Early Drafts Shed Light on Controversy
There is an interesting court case in Dover, Pennsylvania, where parents are suing the school board for trying to get Intelligent Design (ID) taught in the classroom. This trial will have implications for other subjects as well, across the country, including here in Montgomery County, where some people have been trying to force the schools to teach nonscientific stuff in the sex ed classes.
Proponents of ID insist that it is not creationism, but a new theoretical view about the origins of life. They are careful to avoid mentioning God or any Biblical details. By using scientific-sounding terms, they have been able to persuade some number of people that there really is a theory that is taken seriously by science, suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator.
At the center of the Dover controversy is a book called Of Pandas and People, which presents ID as if it were science.
Well, this is beautiful. In the trial, a witness has showed up with early drafts of the book. Here, the New Scientist picks up the story:
Love it. Just cross out "creationism" and write in "Intelligent Design," and voila! They're different.
Proponents of ID insist that it is not creationism, but a new theoretical view about the origins of life. They are careful to avoid mentioning God or any Biblical details. By using scientific-sounding terms, they have been able to persuade some number of people that there really is a theory that is taken seriously by science, suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator.
At the center of the Dover controversy is a book called Of Pandas and People, which presents ID as if it were science.
Well, this is beautiful. In the trial, a witness has showed up with early drafts of the book. Here, the New Scientist picks up the story:
The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.
Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent".
"Forrest's testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism," said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Evolving drafts
Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the "switching" of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court's decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.
The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges. Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design
Love it. Just cross out "creationism" and write in "Intelligent Design," and voila! They're different.
posted by JimK at 12:22 PM
16 Comments:
Yep. This reminds me of what you told us in the blog about the permission slips - they hope we're all too stupid to notice what they are up to.
Thanks for shining the light into the deceptive practices of those who have been conspiring for decades to undermine our democracy with their fundamentalist fervor.
Aunt Bea
Just because ID tends to support creationism, it doesn't mean it's the same thing. I just showed you last week a theory propounded by secular scientists saying there is evidence that the universe was intelligently designed. And only last winter a astonomer in Great Britain wrote a book postulating that an alien species might explain the design elements in our universe. Far from being a fringe scientist, the book's forward was written by Martin Rees, Britain's royal astronomer. Mr. Rees, by the way has a list of dozens of forces that are calibrated to allow the existence of life on our planet.
But while we're at it, if there is evidence that creationism is true, why is that not appropriate for instruction in public school.
Um, because there isn't?
What empirical evidence (evidence that can be observed and measured) is there to support ID? A "theory propounded by secular scientists saying there is evidence that the universe was intelligently designed" is not evidence. What evidence does the author have to support his theory? And I'm sorry, but a book written "postulating that an alien species might explain the design elements in our universe" sounds like a fun read but I must repeat, what evidence is there that an "intelligent designer" exists?
Ma
Anon says, "...if there is evidence that creationism is true..."
You see, that's one reason why "creationism" is not taught in our schools -- there is no evidence that "creationism" is true.
Another reason "creationism" is not taught in our schools is that it is a tenet of a religion. The last time a state (Louisiana) tried to force "creationism" to be taught along side evolution in science class, here's what the US Supreme Court ruled, among other things:
"The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment."
Read all about it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=578
Now "ID" proponents are trying to do an end run around this legal precedent by saying that evolution and "ID" can go hand in hand, but as the early draft of this so-called "ID panda" book show, there is really no difference between "ID" and "creationism" other than smoke and mirrors and some *creative* writing.
Aunt Bea
"What empirical evidence (evidence that can be observed and measured) is there to support ID? A "theory propounded by secular scientists saying there is evidence that the universe was intelligently designed" is not evidence."
The theory was drawn from the evidence. The evidence is the numerous coordinated aspects of our physical world. Could there be other explanations for this evidence? Theoretically, yes, but there is little evidence of any kind supporting any theory that you couldn't say that about.
"What evidence does the author have to support his theory? And I'm sorry, but a book written "postulating that an alien species might explain the design elements in our universe" sounds like a fun read but I must repeat, what evidence is there that an "intelligent designer" exists?"
The thing that's notable about the book, which admittedly sounds like an old Star Trek plot, is that the evidence of design is so compelling that secular scientists who don't want to believe in God are now seeking alternative explanations.
"You see, that's one reason why "creationism" is not taught in our schools -- there is no evidence that "creationism" is true."
See above post.
"Another reason "creationism" is not taught in our schools is that it is a tenet of a religion. The last time a state (Louisiana) tried to force "creationism" to be taught along side evolution in science class, here's what the US Supreme Court ruled, among other things:
"The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.""
This is why some of the people who used this evidence to support a supernatural Creator conceded that it may have gone too far. After all, the evidence only suggest that there is a designer to our universe, and to life, but the evidence doesn't actually identify the designer. Why is it objectional that the point was conceded?
And, again, there are secular scientists who never went that far but who nevertheless noted the evidence of design.
"Now "ID" proponents are trying to do an end run around this legal precedent by saying that evolution and "ID" can go hand in hand, but as the early draft of this so-called "ID panda" book show, there is really no difference between "ID" and "creationism" other than smoke and mirrors and some *creative* writing."
Again, I don't see why accomodating your previous objections is termed an "end-around." The creationists are simply saying that there is only evidence of a designer but that, you were right, the identity of the designer can't be deduced from the evidence.
I read and responded to the above post. Then as now, it contains no empirical evidence of creationism or intelligent design. You keep saying there is evidence but never say what the evidence is. Please, either state the evidence or quit talking about nothing.
Anon said, "there are secular scientists who never went that far but who nevertheless noted the evidence of design"
Yeah? How many? Out of how many? Not that it's a popularity contest, but we're talking about validity of theoretical concepts here so the views of the scientific community are important. We must all note there's a heck of a lot more secular scientists who do not see any merit in this watered down recycled creationism than who do.
Aunt Bea
"I read and responded to the above post. Then as now, it contains no empirical evidence of creationism or intelligent design. You keep saying there is evidence but never say what the evidence is. Please, either state the evidence or quit talking about nothing.
Anon said, "there are secular scientists who never went that far but who nevertheless noted the evidence of design"
Yeah? How many? Out of how many? Not that it's a popularity contest, but we're talking about validity of theoretical concepts here so the views of the scientific community are important. We must all note there's a heck of a lot more secular scientists who do not see any merit in this watered down recycled creationism than who do.
Aunt Bea"
First of all, Jim, much like homosexuality, multiple personality disorder is now treatable by modern psychiatry.
Next, the evidence is the various natural laws which all produce the same result. If you really don't know them, I'll point you to a list. The seminal paper analyzing this data, as you know, was written Brandon Carter, a secular scientist, in 1973. Virtually, all physicists agree that this data exists although there is heated debate about how to interpret it. Among great scientists who believed that the universe is not random, off the top of my head I can think of Newton, Farraday and Einstein. I think high school students should hear about this.
... Wha? I just saw this comment here... Sorry, but I am NOT Aunt Bea.
JimK
Helloooooooo!
I'm Aunt Bea and I can assure you, I am a female of the species, Homo sapien. I'm a wife, daughter, sister, and the mother of a gaggle of kids.
Aunt Bea
There you go again, spouting another whopper!
Anon says, "First of all, Jim, much like homosexuality, multiple personality disorder is now treatable by modern psychiatry."
I don't know which psychiatrists you hang out with Anon, but in 2000, the American Psychiatric Association reaffirmed its 1973 position that homosexuality is not a "mental disorder."
See: http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200001.pdf
Ma
"... Wha? I just saw this comment here... Sorry, but I am NOT Aunt Bea."
Jim, I hate to tell you this but the various personalities aren't always aware of each other. You might want to get a mental health check-up.
"in 2000, the American Psychiatric Association reaffirmed its 1973 position that homosexuality is not a "mental disorder.""
Did you know they reversed course on that in the early 80s? I guess they later swung the pendulum back. Depends what's politcially popular.
Who the heck do you think you are, Anon? Senator Frist? He diagnosed Terri Schiavo on TV. (And by the way, the autopsy proved the Senator was wrong. Of course he did much better with his not so blind trust, much better than say Martha did.) Now you are trying to turn two people into one with diagnosis. Get real.
Then you ask, "Did you know they reversed course on that in the early 80s?"
No, I didn't know. Please provide the American Psychiatric Association's statement dated in the 1980's that says so.
Aunt Bea
"No, I didn't know. Please provide the American Psychiatric Association's statement dated in the 1980's that says so."
They've probably shredded the documents but I'll see if I can find some news reports.
Post a Comment
<< Home