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.
Then you have no issue with the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be our Creator? It fits with ID.
That's true. Most ID proponents, however, also believe in God therefore there is an indirect religious connection. But the foundation of ID itself is pattern analysis. Science is being forced to respond to ID's challenges. Whether science and academia accept ID as a field of study is irrevelant to me. ID is pointing out the flaws of macro evolution, evolutionists are attempting to respond and that's healthy for science and greater understanding.
OK. I've figured it out. It took me quite a while, but I've figured it out.
Earth and the lifeforms on it are nothing but a Sim game on some teenager's computer somewhere out there. And the player's not very good at sim games. His weather setup is lousy, and his choice of humans to populate the simPlanet were poorly designed. They're always fighting with each other and are subject to far to many diseases to have been designed by a good sim player.
Recently, our player has discovered girls, and has been ignoring his game, leading to additional problems. His point total is rapidly going down while he's out fiddling with his girlfriend, trying to get the hang of the one-handed bra release.
Worse, his computer is infected with a bad trojan, which is about to reboot his computer. And where's that going to leave us simHumans?
This should be a matter of much concern to us all. These ID advocates actually know about this pimply faced designer of this simulation, but are trying not to alarm people.
Meanwhile, the designer is out trying to cop a feel and isn't paying any attention to the simulation. We're in big trouble, folks!
And if you think I'm joking, do a Google search for "simplanet." Lots of hits from sites speaking a foreign language. What are they talking about on those sites? What secrets do those sites hold.
ID is real. Earth is a computer simulation, and we're in big trouble. Will the simulations be able to get the player's attention in time to warn him of the virus? Will we all be destroyed in the Big Boot?
It's all a secret, but it's all over the web, in some strange, unknown language. We're in big trouble, folks!
You've not an IDer, and therefore you don't speak for them. You don't even speak for OECs, being a YEC. As for who elected you spokesman for the YECs, I wouldn't dream of getting in to that.
ID, in the words of it's proponents, is a strategem to introduce the principle that theistic origins can be considered. Once the strategem works, you can further amplify said theistic origins and introduce ever more scientificically implausible scenarios into science class. Admittedly, you have to throw out most of modern science to admit Young-Earth Creationism, but that's how wedges work.
I've broken through the seemingly blank home page at
http://www.simplanet.de and have found a secret message board there. It appears to be frequented by teenaged players, toying with our very life and death on this SimPlanet. However, I cannot decode the messages there. We must focus all our energies on finding the key to this code. The Big Boot is coming soon if we don't act. Here's the first message:
Lolololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Laughter at the transparency of these clowns aside: On a more serious note, I find the similarities between the NATION OF ISLAM and ID/Creationism striking in that they both believe that at some fixed point in the past a Genetic Engineer placed all life here.
What I want to know is, when will the Mother Ship will arrive? Screwy Louis Farakhan promised a Mother Ship!
Placemarking the placemarker.
The foundation of ID itself is, as the Discovery Institute says, to get God back into the mainstream, to push religious beliefs. Any actual science done under its mantle is just a tool to that end. You forget, people have memories. We remember creationists ignorantly spouting "2nd Law of Thermodynamics!" and such all the time before they came up with the name "Intelligent Design."
ID is pointing out the flaws of macro evolution, evolutionists are attempting to respond and that's healthy for science and greater understanding.
I'm fine with the aspect of scientific attacks on evolution, since that's part of good science. I just wish people would stop calling ID a scientific theory in itself.
Blasphemer!!! The Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH) is your Holy Designer, and how dare you say otherwise! Your mystical "Spaghetti Monster" is of the Devil, made to lead you astray. You'd better watch it, and repent, or you'll be cleaning out Her stalls for the rest of eternity.
I can swear I've seen f.Christian's disjointed "poet on acid" writing style around recently.
You answer yourself. ID isn't strict creationism, only a wedge by creationists for future indoctrination into the Christian creation story.
They're asking you to donate money to run their servers.
I think it's mostly to do with ID's proponents on these threads. Besides yourself and a very few others, most folks have never read Behe, Dembski or any of the other ID authors.
Most of the anti-evo crowd are more along the lines of gobucks. Science=atheist evil-doers, who will be smitten by God.
You should see if you can hook up (is that still a correct use of the phrase?) with Alamo-girl. She has a slighty different take on ID but one that you might be able to get some mileage out of.
Gosh ... you talk like that's a bad thing in and of itself. If biologists and science writers were previously sloppy in their arguments, it needs to be sharpened up.
However, I think that what's really happening is more fundamental than that: biologists are being faced with a direct challenge to a foundational assumption. Specifically, biologists always attempt to find a naturalistic explanation for whatever they observe.
This works pretty well in many cases, but it becomes increasingly clear that "design" is not an inherently improbable hypothesis (because humans do "design"). There are highly practical reasons for scientists to begin figuring out how to detect "design" in what they observe --for "industrial espionage" purposes, say, or to determine the origin of some odd disease strain.
It's important to understand that the "naturalistic assumption" is only an assumption. And it's likewise important to understand that, when people say "you cannot detect design," they have essentially disposed of their naturalistic assumptions as well.
Well you can believe whatever you want to believe but you won't be able to slow down this train. ha ha ha
Defense attorneys in the case over intelligent design didn't want Barbara Forrest to testify.Some links to what they're talking about:They repeatedly tried to keep the co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" off the stand or to undermine her testimony in U.S. Middle District Court on Wednesday.
[snip]
Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, says the wedge strategy is a long-term plan to replace materialism with Christian convictions. She has tracked what she calls the intelligent design movement for years to show its roots in creation science, according to testimony.
The institute, in a document called "The Wedge Document: So What?" says it does not support theocracy, is not attacking science and does not have a secret plan to influence science and culture.
Actually, it's less provable. If I have a superstition that doing a dance in my yard will bring rain, you have a set of falsification criteria to disprove that superstition -- all you have to do is show no statistically significant difference in rainfall during periods when I danced in my yard and when I didn't (controlling for my cheating by checking the weather before I danced, of course, or other factors such as me only being home during the rainy season and thereby being more likely to dance when it's more likely to rain).
ID doesn't even have the falsification criteria going for it.
It is the same as equating communism and socialism. They are very different, as they are strictly defined, but as they spring from the same crime against reason, they are equivalent from a rational standpoint.
Speaking for myself, I have two issues with ID. First and foremost, I am opposed to the weakening of the scientific standards that would be required to qualify ID as a scientific principle.
But nearly as significant, to me at least, is my skepticism for the people responsible for advancing ID. Frankly, I don't think they are being truthful with their claims. Not to the public, the scientific community, or even to themselves.
They claim not to be inclined towards any particular 'designer' but I simply don't believe them. The religious reputations of the major players belies this facade too blatantly. And the widespread support they receive from creationists tells me that instead of being concerned that ID doesn't sell their story, they too realize that ID is just an outflanking maneuver for 'their side'.
They claim not to have religious motivations but again I simply don't believe them. If the ToE didn't threaten the beliefs of biblical literalists, then there would be no ID movement at all. It was conceived for the sole purpose of advancing a cause, regardless of what any propaganda claims to the contrary. I contend that for a proponent of ID to say otherwise, they must either be naive or be a willing accomplice to the deception.
They claim to be scientifically inclined, but when scientific channels blocked them because their methods were beyond the scope of the scientific method they turned to a campaign of public relations, emotional appeal, and legal dodging to outmaneuver science in order to wedge (their word, not mine) their way into scientific classrooms.
A final question if I may, to the creationist supporters of ID: Do you honestly believe ID is correct, or are you supporting it simply because you want to weaken the ToE?
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.