Evolution Education and the Law

Legal issues, lawsuits, documents, trial materials, and updates

headerblock

Missing Link discovered!

November 7, 2005

 

[UPDATE: Some readers using Internet Explorer are reporting that they can’t see the graphics in this post. It seems to work fine with Firefox, but when I use Internet Explorer I can see the graphics fine until I resize the window, and then they disappear. Until we figure this out, feel free to visit the images directory to see the images one-by-one. Make sure that you have a version of I.E. that can handle PNG graphics.]

Now that the trial has finished and we await the judge’s decision, it is time to review some of the things we discovered in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

For years, ID proponents have denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. Just google the Discovery Insitute website on the phrase “not creationism.”

It is now well-known that the first “intelligent design” book, Of Pandas and People, was originally a classic “two-model” creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. (See a list of the Pandas drafts, with quotes, here.) As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony, Pandas was reborn as an “intelligent design” textbook in 1987, mere months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.

But ID proponents were undeterred. Discovery Institute spokesperson Casey Luskin bravely retorted,

No ‘word-processor-conspiracy-theory’ from Forrest can change the fact that Pandas’ arguments were always distinct from those of traditional ‘creationism’.*

How could the dispute be resolved? Creationists are famously skeptical of the evidence that one thing could gradually turn into something else. They want every transition documented right in front of them, darn it, or they’re not going to believe it.

Well, courtesy of the sharp eyes of Dr. Barbara Forrest, we have now discovered the Missing Link between creationism and ID. Since these unpublished drafts of Of Pandas and People have been introduced as exhibits in the Kitzmiller case, they can at last be quoted. Let’s look at the lineage — the actual images of the exhibits, just so that everyone knows I Am Not Making This Up:

.

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:

1983 Creation Biology, p. 3-34: Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.

.

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:

1986 Biology and Creation, p. 3-33: Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.
.

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:

1987 Biology and Origins, p. 3-38: Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.
.

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:

1987 creationist version of Pandas, p. 3-40: Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.
.

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:

1987 ID version of Pandas, p. 3-41: Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
.

In summary, we have:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

And the creationists say transitional fossils are never discovered…

[* Wes Elsberry notes that Luskin is arguing that the arguments advanced by “intelligent design” vs. “creation science” are different. This is indeed part of what Luskin is saying, but Luskin is also saying that Forrest advanced a “‘word-processor-conspiracy-theory’”. My point is that we have proof that the relabling occurred, in a word processor no less. As an aside, it is also easy to demonstrate that the arguments of ID vs. creationism are the same as well. I expect this will be done in the near future.]

by @ 7:03 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

One Response to “Missing Link discovered!”

  1. Ocellated » Cdesign proponentsists Says:

    […] So what was “the scientific position being advocated”? Here are excerpts taken from the early drafts, the emphasis is obviously mine. These were put up on the web by the National Center for Science Education on November 7, 2005. […]

-->

Site Links

Recent Lawsuits

Post Categories

Search


Advanced Search

Archives

November 2007
S M T W T F S
« May    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Other


External Links

Site produced by the
National Center for Science Education.

28 queries. 0.766 seconds