Dover Penn ID trial - Page 11

Betenoire · 4th November 2005, 07:55 AM

I had noticed the attorney for the school board essentially saying "ID is a religion" in a Salon.com article a week or two ago and thought "Wow, wouldn't it be nice if Rothschild went all Darrow-Bryan on him?" (I actually e-mailed Rothschild with this idea, but I don't believe for an instant he read it, or that I gave him some great insight).
When he had Bonsell up there, though, he did say, "You know, in an interview with Salon, your attorney said..." That made me so happy.

I wonder if their closing arguments will be available online.

Matilda · 4th November 2005, 08:10 AM

Thanks Petre.

I'm just not good with suspense. I start twitching after a while.

BillHoyt · 4th November 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/

And here's Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

Another transcript to look forward to.

Thank you so much for that, Mojo. I haven't had the time to keep tabs on this trial, and I truly appreciate your brightening my day with that link.

Dr Adequate · 4th November 2005, 10:47 AM

Scene: outside the gates of Troy.

Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises.

TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks?
GREEKS: We're not Greeks.
TROJANS: But you look like Greeks.
GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse.
TROJANS: A what?
GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city?
TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse.
GREEKS: No? What do we look like?
TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H.
GREEKS: Oh... right...
TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse".
GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you?
TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way.
GREEKS: We worked on it all night.
TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it?
GREEKS: We're sorry.

delphi_ote · 4th November 2005, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Scene: outside the gates of Troy.

Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises.

TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks?
GREEKS: We're not Greeks.
TROJANS: But you look like Greeks.
GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse.
TROJANS: A what?
GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city?
TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse.
GREEKS: No? What do we look like?
TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H.
GREEKS: Oh... right...
TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse".
GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you?
TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way.
GREEKS: We worked on it all night.
TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it?
GREEKS: We're sorry.

Brilliant!

You just need to add the occational Greek in the background yelling "We're Greeks! We're Greeks!" while the lead Greek tries to keep them quiet.

Spidey13 · 4th November 2005, 09:49 PM

I don't know if this has been linked here yet. Fairly funny.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41260

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 5th November 2005, 07:13 AM

"Monkey called as witness fails to identify anyone in courtroom as his descendant."

I hope they brought in a talking monkey, otherwise, well, no wonder.

~~ Paul

thatguywhojuggles · 5th November 2005, 01:57 PM

From here:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...,6531970.story

Quote:

Following closing arguments, Jones thanked both sides, telling the lawyers, ''Every single one of you made me aware of why I became a lawyer and why I became a judge. … Your advocacy was so impressive to me.''

He urged the lawyers to submit final documents within the next 21 days, saying he'd like to reach a verdict by year's end.

Gillen noted that Friday marked the 40th day since the trial began and asked Jones whether 40 days and 40 nights was his intent.

''That was an interesting coincidence,'' Jones retorted, then paused. ''But it was not by design.

The courtroom erupted into laughter and applause and Jones stood up and left.

I wonder how many IDiots started clapping and cheering just from hearing the word "Design" only to, half-way through the clapping and cheering, finally understand the meaning behind that comment.

rjh01 · 5th November 2005, 02:11 PM

What! No decision until the end of the year! What happened to the decision after the commercial break? At least he will give a decision within a month and a half. I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

Mercutio · 5th November 2005, 08:37 PM

Does anyone know if Vegas has official odds on the outcome?

Pidge · 6th November 2005, 02:49 AM

Halon's Razor (reference wikipedia)

Quote:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

and Vernon Schryver's play on Clarke's Third Law and Hanlon's Razor (reference wikipedia)

Quote:

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

I can see these applying to a number of defence witnesses...

Diamond · 7th November 2005, 02:21 AM

Not having discovered Mike Argento until recently, it's been a hilarious pleasure reading his commentaries on the trial.

Barring a miracle, the greatest result would be a finding of fact that "Intelligent Design" is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. It would be incredible, given the lamentable testimony given by the defendants, that the judge would find against the plaintiffs. If Michael Behe is the best the defendants could come up with, then the FSM help them.

