Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we can be quite confident they didn't "make it all up," nor is there any mystery about how they obtained. But if you are so inclined, you can obtain the actual drafts and conduct your own analysis.
As with any legitimate scientific paper, the authors of the journal article linked above provide their methodology, so others can replicate the work. As they describe, early versions of manuscripts were subpoenaed during the Kitzmiller v Dover trial and entered into evidence as court exhibits. They should be available online as part of court records (see Public Access to Court Electronic Records at pacer.gov), and they are also on file at the National Center for Science Education. The manuscripts included in the analysis were (P-numbers in parens refer to court exhibits):
"Creation Biology (1983) (P-563), Biology and Creation (1986) (P-560), Biology and Origins (1987) (P-561). In 1987, the title was changed to Of Pandas and People; there were two 1987 (1987-1: P-562; 1987-2: P-652) manuscripts with this title. In 1989, the first edition was published by a small Dallas publisher, and in 1993, the second edition appeared." [Info copied from PNAS article linked above]
I don't know the motivation of the textbook authors, any more than I know the motivations of posters in this forum (unless they state them). What we do know is there were two book versions in 1987, and they were markedly different. The first contains over 100 references to creationism (see graph in prior post), and by the second version, virtually every one of those had been swapped out for intelligent design and creationism terminology disappears. We also know what happened in between those two versions, on June 19, 1987. Namely, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creation science was unconstitutional. Any good scientist will tell you that "correlation does not imply causation," but it is reasonable to conclude that the wholesale changes had something to do with the fact that the teaching of "creation science" was no longer legally or financially viable. So they tried to find a different way to say more or less the same thing, which was abundantly clear from the edits (simple find-and-replace, leaving all other words and concepts intact).
I usually ignore typos and mangled phrases, but since I have seen this one repeated in multiple posts, the correct spelling is "...we are all AWARE..."
Thanks for the info heela, however what you said here actually backs up my scenario that they changed it because they were being lumped in with YEC simply because they used the words creation.
You still seem to be trying to wriggle, but it's for Harry to answer your reply to his post, so why you are dragging me into it is either lack of comprehension, poor thinking -skills or dishonesty. Which is it?
You must be getting senile in your old age trans, I did not drag you into anything. I was speaking with Harry and YOU butted into the conversation, got schooled, and are now trying to wiggle out by trying to push it back on Harry to answer then showed your dishonesty by trying to say I am the one who lacks comprehension, poor think skills.
Quote:
Congratulations You are now on the list of Theists who have got into bet with the worst atheist on the board. Yes, atheist, Pneuma, but a politically -motivated anti -atheist and basher, so you, like a few other Christians have got into the sack with him for for atheist bashing.
What do I care if he is an atheist or not trans? I am not the one with the hang up, I don't care if one is an atheist or a Christian but it is obvious that you do have that hang up.
Quote:
Like I say, congratulations. In fact your last post was as much a word -salad as anything he's produced. You have nothing left and so it's blind flailing about as well as desperation for support, even from atheists.
Not at all unknown for theists run out of arguments
That you cannot understand what I say or arach say could be because of your low comprehension skills. I don't know whether they have classes for that or not trans but it is something you really should look into.
we are literally stuck between militants and fundamentalist. It is totally black and white for many people here.
Atheist have no problem with believing "something more". all the science is pointing to it and every new discovery points more to it.
when people are "advocating" for a statement of belief about god they can't be totally honest because the answer is in between anti-god and deity.
"alive" fits between the too. Some, a lot actually, atheist just don't want to talk about it because crazy theist take it too far.
Well arach I cant speak for all atheist on the something more ( which I agree more and more science is pointing to) but most of the atheists I have met on this forum obviously do have a problem with the something more. I would like to think they are not all militant fundamentalist but I could be wrong on that account. Heck some of them cant even understand what your talking about, yet it is plain as day to me, go figure.
Heela I was hoping to see the actual draft all I see here is the authors who speak out against the book saying in early drafts it says this and in later drafts it says that. How the heck do they know? how did they get their hands on these early drafts? for all we know they are just making this all up.
