Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote |
Comment #51737
Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on October 10, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)
Via the Red State Rabble
Professor Steve Steve is misidentified in an Associated Press report photograph
in USA TODAY, by Martha Raffaele. He is identified only as a panda puppet, possibly in reference to the book Of Pandas and People.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
|
| Quote |
Comment #51901
Posted by WJC on October 11, 2005 11:21 AM (e) (s)
Why was Dembski withdrawn as an expert for the defense?
|
| Quote |
Comment #51909
Posted by Steviepinhead on October 11, 2005 12:38 PM (e) (s)
There are some earlier threads here which go into considerable detail. This is just my overall impressionistic response:
Originally, Dembski’s withdrawal was excused on the basis that the Thomas More Law Center folks running the defense would not allow Dembski to have separate counsel (from the overall defense counsel) for his deposition.
It now looks like none of the originally-listed DI defense “experts” will be testifying. The DI spin on this is that they agree that ID is not yet sufficiently “ripe” for presentation at the (pre-college) class level, and that the Dover case was, um, evolving in a direction that threatened to inject a, ahem, particular designer into the mix…
My take: the DI sensed that this case was heading to the dumpster, and they made a strategic decision to bail. Since then, they have been working as hard as they can to distance themselves and their, um, “theory” from the looming disaster, while still perching on the sidelines and trying their darndest to diss any of the testimony currently running in plaintiffs’ favor.
|
| Quote |
Comment #51914
Posted by kay on October 11, 2005 01:16 PM (e) (s)
problem is that as business, the DI and all the other more or less creationist outfits can make a good living just preaching (and selling stuff) to the choir.
Therefore, I propose a change of tactic — SEND THE FAST FOOD NINJAS!
|
| Quote |
Comment #51921
Posted by Henry J on October 11, 2005 01:49 PM (e) (s)
What’s a fast food Ninja? Is it teenaged? Turtle shaped? What?
|
| Quote |
Comment #51923
Posted by RBH on October 11, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)
Steviepinhead wrote
It now looks like none of the originally-listed DI defense “experts” will be testifying. The DI spin on this is that they agree that ID is not yet sufficiently “ripe” for presentation at the (pre-college) class level, and that the Dover case was, um, evolving in a direction that threatened to inject a, ahem, particular designer into the mix…
AFAIK, Behe and Minnich are still scheduled to testify for the defense. Campbell, Dembski and Meyer are out, though.
RBH
|
| Quote |
Comment #51927
Posted by Steviepinhead on October 11, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)
[boinking sound of Steviepinhead banging his pointy little head against the nearest wall]:
RBH is, of course, correct. Not all of the DI-affiliated experts listed by the defense have been withdrawn.
|
| Quote |
So much for impressionism! And I posted that little quickie after I had reviewed the witness list that bill helpfully linked us to in comment #51673 above. Sigh.
|
| Quote |
Comment #51944
Posted by Shawn on October 11, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)
Check This Out!
Seminar at Lehigh Univ.
Prof. Miller is giving a talk at Prof. Behe’s department, and it’s tomorrow. They say its open to the public, so please, spread the word. I’m in CO, but I would love for someone to give me a heads-up on what happens at the talk. So if you are local and care; go! Then tell me what happened. Like does Prof. Behe show up? What questions are asked? Etc. Thanks!
|
| Quote |
Comment #51962
Posted by improvius on October 11, 2005 05:30 PM (e) (s)
kay wrote:
problem is that as business, the DI and all the other more or less creationist outfits can make a good living just preaching (and selling stuff) to the choir.
No doubt. If I were a less scrupulous person, I’d throw some junk together and follow in Dr. Hovind’s footsteps:
http://www.drdino.com/
You’ll never go poor telling people what they want to hear.
|
| Quote |
Comment #52038
Posted by Tailspin on October 12, 2005 09:04 AM (e) (s)
The London Times on 10/05 published an article entitled Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.”
|
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