Mojo · 7th November 2005, 04:18 AM

Here's another Argento column. It seems from this one that the defense lawyers were getting on the judge's nerves somewhat:

Quote:

Steve Harvey, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, objected on the grounds of hearsay.

Muise began to respond, mentioning the "public record," and the judge cut him off, asking, "Do you mean newspaper articles?" Muise and his cohorts have a standing objection to the admission of newspaper articles into the record, a dispute that will be settled today, and the judge said if Muise was going to rely on newspaper articles, it seemed to be a change in strategy, to say the least.

Muise started to say something and the judge cut him off, delivering a verbal slap upside the head: "Don't insult my intelligence."

There's also another transcript on the ACLUPA site which I hadn't noticed before (Day 18 AM: William Buckingham) and Talk Origins now has the day 18 PM session, with Alan Bonsell's cross-examination and the judge quizzing him about his possible perjury.

Ed · 7th November 2005, 05:29 AM

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

Mojo · 7th November 2005, 06:04 AM

Nice to see the creationists fighting among themselves:

Quote:

The lead attorney defending the Dover district, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, has made several statements inaccurately characterizing both the position and the actions of Discovery Institute regarding the Dover case. We are issuing the following statement in order to correct the record...

Betenoire · 7th November 2005, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

Best that he take his time and close every possible loophole that could be exploited for an appeal. His ruling need not be wrong to get overturned, just legally slightly erroneous. Hope his ruling is iron-clad.

petre · 7th November 2005, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

What! No decision until the end of the year! What happened to the decision after the commercial break? At least he will give a decision within a month and a half. I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

How could I have underestimated the US Court system's ability to add paperwork to every step?

I forgot that the lawyers for the ID side still have to file their brief to have all scientific knowledge stricken from the record, since it is not yet a complete model of the universe

Diamond · 7th November 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

That's from the forthcoming third edition of "Of Pandas and Men". The first said:

Quote:

"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

The second, published after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that creationism was religion and not science said:

Quote:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."

The next version 3.0 will have the sentence:

Quote:

"Sudden appearance means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, and mammals with fur and mammary glands, etc."

Hence, the query by the plaintiff's lawyer:

Quote:

As Eric Rothschild, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Panda Trial, asked in court, "Will we be back in a couple of years for the 'sudden appearance' trial?"
Judge John E. Jones III retorted, "Not on my docket."

All of the above quotes from Argento's column "Of Behe and Mammary Glands"

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 7th November 2005, 10:26 AM

How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over?

~~ Paul

CFLarsen · 7th November 2005, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over?

Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

Spidey13 · 7th November 2005, 12:16 PM

Does anyone know if any of the slides/exhibits that were used during the trial are available online. I'm about halfway through the transcripts and I would really like to see some of these if it's possible.

Ed · 8th November 2005, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

Good idea. I just did.

BillHoyt · 8th November 2005, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Good idea. I just did.

I hope you signed it "God." He'd be very happy to know he has a fan upstairs. Might even send you some article reprints via John Edward.

Upchurch · 8th November 2005, 07:27 AM

Dover school board elections are today. Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election.

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

drkitten · 8th November 2005, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Dover school board elections are today. Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election.

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win. Can I get some action down on this?

Upchurch · 8th November 2005, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win. Can I get some action down on this?

I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date). Here's to hoping.

drkitten · 8th November 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date). Here's to hoping.

You're on. Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet.

Loser gets the state of New Jersey.

Moose · 8th November 2005, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Loser gets the state of New Jersey.

Don't they always?

Looking forward with great interest to the results of both the verdict (in December, hopefully) and the school board elections.

Dr. Kitten, Upchurch, could I get in on the action with the "alternative" Planet X bet? I'll throw Toronto, Ont and Surrey, BC into the pot. The other loser can get Don Cherry.

BillHoyt · 8th November 2005, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it.

tsg · 8th November 2005, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it.

Testimony from the trial indicates that many of the current fundies were elected on a "fiscal responsibility" campaign. They were evidently undertaking a major construction project during the last election that got bungled somehow (as many public construction projects are wont to do). I highly doubt any of them ran on a "get religion back in school" platform. But now that their true colors are apparent, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Personally, I don't expect much.

Upchurch · 8th November 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

You're on. Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet.

Sweet. I could finally upgrade my Arpanet!

Quote:

Loser gets the state of New Jersey.

A tad extreme, but as long as I have Funkytown, I'm happy.

Upchurch · 8th November 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people?

Well, to tsg's point, this whole mess wasn't around during their last vote. Maybe they knew about their school board's religious tendencies, maybe they didn't. Point is, we'll know how they feel about the whole thing now.

Upchurch · 8th November 2005, 12:32 PM

Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!

delphi_ote · 8th November 2005, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!

But if you win, you can change the loser's title to whatever you want...

headscratcher4 · 8th November 2005, 01:06 PM

I've a stupid question about all of this...did anyone ever ask Behe (sp?) or his supporters if something/one less than God could be responsible for the design he finds?

I mean, why does it have to be the "ultimate" god on high designer?

Maybe the "design" he sees was sort of the GM of the 1980's Intelligent Design shop...it would explain a lot.

Melendwyr · 8th November 2005, 01:09 PM

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

headscratcher4 · 8th November 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

Thank you...but I think (I may be wrong) that my question is different. Could the "designer" be something less than the creator/god?

Wasn't it clark who once said something along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear like magic to the uninitiated?

My point is, it is religion, not science, imo, to advocate as behe does that it is a "creator" or even "god" in the picture...why not the 2001 flying Obelisk?

Darat · 8th November 2005, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Thank you...but I think (I may be wrong) that my question is different. Could the "designer" be something less than the creator/god?

Wasn't it clark who once said something along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear like magic to the uninitiated?

My point is, it is religion, not science, imo, to advocate as behe does that it is a "creator" or even "god" in the picture...why not the 2001 flying Obelisk?

I'm sure you know the answer but...

Because he already believes in God and is only interested if his "question" can be answered with "God".

Melendwyr · 8th November 2005, 01:20 PM

Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken.

ranson · 8th November 2005, 01:31 PM

I, myself, signed up for the ACLUPA's one-time email alert for the Dover ruling.

An I hope Mike Argento shows up and takes a look here. I've rarely laughed harder at a humor columnist (possibly Lewis Grizzard, but that's been a long time).

4th November 2005, 07:55 AM	#401
Betenoire Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 48	I had noticed the attorney for the school board essentially saying "ID is a religion" in a Salon.com article a week or two ago and thought "Wow, wouldn't it be nice if Rothschild went all Darrow-Bryan on him?" (I actually e-mailed Rothschild with this idea, but I don't believe for an instant he read it, or that I gave him some great insight). When he had Bonsell up there, though, he did say, "You know, in an interview with Salon, your attorney said..." That made me so happy. I wonder if their closing arguments will be available online.
Betenoire Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 48

4th November 2005, 08:10 AM	#402
Matilda Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 188	Thanks Petre. I'm just not good with suspense. I start twitching after a while.
Matilda Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 188

4th November 2005, 08:35 AM	#403
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Mojo It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/ And here's Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony. Another transcript to look forward to. Thank you so much for that, Mojo. I haven't had the time to keep tabs on this trial, and I truly appreciate your brightening my day with that link.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

4th November 2005, 10:47 AM	#404
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	Scene: outside the gates of Troy. Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises. TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks? GREEKS: We're not Greeks. TROJANS: But you look like Greeks. GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse. TROJANS: A what? GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city? TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse. GREEKS: No? What do we look like? TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H. GREEKS: Oh... right... TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse". GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you? TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way. GREEKS: We worked on it all night. TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it? GREEKS: We're sorry.
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

4th November 2005, 11:09 AM	#405
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Scene: outside the gates of Troy. Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises. TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks? GREEKS: We're not Greeks. TROJANS: But you look like Greeks. GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse. TROJANS: A what? GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city? TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse. GREEKS: No? What do we look like? TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H. GREEKS: Oh... right... TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse". GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you? TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way. GREEKS: We worked on it all night. TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it? GREEKS: We're sorry. Brilliant! You just need to add the occational Greek in the background yelling "We're Greeks! We're Greeks!" while the lead Greek tries to keep them quiet.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

