Re: Missing link : “cdesign proponentsists”

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 15:34:08 EST

I am really replying to Glenn's concerns about Forrest searching out the wood from the trees.

Glenn objects to this tack of Forrest but it is like what many literary scholars practice whether on secular writings or the bible. It has even been done on the last paragraph of the Origin of Species by Michael Ruse, and in Darwin's essays of 1842 and 1844 , notebooks and Big Book and Origin I have done a bit of this and it is fascinating to see how Darwin developed and even changed You can do it on editions of Calvin's institutes and could even try it on any books in several editions. If you take any written work and have examples of differing editions and draughts you can at times work out the development of thought of the writer(s).

To the hard-bitten scientist (I am one but have a soft humanities underbelly) this is very subjective, and compared to an empirical science it is. BUT if you are aware of this it can be very revealing and if evidence is demanded and historians demand evidence then it can be very illuminating.

Forrest's evidence is irrefutable but some explanation is needed. The coincidence of this verbal change in Pandas and the Edwards v. Agouillard case of 1987 is very compelling
 Part of the reason was that the old Creationist approach of YEC failed and thus new ways and new words were need , when combined with Thaxton's ideas (1984 book on Origin of life with Olsena nd Bradley) this result in design rather than creation.
Further we see ID and YEC partially overlapping and the rest of the time co-existing in a hostile symbiotic relationship. However the origins of ID are most definitely not entirely YEC, but there is a minor YEC component. We need to note that a good number of IDs are YEC even if Dembski and Behe is not

Critics of ID are wrong to say ID is simply YEC in new clothes, but ID cannot claim to be totally seperate from YEC. Forrest has made that abundantly clear.


> 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.

   Forrest had previously been able to show that “intelligent design” almost completely replaced “creationism” in 1987, in a dramatic episode of ecological replacement:

  …but, as is often the case in punctuated equilibria between closely-related species, the transitional form has a small, geographically localized population, and so is difficult to discover in the fossil record.

  Through painstaking sifting through the record, however, Forrest eventually found the holy grail: a perfect intermediate.

    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.”

  Both creationists and Intelligent Design proponents were quick to point out that the discovery had created two new gaps between the two movements.

Received on Tue Nov 8 15:38:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 15:38:12 EST