Intelligent design redux

Trek said:
Here are a couple of excerpts from the book Of Pandas and People.
Please point out the creationist aspect which drives the paranoia of the Darwinists believing that ID is a Trojan horse for teaching creationism in science…


“If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question;”


"Since both written language and DNA have that telltale property of information carried along by specific sequence of words' and since intelligence is known to produce written language, is it not reasonable to identify the cause of the DNA's information as an intelligence too?"

(Of Pandas and People, 2"* ed., 1993, pg. 57)

I will post more to see if creationism is really at the heart of the book. So far it isn’t imo
Click to expand...
Plus they (Creationist liars) will lose a shit load of money in book sales so.....

"A third edition (of People and Pands) was retitled The Design of Life. Jon Buell, the president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, said that the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that intelligent design was religious would make the textbook "radioactive" in public schools and would be "catastrophic" for the marketability of both the (then) present (second) edition and the (then) forthcoming third edition, citing possible losses of around US$500,000. The renaming of the book is viewed by some as way of mitigating this and at the same time distancing the book from past controversy."
 
Pinball1970 said:
It is. They just changed the words "creationism" to "intelligent design." Exchemist point this out to you.
Click to expand...
Huh!
None of those excepts mention the phrase “Intelligent design”.
What are you talking about?
Pinball1970 said:
"Before publication (Of Pandas and People), early drafts used cognates of "creationist". After the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design". The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe."
Click to expand...
Citations please
Pinball1970 said:
So, liars that these people are, they realised they could not sneak the book into school as science with the word creationism in there as they would get found out in court again so they just changed it.
It did not work.
Click to expand...
You’ve yet to show evidence of this.
I must of asked you at least 20 times.
I’m beginning to think you are the liar.
But let’s see if you can finally redeem yourself by offering proof that your your claim is true, or just the smattering of a dogmatic Darwinist. The type of materialism the “wedge reports” seeks to overthrow
Pinball1970 said:
I wonder what they will name it next time?

Design Science?
Click to expand...
Wow!
You are really … really persistent in your dogma
 
Last edited:
Pinball1970 said:
It is. They just changed the words "creationism" to "intelligent design." Exchemist point this out to you.

"Before publication (Of Pandas and People), early drafts used cognates of "creationist". After the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design". The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe."

So, liars that these people are, they realised they could not sneak the book into school as science with the word creationism in there as they would get found out in court again so they just changed it.
It did not work.

I wonder what they will name it next time?

Design Science?
Click to expand...
And, hilariously and notoriously, they fucked up and left one instance as “cdesign proponentsists”. Which rather blew the attempted subterfuge. These guys just really weren’t very good, were they?:biggrin:
 
Trek said:
Huh!
None of those excepts mention the phrase “Intelligent design”.
What are you talking about?

Citations please

You’ve yet to show evidence of this.
I must of asked you at least 20 times.
I’m beginning to think you are the liar.
But let’s see if you can finally redeem yourself by offering proof that your your claim is true, or just the smattering of a dogmatic Darwinist. The type of materialism the “wedge reports” seeks to overthrow

Wow!
You are really … really persistent in your dogma
Click to expand...
Look it up. It is documented.


" According to the Discovery Institute's account published in December 2005, Charles Thaxton as editor of the Pandas book needed a new term after the Supreme Court case, and found it in a phrase he "picked up from a NASA scientist – intelligent design". He thought: "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term….. it seemed to jibe... And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[22] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design.[31] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency

The supreme court case was Edwards v. Aguillard
 
Trek said:
You’ve yet to show evidence of this.
I must of asked you at least 20 times.
I’m beginning to think you are the liar.
But let’s see if you can finally redeem yourself by offering proof that your your claim is true, or just the smattering of a dogmatic Darwinist. The type of materialism the “wedge reports” seeks to overthrow
Click to expand...
Here is a review of the book.

In 1989 the National Center for Science Education published three reviews of the book: Kevin Padian, a biologist at University of California, Berkeley, called it "a wholesale distortion of modern biology".[9] Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy and biology, said the book was "worthless and dishonest".[10] In the third of these reviews, Gerald Skoog, Professor of Education at Texas Tech University, wrote that the book reflected a creationist strategy to focus their "attack on evolution", interpreting the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling as though it legitimized "teaching a variety of scientific theories", but the book did not contain a scientific theory or model to "balance" against evolution, and was "being used as a vehicle to advance sectarian tenets and not to improve science education".[11]
 
Pinball1970 said:
Here is a review of the book.

In 1989 the National Center for Science Education published three reviews of the book: Kevin Padian, a biologist at University of California, Berkeley, called it "a wholesale distortion of modern biology".[9] Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy and biology, said the book was "worthless and dishonest".[10] In the third of these reviews, Gerald Skoog, Professor of Education at Texas Tech University, wrote that the book reflected a creationist strategy to focus their "attack on evolution", interpreting the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling as though it legitimized "teaching a variety of scientific theories", but the book did not contain a scientific theory or model to "balance" against evolution, and was "being used as a vehicle to advance sectarian tenets and not to improve science education".[11]
Click to expand...
Really not surprising since...



] Co-author Percival Davis later acknowledged that religious concerns underlay the writing of the book; in a November 1994 interview with The Wall Street Journal, he commented: "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it."[17][c]
 
Trek said:
Huh!
None of those excepts mention the phrase “Intelligent design”.
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
The Discovery Institute doesn't agree with you regarding the book itself, My bold

"Of Pandas and People gives evidence for intelligent design from origin-of-life studies, biochemistry, genetics, homology, and paleontology. In a unique manner, Of Pandas and People gives the pros and cons of both the biological-evolution theory and the intelligent-design concept. Pandas promotes a widely recognized goal of science education by fostering a questioning, skeptical and scrutinizing mindset. This supplemental biology textbook provides an extensive index, glossary, references, and suggested reading and resources to help familarize the reader with the material. Pandas is enhanched by the use of numerous diagrams, charts, illustrations and full-color pictures."
https://www.discovery.org/b/of-pandas-and-people-the-central-question-of-biological-origins/

Btw did you know The Discovery Institute held the copyright on the book “of Pandas and People.”
My screen grab shows the copyright as
"Foundation for Thought and Ethics Richadson Texas."
That comes under Discovery Institute Press. Check it out here:
discovery.press

Foundation for Thought & Ethics Books

Started in 2016, Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) Books is an imprint of Discovery Institute Press. The imprint carries forward the work of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (1981-2016) in…
discovery.press discovery.press
Dis.jpg
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
And, hilariously and notoriously, they fucked up and left one instance as “cdesign proponentsists”. Which rather blew the attempted subterfuge. These guys just really weren’t very good, were they?:biggrin:
Click to expand...
Yep. From the drafts of "Of Pandas and People":

1983: "The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists, because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude that the latter is correct."

1986: "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."

1987: "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."

1987 v2: "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view."

ncse.ngo

"Cdesign Proponentsists" | National Center for Science Education

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs.
ncse.ngo ncse.ngo

Indeed, the term "cdesign proponentsists" has been described as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
Yep. From the drafts of "Of Pandas and People":

1983: "The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists, because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude that the latter is correct."

1986: "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."

1987: "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."

1987 v2: "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view."

ncse.ngo

"Cdesign Proponentsists" | National Center for Science Education

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs.
ncse.ngo ncse.ngo

Indeed, the term "cdesign proponentsists" has been described as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."
Click to expand...
That’s hardly surprising given the desperate paranoia from the evolutionist side.
So what if creationists agree to something, then you have to change the wording to appease the paranoia.
There is nothing there to indicate they are erecting a Trojan horse to to teach creationism in the science class.
So far I have given a quote that explicitly states there is no intention of this. Thus far you’ve given nothing to actually contradict that.

Try again
 
With no direct empirical evidence, Darwin claimed that over long periods of time these micro-changes could result in macro-evolution, which consists of really big jumps from amoeba to reptile to mammal, for example. This is where his theory runs into problems which are still not resolved in the minds of many scientists today.

This is the problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution. It was a brilliant theory up until this
 
Trek said:
With no direct empirical evidence, Darwin claimed that over long periods of time these micro-changes could result in macro-evolution, which consists of really big jumps from amoeba to reptile to mammal, for example. This is where his theory runs into problems which are still not resolved in the minds of many scientists today.

This is the problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution. It was a brilliant theory up until this
Click to expand...
 
Trek said:
Why are you insulting me?
Click to expand...
I was describing your abilities demonstrated so far here.

If you wish to be seen as intelligent and capable - then by all means, prove it by being intelligent and capable. At least a dozen times now you have demanded proof that has already been given, and refused to do anything other than issue meaningless denials and post quotes from creationist websites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top