Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <473e5a14@news.povray.org>, Charles C <"nospam a nospam.com"> 
> says...
>> The claim by the defendants in the case (the school board) was that 
>> intelligent design is not religious and it is not creationism.  The 
>> plaintiffs got very lucking in finding one very interesting piece of 
>> evidence:  the 'missing link between creationism and intelligent 
>> design', namely the word "cintelligent designism" (or something like 
>> that). There was a 1980's paper which had been updated to replace all 
>> instances of "creationism" to "intelligent design" after a different 
>> court case, but had not been edited very carefully.  There was a strong 
>> connection between this paper and an intelligent-design textbook donated 
>> to the Dover school district, which made it more difficult for the 
>> plaintiffs to insist that there was no religious intent involved.
>>
> Umm. No, it wasn't a paper, it was a book called "Of Pandas and People" 
> and they where **trying** to get it used as a science text in the 
> schools. Only, when they couldn't get it in on the grounds of its 

OK, you're right.  I know the textbook was "Of Pandas and People" but I 
had been thinking that the textbook was borrowing language from another 
originally-creationist paper.  That paper, you're right, is none other 
than an early draft of "Pandas" as subpoena'ed by the plaintiffs' side 
of the case.


> religious content, they edited it, removing all references to 
> "creation" with "intelligent design", then tried again. In the original 
> court case I am not sure they found the "cintelligent designism" part, 
> but they *did* find an earlier copy of the book that differed in content 
> *only* by the replacement of one word with its new alternate. Umm. Also 
> not sure you got it right. The latest joke posts about, "proof of the 
> evolution of creation", claim that the resulting word was, "cdesign 
> proponentsists", and there has been some discussion of using that as the 
> "name" for people from the Discovery Institute and others that support 
> ID.

You are correct again.  That's why I put a disclaimer in parenthesis "or 
something like that".

Charles

Post a reply to this message