A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

"Of Pandas and People" is the intelligent design textbook. It is intended for elementary school students. This textbook has figured in quite prominently in the Dover trial -- the first trial in which the Intelligent Design movement could face constitutional scrutiny. It is the book which first popularized the term "intelligent design." A number of the leading "intellectuals" of the intelligent design movement contributed to "Pandas," including Michael Behe. William Dembski is presumably going to work on the next revision."Pandas" was published by "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics." The founder and president of this foundation is John Buell who worked for Campus Crusade for Christ, then Probe Ministries, then founded "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics." The working titles of "Of Pandas and People" were "Creation Biology" (1983), "Biology & Creation" (1986), "Biology & Origins" (1987), then finally "Of Pandas and People" (1987). The definitions of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" were virtually identical. Once the Edwards decision was made (1987) which ruled "scientific creationism" unconstitutional, the substitution of "intelligent design" for "scientific creationism" began. There are graphs which are quite dramatic.Claiming to have knowledge of the intelligent design movement without having any knowledge of "Pandas" would be like claiming to have knowledge of the intelligent design movement without having any knowledge of Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, or William Dembski.If you would like to check my facts on this, you might try the Barbara Forrest testimony from the Dover trial. The most relevant part is located here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 2Recycling a creationist textbook as an "intelligent design" textbook is - in my view - sufficient evidence of dishonesty on the part of this movement and its leaders, particularly when this is the first book to popularize the term "intelligent design." Given what I have cited, it is also very strong evidence that "intelligent design" is simply recycled creationism, and as I have indicated, I appreciate Buzsaw's honesty in admitting as much.This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 10:22 AM

Reading is a process of imputing motives. When you read what someone writes, you are reading what the have written for the purpose of identifying what they intended to say. If this weren't possible, then we quite literally would have nothing left to say.

Tim wrote: Faith wrote: Message 70Message 71Message 73Let me give you an example: "I'm sorry, I am having difficulty figuring out what you meant to communicate by that." Do you get my meaning?When you read what a person writes, you are trying to figure out what it is that they intended to communicate. What they intended to communicate was their meaning.However, sometimes actions speak louder than words -- if someone lifts my wallet, says that they didn't intend to do that, and then proceeds to run off, the very act of running off says a great deal more than their statement regarding their intentions.Additionally, you can judge both actions and words in terms of their context. In this particular context, scientific creationism was declared illegal, then they "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design" as a form of repackaging the same old ideas as if they were something new. Doing so was dishonest, and about as obviously so as the pick-pocket I mentioned in my previous paragraph. In the pick-pocket's favor, I might add, he committed only two acts -- but the editors committed the same dishonest act more than 200 times.

Tim wrote: Faith wrote: Sometimes words speak as loudly as actions. Indeed, sometimes words are actions, such as when a country declares war.Since "scientific creationism" was ruled unconstitutional, it should be fairly clear what the purpose of substituting the words "intelligent design" for "scientific creationism" was, particulary when the phase substitution occurred on the very heals of the decision. To win the case at Dover, they had to distinguish their "theory" from "scientific" creationism. Similarly, when the Discovery Institute or other organizations argue on its behalf that it is constitutional to teach "intelligent design," they are doing so on the premise that "intelligent design" is not "scientific" creationism. In acknowledging that "intelligent design" is a form of creationism, you are showing more honesty than the leading proponents and organizations of the intelligent design movement.Faith wrote: Don't worry -- we will get to their arguments. However, you still seem to be having some difficulty acknowledging the fact that the repackaging of the old theory of "scientific creationism" as a new theory called "intelligent design" was an act of dishonesty.

Tim wrote: Faith wrote: You argued, "But of course it's creationism as far as much of the scientific thinking goes so why shouldn't a textbook be easily adapted to express their views?" The question is, do you still stand by this argument? If so, [it would seem that] this isn't "making a case" so much as a case of rationalization.P.S. I intended to include the text in the brackets, but in the rush to go to lunch and feed the crows it appears that I forgot to include it. My mistake.This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 03:53 PM

Even charity must have limits -- otherwise morality becomes hollow. However, in the interest of charity, I would be willing to move on if Faith is willing to do so.A Test for Intelligent Design ProponentsThis message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 06:15 PM

Why We are Avoiding the Discussion of "The Separation of Church and State"bkelly wrote: In terms of how the constitution is currently interpreted, it may very well be the case that the teaching of creationism would continue to be regarded as unconstitutional. However, just as a number of creationists were attempting to do on an earlier thread, it would be possible to argue that this interpretation is invalid and should be overturned. This would be the honest approach. How successful it would be is a completely different matter.However, that thread came to an end, and this thread is no longer dealing with the issue of whether or not the constitution should be interpreted as establishing a "Separation of Church and State." The question of whether or not such a separation should exist is not covered in this thread's essay, and evidently resulted in little more than some sort of flame war which would suck the oxygen out of any attempt to rationally discuss or debate the points in the essay. This is the reason why we are no longer dealing with the issue of the "Separation of Church and State" itself. Any such discussion can be taken to the coffee shop, or if people would care to suggest it as a new topic and the management is obliging, then the discussion could have its own thread once again.In any case, I will be taking a break until some time tomorrow, then I will post a short analysis (assuming nothing else happens in between), and shortly thereafter I will try to get the discussion going again -- assuming people are interested.This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-01-2005 12:07 AM

