QA with Barbara Forrest

In 2005, parents of children in Dover, Pennsylvania, public schools filed suit against the Dover Area School District for requiring ninth-grade science teachers to read a statement to their students touting ...

[TedHOhio]

Barbara Forrest's testimony during the Dover Trial was so devastating that the defendants lawyers tried very hard to get her removed from the witness list well before she testified! Thankfully the Judge didn't fall for their games! She testified about the roots of ID being in Creationism -- which also proved the religious underpinnings of ID -- much to the displeasure of the DI. I think it was after her testimony that William Dembski decided it was time to tuck tail and not testify -- but I could be wrong on the timing, not the fact he tucked his tail and ran for it before he got taken apart like his buddy Behe.

[Darwins Stepchild]

TedHOhio wrote:

I think it was after her testimony that William Dembski decided it was time to tuck tail and not testify -- but I could be wrong on the timing, not the fact he tucked his tail and ran for it before he got taken apart like his buddy Behe.

IIRC, you are wrong on this part. Dembski had disagreements with the Thomas Moore lawyers when he was supposed to be deposed. Dembski wanted his own lawyer present (a very unusual request for a friendly witness) and the TM lawyers would not agree to it.

[The Dude]

Darn shame.

:-(

Would have been great if he was as brave as Behe. Instead he was smart.

[Bluenose]

The Dude wrote:

Darn shame.
:-(
Would have been great if he was as brave as Behe. Instead he was smart.

I prefer to think of it as rat-cunning.

[Darwins Stepchild]

IIRC, Wells and some others used the same dodge Dembski did.

[TedHOhio]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
IIRC, you are wrong on this part. Dembski had disagreements with the Thomas Moore lawyers when he was supposed to be deposed. Dembski wanted his own lawyer present (a very unusual request for a friendly witness) and the TM lawyers would not agree to it.

Well it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I still wish he had testified. I mean his 'work' is predicated on Behe's. It would have been fun to see him taken apart into little non-irreducibe pieces.

[charlieb1950]

TedHOhio wrote:

Barbara Forrest's testimony during the Dover Trial was so devastating that the defendants lawyers tried very hard to get her removed from the witness list well before she testified! Thankfully the Judge didn't fall for their games! She testified about the roots of ID being in Creationism -- which also proved the religious underpinnings of ID -- much to the displeasure of the DI. I think it was after her testimony that William Dembski decided it was time to tuck tail and not testify -- but I could be wrong on the timing, not the fact he tucked his tail and ran for it before he got taken apart like his buddy Behe.

does your constituional rights stop at the school house door?Have you read the first admendent of the constitution ted?I see that you have set your self as the great defender of evolution.Good luck!

[hexene]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>does your constituional rights stop at the school house door?Have you read the first admendent of the constitution ted?I see that you have set your self as the great defender of evolution.Good luck!

Can anyone really be this dumb?

[llDayo]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>does your constituional rights stop at the school house door?Have you read the first admendent of the constitution ted?I see that you have set your self as the great defender of evolution.Good luck!

I read it. The judge ruled correctly based on it. Was there something that we didn't understand?

[Bluenose]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Can anyone really be this dumb?

Well, according to the overwhelming evidence shown to all us here at Topix by our good friend Charlie here, I think that the inescapable conclusion is that yes, someone really can be this dumb.

[charlieb1950]

llDayo wrote:

<quoted text>
I read it. The judge ruled correctly based on it. Was there something that we didn't understand?

yes .you have the freedom of expressing your religion too,even in a school.Read the whole passage in the constitution.

[The Dude]

Yes, but not during lesson time when work should be done.

And certainly not during a science class.

[charlieb1950]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Can anyone really be this dumb?

yes you are

[charlieb1950]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Can anyone really be this dumb?

yes you are,sorry

[hexene]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>yes you are,sorry

Charlie are you proud of your ignorance and being a liar?

[charlieb1950]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Charlie are you proud of your ignorance and being a liar?

i am not one the perpetrating a fraud.lmao

[The Dude]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>i am not one the perpetrating a fraud.lmao

Yes, you are. On your "ToE is a fraud" thread. So go and prove it. Over there. Get Tom to help you.

[charlieb1950]

First of all,the big toe theory has not been proven to be a fact.Yet all of you believers in evolution have in fact tried make a theory into actual fact.All you do is quote each other.That is red flag,that you really do not have a clue as to what a theory is.I have stated before that the burden of proof is on you,to prove a theory is in fact a fact.But you cannot do it can you old wise ones.You call me a fundie,but thats ok.I see the world in a different way than you evolutionists do.You are trying to teach a theory as a truth,when in fact it is not.You have no spiritual feelings at all.I wonder why when a person is about do die,he screams for god to save him?And you evolutionists,will do the same thing,when you are at deaths door.Now i know you will deny that you will ever do that,but my friends,you will.You will stump your big toe ,if you keep on believing in the big toe.MY belief in a intelligent designer,is a personal belief,as you have faith that a theory is a fact,i have faith that there is a intelligent designer.I believe that the evidence for a great designer is all aroud you,in complex things and also in simple things.The reason you cling to a theory,is that you cannot reason.I have not saw god in person,have anyone of you saw evolution in motion?No you have not.But you want us to to believe in a theory also.You may not want me pernally to believe in evolution,but you sure as hell want other people especially children to believe in your theory.I think tom can think for hiself too.

[TedHOhio]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>does your constituional rights stop at the school house door?Have you read the first admendent of the constitution ted?I see that you have set your self as the great defender of evolution.Good luck!

What constitutional right have I violate dhere? Oh yea, Dembski's right not to self-incriminate himself by testifying under oath to a lie called Intelligent Design.

If you don't think it's a lie, go read the Wedge Strategy Document and the "Big Tent" approach and how ID can bridge the gap until science is once again Theistic in nature and then the differences between beliefs can be dealt with. ROFL ..like differences in religious indoctrination are easily settled.

[TedHOhio]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>yes .you have the freedom of expressing your religion too,even in a school.Read the whole passage in the constitution.

No one ever said you cannot discuss religion in school! What Barbara Forrest testified about was an attempt to disguise religion as science in order for it to be taught as science in a science class. If you can't say anything intelligent, at least follow the conversation.

Intelligent Design is not science, it is Creationism-lite, in other words Creationism with all references to God removed so it will sound more scientific. She testified about that. Neither she, nor anyone else associated with the trial, said you could not discuss religion in class. You can teach a theology class, many public schools do. You can teach it in a philosophy class, and even a sociology class. But you cannot put it in a dress, call it science, and teach it as science on par with real scientific theories.

Therefore no Constitution issues, just the uncovering of a lie and the correction.