Evolution on Trial by Bill Whitehouse

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/096809953X

Thank you for the welcome! I am reading the book right now and may have some comments soon. I'm reading some of the postings here in this forum right now.But this comes from Whitehouse's introduction:"More specifically, if an individual cannot grasp the point-counterpoint of the discussion in this E-Book, then, one is not in a conceptual position to honestly argue either for, or against, evolutionary theory. Whatever one might have to say on such issues will be entirely derived from the opinions of others - opinions that may, or may not, be true and concerning which one will have no direct, personal understanding, knowledge or insight."I have completely read The Chaco Canyon Tapes, a novel from which Evolution on Trial was taken out of due to its complexity. Many people aren't interested enough in these issues to wade through dense material. We'll soon see if I'm one of those who should stick to less demanding material. I especially find reading e-books online difficult, so I'm reading the actual book now.I'll keep you posted. And thanks again for the welcome.Moe

You have read more into that quote than I see in it. I don't see anywhere where he is saying if you don't agree with me this or that. Wasn't Scopes portrayed as just a simple, sincere, honest teacher of biology? The fact that he is portrayed this way has nothing to say about the merits of the case. So even if Corrigan is being portrayed in the novel as a poor, innocent teacher whose only crime was to go astray of the power structure, this really has nothing to do with the substantive issues, and, as such, constitutes something of a fossilized red herring which misdirects attention away from the actual evidential issues. It is a novel, after all. Moe

Hi Subbie,What mistakes are made about that law? I've spent 23 years in courtrooms. Did you read this closely enough to understand it is a moot court? Please cite examples of mistakes, if you have the time. Otherwise, I will assume that maybe in this particular instance you have made the mistakes.Moe

I'm here to learn. How does he "get evolution wrong"? Please be specific or I will assume you are mistaken.Moe

I have read the introduction. You are evading the question now.I'm just asking you to be specific. If you can't be or won't be, I will assume you are mistaken.Moe

Thanks for responding. Whether or not the treatment is even-handed is really the call of the reader. So far, the book doesn't seem to come to any conclusions. It's just a matter of presenting evidence.Of course, as we in the justice system understand -- or I'll just speak for myself -- although a trial is supposed to theoretically be a "search for the truth," as we all know, this is not always what we find.As far as I can see, the basic elements of evolutionary theory with respect to origins of life are being put forth. I think it's important that one not necessarily be tied to this name or that name, but take a look at the evidence itself, completely apart from any arguments from authority.In any real-world trial, jurors are instructed to maintain an open mind and not form conclusions until all of the evidence has been presented. And, as well, one is disqualified from sitting as a juror in a case where they have pre-existing biases and prejudices concerning the case. All of the evidence must be presented inside the trial.I'll let you know my verdict when the case is over.Moe

Please . . . and thank you.

How do you define evolution o evolutionary theory? You seem to be implying that origins of life has nothing to do with evolution, and I'm not quite sure how you come to that conclusion.JOKE: "I have no problem with evolutionary theory. It's the fan club that I sometimes find irritating." ~Moe (1961 - ____)

Moe is female.

Why is it that an ARBITRARY distinction is being made between what you have defined as evolution and explanations for the origin of life? Are you saying that questions concerning the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution? And if it has nothing to do with evolution, then how to you explain the existence of your first species? In other words, are you telling me that evolutionists are to some extent assuming their conclusions and saying that there is no need to explain the origin of life?Thanks! Moe (The female, not the football player)

Although I understand your point that no where that I've encountered so far do we find what Corrigan actually teaches in the classroom except through alluding to Peoples Exhibit A (the curriculum materials), I'm not really sure that this is the central point around which the trial revolves. I think the trial is about evolutionary accounts concerning the origin of life and a critical assessment of the various assumptions and theories that make up that evolutionary account of life.Am I misreading it?

"It appears that Ms. Moe has left the building. Perhaps to get back to her janitorial job at the courthouse."Actually, I went out to dinner and a movie last night.If it makes you feel better to write things like this, I feel sorry for you and those who engage in similar tactics. Why not stick to the issues rather than engaging in personal attacks and snide remarks?Have fun windsurfing.