Scenes from a PA Courtroom

We've all read probably more than we'd like about the intelligent design / evolution case recently. If you can stand one more item on it, let me recommend The New Yorker's December 5th detailed article on it (Talbot, Margaret, "Darwin in the Dock," pp. 66-77).

I'm a little behind on my New Yorker reading and haven't quite finished the article but a couple of passages really struck me. I've always admired people who write and speak well with clarity and wit. Especially those who can think of the right thing to say at the right moment. Especially because I always think of a good zinger about two hours after the conversation is over.

Take a look at these from p. 69:

Michael Behe of Lehigh University, "the leading intellectual of intelligent design" is being questioned by Eric Rothschild, lawyer for the plaintiffs.

When Rohschild added "the entire human body" to his list [of biological marvels], saying "Now, that's an amazing biological structure," Behe gazed upward dreamily and joked, "I'm thinking of examples."

"Hopefully, not mine!" Rothschild responded.

"Rest assured," came the reply.

Later, Kenneth Miller, co-author of a series of high school and college textbooks, testified on the nature of science:

"I hesitate to beg the patience of the court with this, but, being a Boston Red Sox fan, I can't rsist," Miller said. "One might say, for example, the reason the Boston Red Sox were able to come back from three games down against the New York Yankees was because God was tired of George Steinbrenner and wanted to see the Red Sox win. In my part of the country, you'd be surprised how many people think that's a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened last year. And you know what? It might be true. But it certainly is not science...."

Why do we need tv with things like this to read?