4th November 2005, 09:49 PM	#406
Spidey13 Pastor of Muppets Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,457	I don't know if this has been linked here yet. Fairly funny. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41260
	__________________ "I love you like a fat kid love cake." - 50 Cent

5th November 2005, 07:13 AM	#407
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,141	"Monkey called as witness fails to identify anyone in courtroom as his descendant." I hope they brought in a talking monkey, otherwise, well, no wonder. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

5th November 2005, 01:57 PM	#408
thatguywhojuggles Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,335	In the news... From here: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...,6531970.story Quote: Following closing arguments, Jones thanked both sides, telling the lawyers, ''Every single one of you made me aware of why I became a lawyer and why I became a judge. … Your advocacy was so impressive to me.'' He urged the lawyers to submit final documents within the next 21 days, saying he'd like to reach a verdict by year's end. Gillen noted that Friday marked the 40th day since the trial began and asked Jones whether 40 days and 40 nights was his intent. ''That was an interesting coincidence,'' Jones retorted, then paused. ''But it was not by design. The courtroom erupted into laughter and applause and Jones stood up and left. I wonder how many IDiots started clapping and cheering just from hearing the word "Design" only to, half-way through the clapping and cheering, finally understand the meaning behind that comment.

5th November 2005, 02:11 PM	#409
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 28,328	What! No decision until the end of the year! What happened to the decision after the commercial break? At least he will give a decision within a month and a half. I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

5th November 2005, 08:37 PM	#410
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Does anyone know if Vegas has official odds on the outcome?

6th November 2005, 02:49 AM	#411
Pidge Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 223	I'm sure you've heard these before, but Halon's Razor (reference wikipedia) Quote: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity and Vernon Schryver's play on Clarke's Third Law and Hanlon's Razor (reference wikipedia) Quote: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice I can see these applying to a number of defence witnesses...
Pidge Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 223	__________________ "Never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Unknown

7th November 2005, 02:21 AM	#412
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729	Not having discovered Mike Argento until recently, it's been a hilarious pleasure reading his commentaries on the trial. Barring a miracle, the greatest result would be a finding of fact that "Intelligent Design" is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. It would be incredible, given the lamentable testimony given by the defendants, that the judge would find against the plaintiffs. If Michael Behe is the best the defendants could come up with, then the FSM help them.
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729

7th November 2005, 04:18 AM	#413
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,505	Here's another Argento column. It seems from this one that the defense lawyers were getting on the judge's nerves somewhat: Quote: Steve Harvey, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, objected on the grounds of hearsay. Muise began to respond, mentioning the "public record," and the judge cut him off, asking, "Do you mean newspaper articles?" Muise and his cohorts have a standing objection to the admission of newspaper articles into the record, a dispute that will be settled today, and the judge said if Muise was going to rely on newspaper articles, it seemed to be a change in strategy, to say the least. Muise started to say something and the judge cut him off, delivering a verbal slap upside the head: "Don't insult my intelligence." There's also another transcript on the ACLUPA site which I hadn't noticed before (Day 18 AM: William Buckingham) and Talk Origins now has the day 18 PM session, with Alan Bonsell's cross-examination and the judge quizzing him about his possible perjury.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th November 2005, 05:29 AM	#414
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime. Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom". He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

7th November 2005, 06:04 AM	#415
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,505	Nice to see the creationists fighting among themselves: Quote: The lead attorney defending the Dover district, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, has made several statements inaccurately characterizing both the position and the actions of Discovery Institute regarding the Dover case. We are issuing the following statement in order to correct the record...
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th November 2005, 08:05 AM	#416
Betenoire Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 48	Originally Posted by Ed While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime. Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom". He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself. Best that he take his time and close every possible loophole that could be exploited for an appeal. His ruling need not be wrong to get overturned, just legally slightly erroneous. Hope his ruling is iron-clad.
Betenoire Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 48

