If you check the trial transcript, I believe you will find that P&P began
as a Creationist book, but every reference to creation topics in the
original draft were, over time, replaced with ID terminology. Your claim
of ignorance seems to me disingenuous when the evidence is readily
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:11:19 -0500 "David Clounch"
"The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about ID before
ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles
Darwin's theory was "not a fact" and had inexplicable "gaps", and
referred students to an ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, for more
But Pandas and People is a creationist book, not an ID book. Which is
part of why the judge went the way he did...the sneaking in of a
creationist book was deceptive. My point here is the Scottsman reporter
completely missed that fact and reported the book as an ID book.
(Actually I don't really know if the book is ID related or pure
creationist, I've just read in the press elsewhere it was a creationist
To unsubscribe, send a message to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 4 15:16:38 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 15:16:38 EDT