Remember a few days ago, when John West of the Discovery Institute was trying to discredit Barbara Forrest by quoting, in a highly distorted fashion, from a pretrial hearing on the defense's attempts to have her barred from testifying? West claimed that the judge had "skewered" Forrest, when in fact all he had done was distinguish what types of quotes she could offer from ID advocates in her testimony based on some technical distinctions in the rules of evidence.
On Wednesday, Forrest took the witness stand and according to folks who were watching, it was the defense attorneys who were skewered, having their objections overruled time and time again. They tried repeatedly to object to her testimony and the judge continually overruled them, and in desperation they ended up making a huge deal out of the fact that Forrest is a member of various humanist groups. Richard Thompson, head of the Thomas More Law Center, tried to raise the fact that she was a member of the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association during questioning. This tactice, called "muddying the waters", works well when speaking to churches (the mere mention of the word "humanist" is enough to conjure up images of satanists eating babies), but in a court of law? Not a chance. The judge admonished them not to get into irrelevant side issues.
"but in a court of law? Not a chance."
Well maybe in Roy Moore's courtroom!
It's troubling to watch the ID side claim that they should not held accountable for their actions or past statements, as they do with their objections to Dr. Forrest presenting those historical facts.
One of the key points of Christianity is accountability. Again one wonders whether they believe the stuff they claim to want to protect.
The transcript of the direct us hot off the presses. No cross yet.
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/WA100505.pdf