1. First, if anyone thinks that I was being the least bit rude to Faith at any point, I would like to remind them that the discussion of the paper was sidelined from posts 2-32, then when wrote (after AdminNWR stepped in), "Funny thing... I seem to remember Faith making the same kind of arguments regarding the Separation of Church and State three or four months ago. The more things change, the more they remain the same, I guess," (Message 35), I was pointing out that she really didn't seem capable of discussing anything else, such as the essay which was supposed to be the focus of this thread. She then responded, "Of course. It was true then and it's true now," (Message 36) thus taking pride in her rudeness and incivility, rather than showing the appropriate degree of shame. Then the "discussion" continued off-topic until AdminNWR stepped in again in post 51, and even then, Buzsaw attempted to divert the discussion in post 54.2. Faith chose the first topic of debate, what she was most comfortable in debating: whether or not I had the right to accuse intelligent design proponents of dishonesty.See messages:
#58 by Faith: Message 58
#59 by Tim: Message 593. Faith admitted for the first time that she didn't know enough to argue in defense of intelligent design early on and chose to instead stick to her point that I should not accuse intelligent design proponents of dishonesty.See message:
#62 by Faith: Message 624. Faith admitted the fact that she could not defend intelligent design once again a little later.See message:
#68 by Faith: Message 685. When it first became evident that Faith would need help in defending intelligent design itself, Buzsaw stepped in. However, Buzsaw participated in the debate only once. I believe it became apparent to him that I knew at least one easily exploitable contradictions in the approach being taken by the intelligent design movement in attempting to mix science and religion in an "inclusive" approach. Actually, right off the top of my head, I knew three. However, there are at least two other possibilities.See messages:
#63 by buzsaw: Message 63
#64 by Tim: Message 64
#67 by Tim: Message 676. The central part of the debate over whether I could ascribe motives to the leading proponents of intelligent design went from posts 69-80. I will analyze only a small part of that in this post and leave the rest for people to analyze on their own.7. nwr attempted to bring a certain degree of civility back into the discussion with post #82 -- since I had "forced" Faith into choosing between admitting the dishonesty of the leading proponents and organizations of intelligent design, or being labelled dishonest herself. He instead wanted to us to move on in our discussion from whether or not it was appropriate to ascribe motives. He was correct in doing so, since as a matter of maintaining the form of civility required by the function of this forum, I should have included the words "it would seem that."See messages:
#78 by Tim: Message 78
#79 by nwr: Message 798. However, on one important point, nwr made a mistake. One does impute motives even in mathematics in the sense that one assumes that the individual who writes mathematical equations is attempting to communicate the literal meaning of math represented by the equations. However, the ascription of any additional motives requires more, and to a large extent I successfully provided the required evidence, although we could have gone into it in more depth. (See posts 67-80, particularly 67.)See message:
#79 by nwr: Message 799. Faith then tried once again to bring back the subject of imputing motives in post 84.See message:
#84 by Faith: Message 84Note to Faith: If you wish to discuss something beyond my imputing motives to the leading proponents or organizations of the intelligent design movement, we should move on.

My essay necessarily deals with the motives behind the intelligent design movement. At the same time, I believe I violated the form of civility required by this forum in post 78 (Message 78) then corrected it in the same post.I would be more than happy to "move on," as you put it, but what I have said regarding the motives of the leading proponents and organizations of the intelligent design movement is essential to the essay and my position. Personally, I would prefer to discuss a question I raised regarding the relationship between science and religion in post 65 (Message 65) which never got a reply.If you have sufficient knowledge of intelligent design or know of someone who does, lets continue.

Agreed.The relationship between religion and science should be on topic for this discussion. Therefore the question of whether the belief in God is a religious belief should be on topic as well.

I did a quick check: http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/RawMsgTxt.cgi?action=view...I am sure we could find more. In anycase, "lying" implies motive as opposed to simply being mistaken.

You might want to try this particular search on Google:"site: evolutionists lying".I get back 871 results.site: evolutionists lying - Google Search

Actually, you will, some of it more obvious than others...On the evolutionist side, you will find:ID an attempt to undermine science...Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
http://EvC Forum: Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design -->EvC Forum: Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design On the id-proponent side, you will find:Evolution and godlessness conflated...Simple evidence for ID
http://EvC Forum: Simple evidence for ID -->EvC Forum: Simple evidence for ID Outright fraud mentioned by the following ID proponent...ID and the bias inherent in human nature
http://EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature -->EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature You do not have a pure heart if you do not believe the following author...Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth
http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth In any case, if you are dealing with "intelligent design," you are dealing the interface between science and religion and therefore with ideology, and therefore, you are dealing with motives. If you have evidence for motives, you should be able to present it. However, at the same time, I believe it is in the interest of this forum to remain civil for the discussion of ideas.This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-01-2005 05:06 PM

As I have said on multiple occasions, I would be more than happy to move on... Message 88
Message 90

Glad you are here. Hope you don't mind, but I just finished up eighteen days straight of work, so I will be responding tomorrow morning. I am going to have something to eat and go to bed. I apologize for the delay and appreciate your participation.This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-01-2005 08:53 PM