YDR: Dover trial, horns (or lack thereof) and all

Posted 6 October 2005 by PvM

From the York Daily Record we receive the following article how desperate the defense was to discredit Forrest. Various ID organizations have been active trying 'muddle the water', underlining how afraid they must be of the scholarly evaluation of the Wedge Strategy and of Pandas and People.

HARRISBURG --- Along about the 658th hour of Dr. Barbara Forrest's stay on the witness stand, during Day Six of the Dover Panda Trial, I started looking for her horns. Never did see them. It was right about the time that defense lawyer Richard Thompson was repeatedly asking about her various memberships in such seditious, treasonous and just plain evil organizations as the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association and the ACLU that it occurred to me to look for her horns. They weren't there. Now, it could be that she was hiding her tail under her trim black pantsuit, but frankly, I didn't really look.

and why was Forrest treated this way?

So in addition to providing lessons in critical thinking and philosophy, the participants --- Thompson, mostly --- provided a literary lesson, giving the audience an ample dose of irony. See, while he was accusing of Forrest of employing an ad hominem argument --- an argument in which you don't address the merits of the issue under debate and attack the messenger instead --- he was employing an ad hominem argument. What great fallacy did Forrest commit? Near as I can tell, she used the words of the people who came up with the idea of intelligent design to show that it's a religious idea --- one based on a narrow view of Christianity --- and not a scientific one. She used their own words against them. Evil, evil woman.

The media does get it after all. The Wedge, of Pandas and People, and Forrest are becoming liabilities to the ID movement. Expect more attempts to discredit Forrest or distantiate themselves from the Wedge... What other choice is there?

12 Comments

Norman Doering · 6 October 2005

They can pray to God that he change Forrest into a newt.

Duane · 6 October 2005

The Discovery Institute has been trying to distance itself from the Wedge Document for some time. I'm sure most have read "The Wedge Document" "So-want?" in which they try to deflect some of the impact of Creationism's Trojan Horse By claiming that the Wedge Document was just an fundraising proposal. Well if it was indeed a fundraising proposal, and who am I to say otherwise, then it contains their true believes or they lied to their potential donors in order to extract money from them. In fact, if one reads this document carefully one finds that the "or" in the previous sentence may well be an inclusive rather than an exclusive "or."

Heathen Dan · 6 October 2005

"Distantiate?" What kind of neologism is this? Curse ye, o horned evilutionist! :p

(An example of an ad hominem, c/o Heathen Dan)

Steve LaBonne · 7 October 2005

Mike Argento is da man. His columns are almost as funny as Mencken's dispatches from the Scopes trial. Way to go Mike!

qetzal · 7 October 2005

Norman,

You're thinking of witches. That's Satan's work.

Would you settle for a pillar of salt?

kay · 7 October 2005

Depend, does the pillar of salt weigh the same as a duck?

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 7 October 2005

Mike Argento has another piece today, Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder.

At one point in his cross-examination --- did I mention it went on for 4Â½ years? --- he asked Forrest whether she had ever heard about a case in which the editor of a scientific journal who published an article by a proponent of intelligent design creationism was retaliated against for doing so. And what form did that retaliation take? "Loss of car keys," among other things, Thompson said. And, again, seriously, the loss of this guy's car keys turned into a federal case. Thompson told Forrest the federal government investigated and learned something or other --- I'm not sure what because I was wondering whether the guy ever did find his keys. Thompson never said. ... It ended, oh, after about a decade and a half, when, finally, the judge suggested that the plaintiffs' attorneys offer an objection to cut it off because the questioning had gone far afield and had sent out such powerful boredom rays that people were falling asleep listening to it in Idaho.

I'm guessing the plaintiff's attorneys let it go on so long because they realized it was making Thomas look like a buffon and not hurting their witness. Argento is doing some interesting 'color commentary' on the trial. I'm guessing he hopes to sue this to springboard to a larger stage. More power to him.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 7 October 2005

That link was: Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder

Should have used preview.

Jon Fleming · 7 October 2005

Mike Argento has another piece today
— Bayesian Bouffant

The link you gave is broke. Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder.

Gerard Harbison · 7 October 2005

Argento should have a bigger stage. His reports from the trial have been coffee-up-the-nose funny.

bill · 7 October 2005

Yoda characterized Mike Argento thusly:

Over his eyes the wool they can not pull.

J-Dog · 7 October 2005

I have recommended that The New York Times hire Mike. Not sure he deserves the agravation, but yes, he deserves a larger stage. The Times could definitely use somebody that knows their Heddle from their elbow.