"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in news:csdiof
$e3e$1@sparta.btinternet.com:

Isn't, "I can't remember," the classic defence used by labour racketeers
and mafia types when undergoing public interrogations?

Or Republican presidents

caught selling off government assests and spending
the money on their private, illegal ventures in Central America.

On a somewhat similar topic: has anyone else noted how many of
the advertisers on Christian radio and TV are scam artists:
gold coin speculators, hawkers of over-priced vitamin
supplements, the pre-Y2K hysterics selling dehydrated
food at inflated prices, pushers of real-estate schemes, etc.?
Where are the vaunted moral standards of the stations
and networks?

Best, Marc

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:a5eku0lt1l9fetospfs9q90cevo6llila0@4ax.com...

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------
As Dover Area School District officials prepare to read a
controversial statement to ninth-grade biology classes this week, wha=

t

really happened at school board meetings in June has become a central
issue in the First Amendment fight over intelligent design.

In sworn depositions, school board members deny charges that they wer=

e

motivated by religion when they revamped the district science
curriculum to include the phrase =93intelligent design.=94

School board members Bill Buckingham, Sheila Harkins and Alan Bonsell
and Supt. Richard Nilsen have, under oath, either said they have no
memory of making the remarks related to creationism or denied making
them.

But some residents and former district officials insist the board
members made the statements they later denied making.

Isn't, "I can't remember," the classic defence used by labour racketee=

rs

and mafia types when undergoing public interrogations?

This collective amnesia is vital to the school board claim that its pur=

pose

was purely secular. If they said these things the purpose clearly was =

not

secular.

If these witness accounts are in the form of sworn affidavits then they=

have

direct relevance in law. Presumably those claiming to have witnessed t=

he

statements can be called to testify.

Attorneys for 11 parents suing the district over the curriculum
requirement that biology students must be told about the concept of
intelligent design say the requirement is an attempt to get God into
science class, something the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden in a
number of cases.

In the federal lawsuit=92s complaint, filed in December, attorneys po=

int

to several remarks concerning creationism reportedly made by some
board members at school board meetings last summer. The statements
were reported by both The York Dispatch and the York Daily
Record/Sunday News.

How could two reporters from two different papers get the same impressi=

on

from remarks made during a meeting, if these remarks were supposedly ne=

ver

made?

=93I was a part of the curriculum committee, and I=92ve never had any=

one

ever talk about looking for a book of creationism and evolution,=94
Harkins said in depositions.

When attorneys asked Buckingham whether he said at a school board
meeting that all he wants is a book that offers balance between what
he said are the =93Christian view of creationism and evolution,=94
Buckingham stated, =93Never said it.=94

But a taped television interview at the time shows Buckingham, the
board=92s chief proponent of intelligent design, talking about teachi=

ng

creationism in science class.

I'm hoping that this important tape does not conveniently disappear...

At issue are discussions that took place at the June 7 and June 14
meetings on whether to approve a teacher-recommended biology book. In
deposition hearings Jan. 3, the parents=92 attorneys attempted to sho=

w

the discussions were about whether students in the ninth-grade biolog=

y

class should be taught creationism in addition to evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/55668/

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Isn't it amazing how the soi-disant protectors of morality
and religion have to lie so often about their motivations?
Does anybody in their right mind REALLY believe that
ID is anything other than "creation science" in a thin
disguise. You only have to look at who is pushing it.

On a somewhat similar topic: has anyone else noted how many of
the advertisers on Christian radio and TV are scam artists:
gold coin speculators, hawkers of over-priced vitamin
supplements, the pre-Y2K hysterics selling dehydrated
food at inflated prices, pushers of real-estate schemes, etc.?
Where are the vaunted moral standards of the stations
and networks?

Where are the vaunted moral standards of the stations
and networks?

"Richard Clayton" <reZIGclayZIGton@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:34vf7gF4gieaaU1@individual.net...

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------
As Dover Area School District officials prepare to read a
controversial statement to ninth-grade biology classes this week, what
really happened at school board meetings in June has become a central
issue in the First Amendment fight over intelligent design.

In sworn depositions, school board members deny charges that they were
motivated by religion when they revamped the district science
curriculum to include the phrase “intelligent design.”

School board members Bill Buckingham, Sheila Harkins and Alan Bonsell
and Supt. Richard Nilsen have, under oath, either said they have no
memory of making the remarks related to creationism or denied making
them.

But some residents and former district officials insist the board
members made the statements they later denied making.

Attorneys for 11 parents suing the district over the curriculum
requirement that biology students must be told about the concept of
intelligent design say the requirement is an attempt to get God into
science class, something the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden in a
number of cases.

In the federal lawsuit’s complaint, filed in December, attorneys point
to several remarks concerning creationism reportedly made by some
board members at school board meetings last summer. The statements
were reported by both The York Dispatch and the York Daily
Record/Sunday News.

“I was a part of the curriculum committee, and I’ve never had anyone
ever talk about looking for a book of creationism and evolution,”
Harkins said in depositions.

When attorneys asked Buckingham whether he said at a school board
meeting that all he wants is a book that offers balance between what
he said are the “Christian view of creationism and evolution,”
Buckingham stated, “Never said it.”

But a taped television interview at the time shows Buckingham, the
board’s chief proponent of intelligent design, talking about teaching
creationism in science class.

At issue are discussions that took place at the June 7 and June 14
meetings on whether to approve a teacher-recommended biology book. In
deposition hearings Jan. 3, the parents’ attorneys attempted to show
the discussions were about whether students in the ninth-grade biology
class should be taught creationism in addition to evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently honesty is not a prerequisite for being on the school board.
And my inner cynic suspects that this sudden bout of amnesia may be the
result of coaching from the Discovery Institute-- "remember, we have to
look like we're not religiously motivated!"

Don't be surprised, the creationists have taken this requirement on board.
See this excerpt from the article linked in the "Now in Tennessee" thread:


"One of the points in the resolution says, ``It is constitutionally lawful
for teachers and school boards to expose students to scientific problems
with current Darwinian theory as well as to other scientific alternatives
with respect to theories about biological origins.''

"The resolution further states that biological origins are a forum for
free speech and can't be denied because of the content of the discussion.
The resolution makes seven points.

"``Nowhere did we call or quote a religious authority,'' McNelly said. ``I
feel comfortable what we have done as a board meets the test of the court
cases.''"

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:20:22 GMT,

at best creationists are confused. at worst they're liars.

I think that, at best, they're liars.