Replies

"He observed that the beaks of the Galapagos Island finches grew in the area of tenths of a milimeter as a result of draught. This, he claimed, was proof of 'natural selection' and 'evolution'."

No, he said it was evidence, not proof.

"The 'scientists' showed photos of moths that had seemingly changed colors to adapt to the environmental pollution caused by the industrial revolution, (soot, etc)."

No, they didn;t say this. They said that there were two different color variations, a light and a dark colored moth. The dark colored variety increased in numbers when the bark was darker, and light variety increased in number when it was lighter. This is a demonstration of natural selection.

"The Darwinists declared the moths rapidly changed colors to avoid being seen and eaten, (hence 'natural selection')."

You are completely misinformed. They said no such thing.

" Problem this time for the Darwinists was that the moths were faked, and they were glued to the trees by 'scientists'."

No, the studies were real. In one photo, two moths were shown together, a dark one and a light colored one. They were glued to the tree to get a good picture, as the only point in this particular photo was to show the two color strains. The rest of the photos were of single moths that were not glued to the trees and were found in the wild as they were. Please, read up a little before you say such foolish things.

"Then of course there was the earlier nonsense about the human fetus having "fish gills" and a "tailbone", which turned out to be the ear canal and the spine, (which developed before the legs did)."

Early human embryos DO have features that in fish turn into gills. And we DO have a tail-bone.

" Need I mention the facts about Piltdown Man,"

True, since it was a hoax uncovered by evolutionists.

" or "Archaeoraptor", (named "Piltdown Bird' because a donosaur's tail was glued to the bird)?"

This was NEVER accepted by science and was faked not by scientists but by fossil sellers in China.

Creationists want to talk about fraud?

Intentionally and falsely trying to pass off Pandas as a science book is a far bigger and far more outrageous fraud, and will do more to destroy the ID charlatans at the Discovery Institute, than a whole army of Piltdown Men.

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.

Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

From now on -- thanks to the geniuses at DI, the discredited fools on the Dover school board, and their dedicated lawyers -- when the creationists raise the phony issue of Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man, or Peppered Moths, or Haeckel's Embryos, none of which amounts to anything anyway, the rational side of the argument has been given the all-time slam-dunk response -- Pandas!