donated copies of “Of Pandas and People” last year, she also found inside a catalogue from the publishing company listing the pro-intelligent design textbook under the heading of creation science.

Under cross examination this morning in Harrisburg in the First Amendment trial against Dover Area School District, the head of the district’s science department testified she filed the catalogue away with other similar textbook materials.

Dover’s attorney, Patrick Gillen, objected to the catalogue being admitted into evidence, arguing that Spahr had not turned it over to administrators. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III overruled the objection.

Spahr also testified that after the school board voted to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum in October 2004, some members of the community thought that the teachers supported the board’s decision. But the teachers did not, Spahr said.

Other people thought that if the teachers didn’t support the board’s decision, it was because they were atheists, Spahr said. This was particularly upsetting to the teachers, Spahr said, “because two of the teachers are the son and daughter of ministers.”

The trial continues this afternoon with testimony from science education expert Brian Alters, a professor from McGill University in Montreal.

[PatrickHenry]

This is the midday update. It would be best to keep related news articles for today in one thread.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. See what's new in The List-O-Links.

[AntiGuv]

Any sense of how much longer the trial will continue? I'm just curious.

[PatrickHenry]

It's supposed to go on for about 5 weeks. I don't know if I can deal with it.

[GSlob]

"Any sense of how much longer the trial will continue? I'm just curious."
For as long as it would take them to evolve. 50000 yrs minimum.

[Coyoteman]

she also found inside a catalogue from the publishing company listing the pro-intelligent design textbook under the heading of creation science

Whoops!

[PatrickHenry]

Whoops!

Honesty in publishing.

[MineralMan]

"Other people thought that if the teachers didn’t support the board’s decision, it was because they were atheists, Spahr said. This was particularly upsetting to the teachers, Spahr said, “because two of the teachers are the son and daughter of ministers.” "

---

Hilarious. The opinion that those who believe that the TOE is the correct explanation for speciation are atheists seems to be a popular one. I believe I have seen it written here on FR a number of times.

Of course, in my case, it's true. However, I sure know a lot of Christians who believe that the TOE is correct. I know they're not atheists.

[longshadow]

It's supposed to go on for about 5 weeks. I don't know if I can deal with it.

As entertaining as the plaintiffs' case has been thus far, I can't wait for the cross examination of the defenses' witnesses to commence. It has the potential for spectacular revelations to transpire.

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt for later read

[King Prout]

do you know who posted what on comment #10?

seems a bit early in the thread for things to have gotten heated enough for deletions.

[MeanWestTexan]

"I sure know a lot of Christians who believe that the TOE is correct."

Correct.

[PatrickHenry]

do you know who posted what on comment #10?

It was someone named "jayride," now banned. I donno what it was all about.

[King Prout]

ah...

[MineralMan]

It was a stupid anti-FR post. It was deleted and the poster was banned or suspended. I can't recollect the exact wording, but it was addressed to me.

It was anti-FR, not even related to the topic.

[connectthedots]

As a Christian, I do not find creation and ID incompatible; even if there are some definite distinctions.

I look at secular humanism and belief in evolution the same way. They are not the same, but they are compatible.

Not all IDers are creationists; and, not all evolutionists are secular humanists.

Rather than objecting to the catalog being entered s evidence, the defense should have simply pointed out these facts.

[King Prout]

ah...

[connectthedots]

However, I sure know a lot of Christians who believe that the TOE is correct. I know they're not atheists.

If the defense attorneys in this case were smart, they would use this to their advantage.

If there are Christians who believe in the ToE, the defense could reasonably argue that ID is not creation in disguise.

Especially with Behe as a witness, the defense could say there are Christians and non-Christians on both sides of the argument. That being the case, the statement of the Dover school board is religiously neutral; isn't it?

It appears that the defense strategy is to pretend creation and ID have nothing in common. This is really stupid, since it insults the intelligence of any reasonable person. The defense should be that the statement is simply neutral on religion.

Hopefully, that will be the gist of the defense when it is their turn to present their case.

[MineralMan]

"If there are Christians who believe in the ToE, the defense could reasonably argue that ID is not creation in disguise.

Especially with Behe as a witness, the defense could say there are Christians and non-Christians on both sides of the argument. That being the case, the statement of the Dover school board is religiously neutral; isn't it?"

---

That's not going to happen, though. The defense has lost its case automatically, because:

1. The book in question was redacted to globally change "creationism" to "intelligent design."

2. The so-called "wedge" document is damning for their case.

3. The idiots on the board made stupid public comments that made it clear that introducing religion into the mix was part of their goal.

This case was lost before it began, and never should have been brought. The precedent set in this case will make it almost impossible to bring further ID cases successfully.

The problem is a lack of intelligent design of the legal case and a lack of intelligence, generally, on those who attempted this stupid end run around the SCOTUS ruling that made creationism non-teachable.

Now, I'm just talking about the defense's case here. You already know my opinion on creationism and ID.