7th November 2005, 09:28 AM	#417
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	Originally Posted by rjh01 What! No decision until the end of the year! What happened to the decision after the commercial break? At least he will give a decision within a month and a half. I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?' How could I have underestimated the US Court system's ability to add paperwork to every step? I forgot that the lawyers for the ID side still have to file their brief to have all scientific knowledge stricken from the record, since it is not yet a complete model of the universe
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

7th November 2005, 10:18 AM	#418
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729	Originally Posted by Ed While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime. Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom". He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself. That's from the forthcoming third edition of "Of Pandas and Men". The first said: Quote: "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." The second, published after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that creationism was religion and not science said: Quote: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc." The next version 3.0 will have the sentence: Quote: "Sudden appearance means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, and mammals with fur and mammary glands, etc." Hence, the query by the plaintiff's lawyer: Quote: As Eric Rothschild, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Panda Trial, asked in court, "Will we be back in a couple of years for the 'sudden appearance' trial?" Judge John E. Jones III retorted, "Not on my docket." All of the above quotes from Argento's column "Of Behe and Mammary Glands"
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729

7th November 2005, 10:26 AM	#419
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,141	How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

7th November 2005, 12:00 PM	#420
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over? Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

7th November 2005, 12:16 PM	#421
Spidey13 Pastor of Muppets Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,457	Does anyone know if any of the slides/exhibits that were used during the trial are available online. I'm about halfway through the transcripts and I would really like to see some of these if it's possible.
	__________________ "I love you like a fat kid love cake." - 50 Cent

8th November 2005, 06:32 AM	#422
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles? Good idea. I just did.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

8th November 2005, 07:03 AM	#423
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Ed Good idea. I just did. I hope you signed it "God." He'd be very happy to know he has a fan upstairs. Might even send you some article reprints via John Edward.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

8th November 2005, 07:27 AM	#424
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Dover school board elections are today. Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election. Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

8th November 2005, 07:39 AM	#425
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Upchurch Dover school board elections are today. Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election. Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation. I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win. Can I get some action down on this?

8th November 2005, 07:40 AM	#426
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by drkitten I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win. Can I get some action down on this? I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date). Here's to hoping.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

8th November 2005, 08:01 AM	#427
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Upchurch I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date). Here's to hoping. You're on. Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet. Loser gets the state of New Jersey.

8th November 2005, 09:16 AM	#428
Moose Self-Propelled Road Hazard Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 418	Originally Posted by drkitten Loser gets the state of New Jersey. Don't they always? Looking forward with great interest to the results of both the verdict (in December, hopefully) and the school board elections. Dr. Kitten, Upchurch, could I get in on the action with the "alternative" Planet X bet? I'll throw Toronto, Ont and Surrey, BC into the pot. The other loser can get Don Cherry.

8th November 2005, 10:20 AM	#429
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Upchurch Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation. Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

8th November 2005, 10:29 AM	#430
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by BillHoyt Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it. Testimony from the trial indicates that many of the current fundies were elected on a "fiscal responsibility" campaign. They were evidently undertaking a major construction project during the last election that got bungled somehow (as many public construction projects are wont to do). I highly doubt any of them ran on a "get religion back in school" platform. But now that their true colors are apparent, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Personally, I don't expect much.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

8th November 2005, 12:28 PM	#431
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by drkitten You're on. Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet. Sweet. I could finally upgrade my Arpanet! Quote: Loser gets the state of New Jersey. A tad extreme, but as long as I have Funkytown, I'm happy.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

8th November 2005, 12:30 PM	#432
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by BillHoyt Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Well, to tsg's point, this whole mess wasn't around during their last vote. Maybe they knew about their school board's religious tendencies, maybe they didn't. Point is, we'll know how they feel about the whole thing now.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

8th November 2005, 12:32 PM	#433
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

8th November 2005, 12:37 PM	#434
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Upchurch Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me! But if you win, you can change the loser's title to whatever you want...
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

8th November 2005, 01:06 PM	#435
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,776	I've a stupid question about all of this...did anyone ever ask Behe (sp?) or his supporters if something/one less than God could be responsible for the design he finds? I mean, why does it have to be the "ultimate" god on high designer? Maybe the "design" he sees was sort of the GM of the 1980's Intelligent Design shop...it would explain a lot.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson