Behe takes the stand in Dover

[Dr.GH]

Reading Miller's testemony was good, but not as much fun as Barbara Forrest's. I look forward to reading Behe's cross-examination, I have heard it was awesome.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I just read Miller's cross and saw nothing at all which would indicate a score for the defendants -- certainly nothing as juicy as Behe putting ID and astrology in the same boat.

 

[Dr.GH]

I was just told that the ACLU attorney used part of my chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails for part of Behe's cross-examination.

Woopie!

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I was just told that the ACLU attorney used part of my chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails for part of Behe's cross-examination.

Woopie!

Rock on Dr. GH

 

[Grengor]

Niiiice.

 

[Jan87676]

I was just told that the ACLU attorney used part of my chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails for part of Behe's cross-examination.

Woopie!

How did you get so smart? Can **i** have some smartness?

Does smartness come from DNA?

\

 

[Dr.GH]

How did you get so smart? Can **i** have some smartness?

Does smartness come from DNA? \

Clean living, son, and fresh air!

Oh, and beer. Lots of beer.

 

[Smidlee]

Fortunately, I have good news. Not only did I save a lot of money on my car insurance, the judge's body language suggests he's not impressed by Behe:

Body language seldom lies.

He, like most people, is probably totally bored with the subject. IRL if you want to put people asleep start talking about things like flagellum and all it's proteins. Even the media seems uninterested of the details of science. All they are looking for is some kind of religion vs science controversy.

 

[Dr.GH]

All they are looking for is some kind of religion vs science controversy.

Well, you correct of course. The whole issue will be whether or not ID is religion or science. That is the problem I just thought about with Kevin Padian's testemony, he shows how incompetent Of Pandas and People is as a scientific textbook, but the Constitution says nothing about competent classrooms. Dover schools can be as incompetent as they want to be and there will not be any legal issue at all.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Why is the ACLU involved?

 

[nvxplorer]

Why is the ACLU involved?

It’s a first amendment issue.

 

[Grengor]

There were questions about the ACLU and it's stand on child porn, why were those questions asked?

 

[TeddyKGB]

There were questions about the ACLU and it's stand on child porn, why were those questions asked?

To whom were these questions asked? I can't imagine why an ACLU representative would need to take the stand.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And how does this relate to the issue at hand? It touches not the establishment of religion, and if you called it prohibiting the free exercise thereof you would call Evolution religion.
As to the freedom of speech, if this was the cause, I should think the ACLU would be on the Creationist side.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances also does not pertain to the issue.

Prahaps you mean "separation of church and state", which, right or wrong, is no where stated in America's laws.

 

[Dr.GH]

Why is the ACLU involved?

What nvxplorer said.

There were questions about the ACLU and it's stand on child porn, why were those questions asked?

These sorts of games play well with jurys, but I doubt they will impress Judge Jones. The ACLU has also gone to court to defend street preachers in Las Vegas, NV on the same First Amendment free speach as they used to defend NAZIs, Commies, and teachers.

 

[nvxplorer]

It touches not the establishment of religion,

This is where you’re wrong.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

And how does this relate to the issue at hand? It touches not the establishment of religion, and if you called it prohibiting the free exercise thereof you would call Evolution religion.

It does touch on the establishment of religion. When the state preaches a religious doctrine, that's the state establishing a religion. Teaching creationism in schools os preaching a religious doctrine.

As to the freedom of speech, if this was the cause, I should think the ACLU would be on the Creationist side.

And it would be, if it were a freedom of speech issue. It's not.

Prahaps you mean "separation of church and state", which, right or wrong, is no where stated in America's laws.

It's implied by the establishment clause.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Prahaps you mean "separation of church and state", which, right or wrong, is no where stated in America's laws.

Man, what an awful, awful argument. I mean really, objecting to the use of other terms to describe the doctrines in the Constitution? Dubya Tee Eff?

 

[nvxplorer]

It's implied by the establishment clause.

It’s worth noting that separation of church and state is also implied by the free exercise clause.

 

[Grengor]

That anyone would play a game with people to try and trick the jury immediately shows the character of the person. Not only is he a lawyer, I'd venture to say he's a creationist. Anyone know if the defense's lawyer is a creationist?