Re: Missing link : "cdesign proponentsists"

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 11:13:56 EST

Glenn Morton wrote:

> By doing what the lawyers have done in this case they are essentially
> saying that they have the right to examine your thought process and
> then no matter what you actually published make the claim that you
> meant something else. I am uncomfortable with the thought-police
> aspect of this. If people do not have the right to edit a manuscript
> and make significant changes to it and then have those changes which
> are finally published be taken as what was meant, then we are close to
> having initial drafts be used as ultimate meaning. I find this
> disturbing for a lot of reasons.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

*It all has to do with the intent of publishing Pandas and making the
change from 'creation' to 'intelligent design' after the Edwards v
Aguillard ruling. A cut and paste replace of the term creationists to
'design proponents' hardly qualifies as a significant change.
It's the timeline which is so 'puzzling'...
*
Received on Tue Nov 8 11:14:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 11:14:10 EST