politburo diktat 2.0

Witness: ‘Design’ Replaced ‘Creation’

References to creationism in drafts of a student biology book were replaced with the term “intelligent design” by the time it was published, a witness testified Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board’s decision to include the concept in its curriculum.

Drafts of the textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District’s biology curriculum.

So, in their textbook, “Intelligent Design” simply replaced “Creation.” Using MS Word, the change probably would have taken two seconds. Let’s see what the ID’rs claim today:

Discovery Institute:

Critics of the theory of intelligent design often assert that it is simply a repackaged version of creationism, and that it began after the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. In reality, the idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato …

Michael Behe:

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism

Discovery Institute (again):

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. …

Brian Fahling, Agape Press:

Armed with a 1987 Supreme Court decision declaring that teaching creationism in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause, the ACLU will argue that intelligent design is creationism repackaged. But is it really?

Creationism is an a priori argument … Intelligent design, however, is an a posteriori argument …

As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. …

There is more than a little irony, then, in the evolutionist’s attempt to paint intelligent design theory with the creationist brush when it is the evolutionists who have the most in common with the creationists.

They simply swapped “Design” for “Creation” in their so-called textbook, and then they have the chutzpah to claim “Oh, no, ID isn’t Creationism.” Lying sucks when you leave a paper trail.