Posted on 10/06/2005 6:13:37 AM PDT by Junior
HARRISBURG, Pa. - References to creationism in drafts of a student biology book were replaced with the term "intelligent design" by the time it was published, a witness testified Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board's decision to include the concept in its curriculum.
Drafts of the textbook, "Of Pandas and People," written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.
Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum.
The families contend that teaching intelligent design effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the separation of church and state.
Intelligent design holds that life on Earth is so complex that it must have been the product of some higher force. Opponents of the concept say intelligent design is simply creationism stripped of overt religious references.
Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term "creation" was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term "design" was mentioned in the published edition.
"They are virtually synonymous," she said.
Under the policy approved by Dover's school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."
Forrest also said that intelligent-design proponents have freely acknowledged that their cause is a religious one. She cited a document from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars, that says one of its goals is "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Under cross-examination by school board lawyer Richard Thompson, Forrest acknowledged that she had no evidence that board members who voted for the curriculum change had either seen or heard of the Discovery Institute document.
The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last as long as five weeks.
Funny thing is most IDers are creationists who reject the fundamental principle of creationism (the existence of a Creator God) by their support of ID.
LOL.
Even the secular euros have their little uncorroborated beliefs. It grates on me when liberals like Walter Cronkite say that people are stupid (which he recently said). But I do have to admit that he has a point.
In the framework of ID, yes you do, unless you posit either an infinite sequence of progrssively higher-order natural intelligences designing the next rung down the ladder, or an original natural intelligence that itelf arose from a naturalistic source. Since the first one is doubtful, and the second one implies strongly that the original intelligence "evolved" somehow, you are left with a supernatural explanation -- "God" if you will. Either a supernatural entity designed us directly, or he designed a designer somehwere up the chain.
Now, if any of the ID proponents want to suggest that we are in fact an experiment by a higher intelligence that itself evolved naturalistically, I'd like to hear that from them, because I certainly don't think that this is from where they are coming.
"One need not invoke God to say that something was designed."
Well, let's look at that, with the universe, Earth, and life on this planet in mind. For these to have been created, the creator would have to be standing outside of the universe it created. To created the universe, this creator would have to be supernatural, by definition, since it would be able to create natural laws that keep the universe humming along.
What do we call supernatural, all-powerful, timeless entities? If it's something other than some sort of deity, then I'd appreciate knowing the term you'd use.
Well then, when she goes down ... uh, when her confirmation is rejected, we can welcome her back.
I didn't hear Cronkite, but I assume he had no disagreement with the people when they were routinely electing leftists to office. His main complaint now is that the people seem to have wised up a bit. Still, as our threads so clearly illustrate, he has a point. But it's not the point he thinks he has.
I have been saying this for weeks. They are essentially forcing science to judge the merits of religious claims. Religious people are not going to like the results.
Exactly.
Not to mention, Creation happened. It doesn't need to be masked behind "more scientific" terminology.
Teaching ID in school will not be the cause of any future personal relationships with Jesus Christ, because it doesn't teach Christ.
Christians began to lose this battle first in their own churches. We need to start the cleanup there.
It's interesting that this site, which was founded to bring down Bill Clinton, Wound up bringing down Dan Rather and CBS. A much more enduring accomplishment. Even better, it's getting credit for it.
The main problem with the ID gang is that they're not nearly as clever as they imagine they are. They've gained no traction whatsoever with the scientific community, so all they can do is work the street -- try to get some approval from the dentist's wives and funeral directors who make up the typical school board. They thought that every buffoon in every double-wide would instantly rally to their cause (they've had some success there), while the courts would be unaccountably perplexed by their ingenuity. It's not working.
The Emperor at the Discovery Institute seems to have forseen this. His Chosen One has been held back from the battle.
Without making any specific claims about the attributes of the designer, it isn't about anything.
It's not exactly science to wait until something has been discovered an then jump in to say, "See, I predicted that."
Predicting after the fact is pretty lame. What does ID predict?
Yes you do, or you run into the "who designed the designer" problem. The only way you can stop the chain is to define a god as timeless and infinite, therefore requiring no designer.
Are you sure there's no evidence of so-called 'macro-evolution'?
The fundies don't like them because ID denies a literal interpretation of Genesis. The scientists don't like them because ID is not science and the IDers are trying to get it into the science curriculum. To paraphrase Franklin, "they are one part improvise and one part compromise."
I believe in microfaith, but macrofaith always seems to be oppressive and belligerant.
Too bad you couldn't photoshop a guy riding a dinosaur onto that box.
Few of us have been that elated with W recently, but it's worth remembering, he ain't Clinton. :-)
BTW, have you noticed that Valley View Christian Church, Harriet Miers' spiritual home in North Dallas, has a link to a creationist site?
A shake made from one half ice cream and one half dog poop is not half as good as one made entirely from ice cream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.