Sorry to have snipped in a misleading way. And yes, I have read the Dover
trial testimony and decision. But I have not tried to follow the
post-trial comments in detail.
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:46:12 -0500 "David Clounch"
I'll accept that as fair. It may seem that way.
But first, in the quote below (see snip snip) the Scottsman wrote the
first paragraph, my comment on that was the second paragraph. I did not
write the first paragraph. This isnt clear from your snipping. The
snipping makes it look like I wrote both paragraphs. I just wanted to
clarify that I did not.
But I think I saw the book once in the 80's. Haven't read it. What I did
read somewhere was the book was proffered by the board as an ID book but
was really a creationist book, and the court did not take kindly to that
But I have not researched any of that to find out if the claim of
deception was accurate.
Actually, your comments on the transcript seem to say what I had read
about deception was not accurate...that instead the book really was
accurately proffered as an ID book. Hmmmm. I dunno. Maybe the Scottsman
did get that right. Thank you for defending them.
Since I am not a creationist I don't really know what to say to a
creationist who morphs all their material into the form of ID. I have
publicly argued they are stealing the idea and ruining it.
Sure doesn't make them happy to hear that! ;) But, if they start
using calculus does that make a calc book into a creationist book?
Maybe..and it might depend on what they do to the book. But would that
make calculus into religion? I don't think so. You might disagree.
But is it fair to judge an idea solely by the people who believe in it?
I have not read the case from Dover, btw. I did read Edwards top to
bottom. Holding, plus all opinions. May I ask, have you? Not that it
matters if you haven't. But would it make you disingenuous if you had
not? I dont think so. Why would it? Please tell me the circumstances
where it would make you disingenuous if you had not read Edwards, but
some reporter chatted with you on the phone and then wrote something?
On 6/4/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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 Thu Jun 7 00:34:04 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 07 2007 - 00:34:04 EDT