• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Dover Penn ID trial

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.
 
Thanks Petre. :) I'm just not good with suspense. I start twitching after a while.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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
 
In the news...

From here:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5evolutionnov05,0,6531970.story

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?'
 
I'm sure you've heard these before, but

Halon's Razor (reference wikipedia)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
Click to expand...

and Vernon Schryver's play on Clarke's Third Law and Hanlon's Razor (reference wikipedia)
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
Click to expand...

I can see these applying to a number of defence witnesses...
 
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.
 
Here's another Argento column. It seems from this one that the defense lawyers were getting on the judge's nerves somewhat:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Nice to see the creationists fighting among themselves:
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...
Click to expand...
 
Ed said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rjh01 said:
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?'
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Ed said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

"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."
Click to expand...

The next version 3.0 will have the sentence:

"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."
Click to expand...

Hence, the query by the plaintiff's lawyer:
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."
Click to expand...


All of the above quotes from Argento's column "Of Behe and Mammary Glands"
 
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.
 
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.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
drkitten said:
Loser gets the state of New Jersey.
Click to expand...
Don't they always? :D

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.
 
Upchurch said:
Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BillHoyt said:
Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.
 
Melendwyr said:
Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.
Click to expand...

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?
 
headscratcher4 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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".
 
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.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom