Witness: 'Design' Replaced 'Creation'

AP - Science ^ | 2005-10-05 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[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.

[CIDKauf]

Then again...maybe that's not what they have in mind.

From a "big money" standpoint, I have to agree...the fight against seperationism, the biggest secular MYTH regarding the Constitution of the United States, will brush on creationism, intelligent design, and other topics. However, the idea that the founding fathers were interested in freedom "from" religion, rather than freedom "of" religion when they wrote the 1st amendment is the subject of the trial more than creationism. By winning this case, the legality of excluding intelligent design from teaching as an alternative to evolution is the real issue.

[longshadow]

ID is creationism in a lab coat, lying about what it is and what it is up to.

I hereby nominate this as the "Official DarwinCentral Soundbite du jour", and recommend a commendatory memo from the GrandMaster himself be placed in your permanent record, in recognition of this achievement.

[narby]

The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

The Bible has "inexplicable gaps". What did Jesus do from the age of 12 to 33?

The Bible is just a religion and "not a fact".

[edsheppa]

But the foundation of ID itself is pattern analysis.

I disagree. The foundational concept of ID is the philosophy that some patterns must be designed because they're too complex to ever be accounted for by a "naturalistic" theory.

[Ulugh Beg]

<< Diversity of thought, that's what ID allows for. There's the Invisible Pink Unicorn proponents who I respect, then there's my faction: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages). >>


Hah! As a fundamentalist Pink-Unicornist, I cannot sit by and allow this blasphemy of diversity of opinion on this crucial topic. Let me ask you a question: If you died tonight, and you were standing before St. Pegasus, asking to get into Unicorn-heaven -- and St. Pegasus asked you, "Why should I let you in?" -- do you really think your pasta-heresy will help you then?????

And BTW -- the Pink Unicorns are invisible to the eyes of the heretics.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What did Jesus do from the age of 12 to 33?"

http://lyrics.duble.com/lyrics/J/john-prine-lyrics/john-prine-jesus-the-missing-years-lyrics.htm

[balrog666]

Placemarking the placemarker.

Placemarker³.

[Antonello]

>Other than forcing biologists and science writers to sharpen up their arguments, what has ID contributed in the way of actual science?

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.

There are actually matters of controversy within the ToE, such as whether the turtles descended from procolophonids or pareiasaurs, or whether dentary-squamosal jaw joints are the best arbitrary defining line between reptiles and mammals. On these types of debates arguments between scientists are sharp and beneficial. On the other hand, it is a detrimental waste of their time to have to 'sharpen up' their arguments against a non-scientific religious assault driven by ulterior motives that thinks nothing of using deceptive, dated claims. What is to be gained scientifically, for instance, about having to continue to argue against decades-old claims that there are no transitional fossils when recent discoveries have provided complete species-to-species (and even genus-to-genus) transitional fossil records?

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.

On the surface, simply asking that science consider a designer as a possibility sounds reasonable enough. However, forming it into a hypothesis is not possible because there is no way it can be falsified. This is the crux that takes it beyond the scope of science, and there's no getting around it. Projecting the fact that humans design things onto nature is an assumption that cannot be tested.

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.

"Naturalistic assumption", as you termed it, is actually what defines the bounds of science, i.e. the study of nature's laws and their effects. Your claim that dismissing a supernatural assumption on the grounds that it is beyond this scope also invalidates the scope itself is simply incorrect.

[MineralMan]

"They're asking you to donate money to run their servers."

---

Oh, that's what they'd like you to think, but there's a sub-message in there. They're really just trying to protect the Player, who has royally screwed up the PlanetSim. You just don't understand the code. They can't reveal the Player to the semi-intelligent SimEarth inhabitants. Only a few know the truth, and they're sworn to secrecy.

The Player used version 0.85 of PlanetSim. That's the basic problem. There was a bug in both the ScriptureGen module and in the HistoryGen module. That created a conflict, with the Scripture that was generated by ScriptureGen not being in agreement with the "physical" history created by the HistoryGen module.

That has caused considerable confusion in the AI data used by the inhabitants of the SimEarth, as created by the Player. Since the inhabitants are semi-intelligent, the errors in the two modules have created a crisis, of sorts.

Combined with the looming Trojan-horse program on the Player's machine, these errors may lead to a reboot (known by the initiates as the Big Boot) and the loss of the simulation.

Since this is a multi-player game, that would mean a cascading failure, and that cannot be allowed. The reference to PayPal is a quest for funds to buy off the Player's girlfriend so she'll leave him alone and the Player can return to the simulation and take care of this crisis.

I'm surprised you can't see this.

[narby]

Creationist liars on display ...

From original version "Of Panda's and People": "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

After the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the concept of creation science as legitimate science: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"

I see no reason to believe the word of anyone claiming that ID is not Genesis based creationism.

[furball4paws]

general_re/ What's up?

[VadeRetro]

"Interchangeable" doesn't mean "the same." </Luddite_Lawyer_mode>

[wyattearp]

From the article you posted: "During cross examination, Thompson went after her views on religion, which plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild said went too far."

If ID isn't about religion, why would the defense go after her views on religion? It makes me wonder if these folks ever actually listen to what they themselves are saying.

[VadeRetro]

A mysterious freepmail missive last night and the dreaded red "No such."

[wyattearp]

However, the idea that the founding fathers were interested in freedom "from" religion, rather than freedom "of" religion when they wrote the 1st amendment is the subject of the trial more than creationism.

Freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion are the same thing. I have the right to practice any religion that I choose. I also have the right not to have some group cram their religion down my throat. It is the same thing. I have the right to my religion, you have the right to your religion, and neither of us has the right to force their religion on the other.

[VadeRetro]

Nobody by that name, actually.

[wyattearp]

However, the idea that the founding fathers were interested in freedom "from" religion, rather than freedom "of" religion when they wrote the 1st amendment is the subject of the trial more than creationism.

Freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion are the same thing. I have the right to practice any religion that I choose. I also have the right not to have some group cram their religion down my throat. It is the same thing. I have the right to my religion, you have the right to your religion, and neither of us has the right to force their religion on the other.

[Right Wing Professor]

If ID isn't about religion, why would the defense go after her views on religion? It makes me wonder if these folks ever actually listen to what they themselves are saying.

It's incompetent lawyering too. Apparently Federal Rules of Evidence preclude attempting to use a witness's religious views to impeach his/her testimony.

[VadeRetro]

Have to decline, as the sentence ends in a preposition. It should have read,

ID is creationism in a lab coat, lying about what it is and up to what it is.