On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:55:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

So even their own fellows have shown their spin to be dishonest. In that
book, not only did the phrase "intelligent design" suddenly appear only
after the Edwards ruling came down, but it appeared with the exact same
definition as the phrase it replaced, "creation science." In the early
1987 version of the book, then called Biology and Origins, they offered
this definition:

"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."

In the late 1987 version of the book, then using its final name Of
Pandas and People, they offered this definition:

"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."

Now remember, this book was written by DI fellows. It was hailed by the
DI as the first intelligent design textbook. And this very book uses the
phrase "intelligent design" as being identical to the "creation science"
that was ruled out of public school science classrooms in 1987. This
"new" idea was advocated by the exact same people using the exact same
arguments. Yet the DI wants you to believe that there's no connection at
all between ID and creation science, that they are entirely different
movements. Only someone truly deluded - a group that rarely includes
Federal judges, thankfully - would believe them.

This is definitely a keeper, not only for us but, let's hope, for
every attorney who represents a case against ID. It puts the DI in
the position of pushing for something the Court has already made
illegal.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:55:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

So even their own fellows have shown their spin to be dishonest. In that
book, not only did the phrase "intelligent design" suddenly appear only
after the Edwards ruling came down, but it appeared with the exact same
definition as the phrase it replaced, "creation science." In the early
1987 version of the book, then called Biology and Origins, they offered
this definition:

"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."

In the late 1987 version of the book, then using its final name Of
Pandas and People, they offered this definition:

"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."

Now remember, this book was written by DI fellows. It was hailed by the
DI as the first intelligent design textbook. And this very book uses the
phrase "intelligent design" as being identical to the "creation science"
that was ruled out of public school science classrooms in 1987. This
"new" idea was advocated by the exact same people using the exact same
arguments. Yet the DI wants you to believe that there's no connection at
all between ID and creation science, that they are entirely different
movements. Only someone truly deluded - a group that rarely includes
Federal judges, thankfully - would believe them.

This is definitely a keeper, not only for us but, let's hope, for
every attorney who represents a case against ID. It puts the DI in
the position of pushing for something the Court has already made
illegal.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:55:27 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

So even their own fellows have shown their spin to be dishonest. In that
book, not only did the phrase "intelligent design" suddenly appear only
after the Edwards ruling came down, but it appeared with the exact same
definition as the phrase it replaced, "creation science." In the early
1987 version of the book, then called Biology and Origins, they offered
this definition:

"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."

In the late 1987 version of the book, then using its final name Of
Pandas and People, they offered this definition:

"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."

Now remember, this book was written by DI fellows. It was hailed by the
DI as the first intelligent design textbook. And this very book uses the
phrase "intelligent design" as being identical to the "creation science"
that was ruled out of public school science classrooms in 1987. This
"new" idea was advocated by the exact same people using the exact same
arguments. Yet the DI wants you to believe that there's no connection at
all between ID and creation science, that they are entirely different
movements. Only someone truly deluded - a group that rarely includes
Federal judges, thankfully - would believe them.

This is definitely a keeper, not only for us but, let's hope, for
every attorney who represents a case against ID. It puts the DI in
the position of pushing for something the Court has already made
illegal.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:55:27 -0700, johac wrote:

Nobody's surprised.

---
Discovery Institute's Lies on Origin of ID Movement

By Ed Brayton Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:47:36 PM EST


The Discovery Institute (DI) is engaged in their usual dishonest spin,
this time over the issue of the origin of the ID movement. They're
responding to this post by Nick Matzke at the Panda's Thumb where he
points out that "intelligent design" was chosen as a new label for
"creation science" after the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard ruling. Nick
writes:

As everyone now knows, even though the ID guys will never admit it,
"intelligent design" as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of
Pandas and People, with "intelligent design" being the new label chosen
after the 1987 Edwards decision made creationist terminology difficult
to use in textbooks. Pandas was the first place the term "intelligent
design" was used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be
something other than creationism, etc. In a desperate attempt to
obfuscate this basic historical point, ID guys have dug up various
random instances of the words "intelligent" and "design" placed together
(although they missed the 1861 Darwin letter, and the 1847 Scientific
American article), most of them with absolutely no evidence of having
influenced the actual actors in the 1980s who created the ID movement
(there are some legitimate precursors, but they are in explicitly
creationist works, e.g. Lester and Bohlin's (1984) The Natural Limits to
Biological Change, so the ID guys won't cite them post-Kitzmiller).

Despite the fact that Nick had anticipated their response and answered
it in advance, Rob Crowther predictably ducks into the punch over at the
DI blog. He does exactly what Nick predicted by simply changing the
subject, trying to find instances in the past where someone else used
the term "intelligent design" as if this answered Nick's argument in any
way:

Matzke reiterates the old canard that the phrase "intelligent
design" was concocted after the Edwards v. Aguillard supreme court case
in which creationism/creation science was ruled out of bounds for public
high school science classes. This is simply a Darwinian urban legend.

This is simply a lie. Nick did not claim that the phrase intelligent
design was invented for the first time in late 1987; he said that this
was the first time the phrase was "used systematically, defined in a
glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc." In other
words, it was only after the Edwards ruling that this phrase began to be
used by anti-evolutionists as a label for their alternative position,
and thus began to be used as the label for their movement.

The evidence for this is absolutely undeniable. One need only look at
the book Of Pandas and People, which was written by multiple fellows at
the DI (Dean Kenyon, Charles Thaxton, Michael Behe, Nancy Pearsey, Paul
Nelson, etc) and hailed by the DI as the world's first intelligent
design textbook. And the DI's own Bill Dembski, who is the editor of the
perpetually forthcoming third edition of Panda's, filed an expert report
in the Dover case that clearly disproves the lie the DI is now trying to
tell. Dembski said in that report:

Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design
textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent
design" appeared in its present use.

So even their own fellows have shown their spin to be dishonest. In that
book, not only did the phrase "intelligent design" suddenly appear only
after the Edwards ruling came down, but it appeared with the exact same
definition as the phrase it replaced, "creation science." In the early
1987 version of the book, then called Biology and Origins, they offered
this definition:

"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."

In the late 1987 version of the book, then using its final name Of
Pandas and People, they offered this definition:

"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."

Now remember, this book was written by DI fellows. It was hailed by the
DI as the first intelligent design textbook. And this very book uses the
phrase "intelligent design" as being identical to the "creation science"
that was ruled out of public school science classrooms in 1987. This
"new" idea was advocated by the exact same people using the exact same
arguments. Yet the DI wants you to believe that there's no connection at
all between ID and creation science, that they are entirely different
movements. Only someone truly deluded - a group that rarely includes
Federal judges, thankfully - would believe them.
---
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/18/214736/329

The origin of the term "intelligent design" was a major part of the Dover
trial. One of the plaintiff's expert witnesses, Dr. Barbara Forrest,
presented a very detailed analysis of the use of this term in Creationist
literature and showed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is an obvious
attempt to re-state Creationism with being overtly religious.