Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote | Comment #54123
Posted by Flint on October 27, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)
Well, at least he’s better than Behe. Behe would explain that previously saying creationism should be taught is “entirely consistent” with currently saying it shouldn’t be taught, because the way he reads his former statement that it should, is that it shouldn’t. And so, in closing, he disagrees.
Behe is an academic, and such people can never be admit error. They can, of course, lie and doubletalk and weasel and rephrase and misrepresent and change the subject, but they can NOT admit error. Fatal to the career.
Buckingham is a different story. I recall (does anyone else?) that after the wonderful pronouncements Buckingham and other creationists on the board made (in the presence of reporters, no less), the DI came and took them on some sort of retreat for a week or so. After which, nobody could recall anything anyone had said on the subject, and the records of the meetings somehow got misplaced, and everyone had become very careful to explain that religion wasn’t involved, oh no!
Buckingham is now retired, right? So his memory is worse than ever. He can’t even remember saying what he said when he watches the newsclip. He must have garbled his statements, he couldn’t have *meant* that. Oh, he said the same thing multiple times, using the same words, and is on record as doing so? Well, he must have misspoken *every time*.
Is Buckingham being more honest than Behe? Man, that is one tough call…
|
Quote | Comment #54125
Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 05:18 PM (e) (s)
Lets put in a link Yockey site that actually works: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/
When giving a URL, it best to keep the “http://” with it since without browsers think the link is relative and hense will give broken link to a nonexistant Panda’s Thumb page.
2005/10/26: Today, William Buckingham is set to testify. This is the highly controversial school board member who justified the ID policy by speaking about “someone” who “died on a cross 2000 years ago” and the need to “stand up for Him.” I can’t imagine why he was called by the defense and not the plaintiffs, and I’m curious to see how this testimony goes.
According to the court’s web site, Buckingham is a plaintiff witness:
Thursday October 27 2005 - Plaintiff Witnesses Bill Buckingham, Joe Moldonado, and Heidi Bernard-Bubb.
There was a prior agreement between council and the court to go out of order here. I think (don’t quote me please) that this set of witness was not quite ready and thus rather than delay the trial the parties agreed to that the defense be allowed to start presenting its witnesses. Again that is my understanding that might not be correct. Of course the defense would not want Buckingham to be called, all the defense has made Buckingham a bit of a scapegoat.
Before clicking post I googled for “hostile witness” and dover and picked up Former school board member denies references to ‘creationism’
William Buckingham, who was called by plaintiffs’ attorneys this morning as a hostile witness, said he and other board members referred only to “intelligent design” when they spoke of the need for the introduction of other scientific theories to balance evolution in high school biology classes
|
Quote | Comment #54126
Posted by Bulman on October 27, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)
But without the endorsement of The National Academy of Sciences. Would this mean they will lose an accreditation of some kind? And thus making it harder for their students to get into choice Universities?
Accreditation can be given by any organization that schools or universities agree to use. Kansas will certainly not lose accreditation, the free market-of-the-gaps will create new accrediting organizations.
Kansas will however lose credibility and to restate your concern as an affirmtion:
The students of the State of Kansas will automatically be placed at the bottom of admission lists at major universities.
|
Quote | Comment #54128
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 27, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)
a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative
They already tried that in Cobb County, and lost.
b) Push BOE’s to change the definition of science to include “non-materialistic” explanations
That, by definition, is introducing religion, and won’t last ten minutes in court.
|
Quote | Comment #54129
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 27, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)
oh please, please say you want to argue with me about that, Gary…
Why on earth are you offering your intestine to the tapeworm?
|
Quote | Comment #54134
Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)
Why on earth are you offering your intestine to the tapeworm?
why, to lose weight of course.
|
Quote | Comment #54138
Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)
Minor maintainance issue: The “program” probably needs to be moved closer to the top of this page. (Feel free to delete this.)
|
Quote | Comment #54139
Posted by Grey Wolf on October 27, 2005 06:55 PM (e) (s)
Gary Mack: is English your first language? Just wondering.
I know it was not your intent, but I feel insulted that me, as a non-English speaker, gets compared to Gary Mac. I mean, my English is not *that* bad, is it?
Joking aside, Gary Mac doesn’t sound so much foreigner as a petulant 10 year old who doesn’t undertand that name calling weakens his arguments, and that you have to provide data to strengthen it. Maybe he will learn enough English to realise I was predicting his next movements. Maybe the poor boy (gal?) has yet to ditinguish between past and future. Poor dear.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
|
Quote | Comment #54157
Posted by bill on October 27, 2005 09:18 PM (e) (s)
Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”
The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.
Buckingham learned about the text, Pandas, after a visit by the Thomas More Law center, and, presumably, but not confirmed, Mark Ryland of the Discovery Institute.
Without doubt, Dover was engaged in an end-run of the Constitution, and most likely in collusion with the Discovery Institute, who, in the end, hung them out to dry.
The Discovery Institute is the Enron of creationism.
|
Quote | Comment #54168
Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 11:20 PM (e) (s)
bill wrote:
Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”
It was an “intelligent design” all right. The intelligent designers in this case was the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. It was the plaintiffs that called Buckingham, not the defense. By agreement of the court and the parties, the plaintiffs called some of their witnesses out of turn.
The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.
I was going to ask for a cite, but Google works for me:
AP story:
Buckingham testified that during a Sunday service at the church he attended, he stood up and told members of the congregation they could donate money to purchase the books if they wished. Harvey noted that in a January pretrial deposition taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Buckingham never mentioned his fund-raising request and said he didn’t know who donated the books.
“You lied to me at your deposition,” Harvey said.
“How so?” Buckingham asked.
“By not telling me you knew a collection was taken at your church,” Harvey said.
“I did not take a collection,” Buckingham replied.
Buckingham Deposition in January (PDF):
Q: Do you know where that came from, who donated them?
A: No, I don’t.
Q: You have no idea?
A: I have thoughts, but I don’t know.
Q. What are your thoughts?
A: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell who was board president at that time.
Q: Why do you think—I know you’re not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell?
A: Because he was the president of the board at that time, and I just deduced from that that.
(From page 57-58 of transcript; page 17 of PDF file; since it is a scan, I had to print out the page and type it. So there might be typos.)
Now I believe witness are not just supposed to give the truth, but they have to give the “whole truth.” In other words intentionally misleading answers are not allowed.
If Buckingham solicited donations from his church then he has failed to tell the whole truth. He was required to tell Mr. Harvey what he knew about the donation of the books.
But there is certainly something even more damaging that how honest Mr. Buckingham is. The books came from a fundamentalist church. I sure hope no one is expecting us to believe that a church is devoid of religious motivation!
Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
|
|