Turning the tables in the Dover trial
A defense attorney questioning plaintiffs' expert witness Ken Miller:
Q. Professor Miller, you wrote a book titled "Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution." Isn't that true?
A. Well, my name is given as the author.
Q. But you did write the book, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also wrote the high school biology textbook selected by the Dover school board. Isn't that true?
A. Well, I am a co-author.
Q. Did you write any of the sections about evolution?
A. Well, uh - uh - uh . . . .
The Court: Please just answer yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. OK, back to "Finding Darwin's God." It is pretty strange that plaintiffs in an establishment clause lawsuit chose an expert witness who wrote a book with such a title, isn't it?
Attorney Rothschild: Objection! The question is leading the witness.
Q. Professor Miller, you wrote a book titled "Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution." Isn't that true?
A. Well, my name is given as the author.
Q. But you did write the book, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also wrote the high school biology textbook selected by the Dover school board. Isn't that true?
A. Well, I am a co-author.
Q. Did you write any of the sections about evolution?
A. Well, uh - uh - uh . . . .
The Court: Please just answer yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. OK, back to "Finding Darwin's God." It is pretty strange that plaintiffs in an establishment clause lawsuit chose an expert witness who wrote a book with such a title, isn't it?
Attorney Rothschild: Objection! The question is leading the witness.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/22/2007 02:04:00 AM
8 Comments:
Amazing that Larry would want to post stuff that proves that the IDiots were being evasive!
What proof is needed that the defendants were evasive? I am showing how Ken Miller might have reacted when asked embarrassing questions. Anyway, these are questions that the defense should have asked him.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Please turn that other table so we can seat ten.
But I only have a 10 pound turkey. You have to let me know in advance when more are coming
Larry you idiot, did you even read
Finding Darwin's God? In the book, he makes the argument that evolution as a science should not conflict with the belief in God due to the glaring contradictions that result in trying to apply biblical scripture to biological design.
He also rips ID as being moot due to the fact that the "gaps" and "missing links" in evolution that the fundies so lovingly like to point out are the result of evidence as of yet not discovered, or limited by the scope of current technology.
Why would Miller be hesitant to claim credit to his works on evolution? Especially in a case where he was a lead witness on the side trying to remove the ID nonsense from the science curriculum.
>>>>>> Larry you idiot, did you even read
Finding Darwin's God? <<<<<
I don't need to read it, dunghill, the title is bad enough.
>>>>>> In the book, he makes the argument that evolution as a science should not conflict with the belief in God due to the glaring contradictions that result in trying to apply biblical scripture to biological design. <<<<<<
There are even bigger glaring contradictions that result in trying to apply biblical scripture to evolution.
>>>>>> Why would Miller be hesitant to claim credit to his works on evolution? Especially in a case where he was a lead witness on the side trying to remove the ID nonsense from the science curriculum. <<<<<<
In an establishment clause lawsuit, logically the plaintiffs should choose expert witnesses who are godless, blasphemous, satan-worshiping atheists.
Wow. I had actually expected you to lie about having read the book and attributing your fantasy dialog to some gross mis-interpretation of the text, but this takes the cake for biggest retard.
Congratulations on attaining a new level of stupid.
Post a Comment
<< Home