People publish later editions and you can compare them with the earlier ones. The history is documented on the Wikipedia page, with some damning references from the creationist side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
However lets suppose for argument sake what they said is true. The spin that they put on it is pure anti creationist bias. How do they know why the authors changed it? was it like Harry indicates some kind of subterfuge? Or could it have been for other reasons?
Why they changed it is irrelevant, the fact that all they did was to change a few terms (for example, "creationism" to "Intelligent Design") means it is just creationism rebranded as ID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
There a 3 main schools of creationism.
intelligent design
Theistic evolution
Young earth creationist.
You are arguing ID is not creationism by claiming it is one school of creationism?
Why do you continue to derail a thread to refute your position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
They equate ID with YEC
I have never seen this, and I have never said this.
People publish later editions and you can compare them with the earlier ones. The history is documented on the Wikipedia page, with some damning references from the creationist side.
Why they changed it is irrelevant, the fact that all they did was to change a few terms (for example, "creationism" to "Intelligent Design") means it is just creationism rebranded as ID.
You are arguing ID is not creationism by claiming it is one school of creationism?
Why do you continue to derail a thread to refute your position?
I have never seen this, and I have never said this.
Hi Harry i am not making an argument that they do not believe in creation because thats a given with an intelligence being behind it all. I am only pointing out they should not be lumped in with yec or theistic evolution because unlike those two they do not state who or what the intelligence us
Hi Harry i am not making an argument that they do not believe in creation because thats a given with an intelligence being behind it all. I am only pointing out they should not be lumped in with yec or theistic evolution because unlike those two they do not state who or what the intelligence us
also pneuma, there are a ton of creation stories. list them and come up with an order. ID may incompass a few of them. To tell ya truth I don't even look at ID for the reasons you stated. I always ask "what ID?"
so lets list this ID ... I limit it to earth because the universe is unknown.
what started the Earth and indeed created man?
deity
living universe
non living universe
chance (as non trained people use the word, not how its use by trained people"
nothing
anti-god
what one makes the most sense? in terms of types of ID?
Well arach I cant speak for all atheist on the something more ( which I agree more and more science is pointing to) but most of the atheists I have met on this forum obviously do have a problem with the something more. I would like to think they are not all militant fundamentalist but I could be wrong on that account. Heck some of them cant even understand what your talking about, yet it is plain as day to me, go figure.
YES ... THIS FORUM. Its not most atheist. heck, Buddhist are atheist. Most people clearly see something more, what ever that is, as far more reliable and science based than anti-god or deny everything.
They can't keep "what is this something more" separated from "we hate religion". And there are well meaning atheist that just sit on the side lines because, for whatever reason, don't what to deal with everything being turned into "see thats god ... I told you."
This site avoids talking about others things than a deity because these people are at war with religion.
for example:
All I say is that the biosphere matches life more than non life and I am assaulted if I don't say "ok, we know there is something more but we have to fight religion so lets not talk about that."
And make so mistake they attack when I say "lets put your claim next to mine." phet and trans ran away from it because they are for team unity. I am restricted to talking to the other person because he ran to admins to get me silenced. then blamed me when I don't bye into "don't talk about that because theist can use it.
you guys, I mean the regular middle of the roaders just doing their best, need to not leave us hanging in the wind against these anti-religion in the unites states guys. look at the news, they are winning because we have to go to work.,
woo wow ... talked about caffeine fueled rant ... lmao.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 09-10-2020 at 07:01 AM..
YES ... THIS FORUM. Its not most atheist. heck, Buddhist are atheist. Most people clearly see something more, what ever that is, as far more reliable and science based than anti-god or deny everything.
They can't keep "what is this something more" separated from "we hate religion". And there are well meaning atheist that just sit on the side lines because, for whatever reason, don't what to deal with everything being turned into "see thats god ... I told you."
This site avoids talking about others things than a deity because these people are at war with religion.
for example:
All I say is that the biosphere matches life more than non life and I am assaulted if I don't say "ok, we know there is something more but we have to fight religion so lets not talk about that."
And make so mistake they attack when I say "lets put your claim next to mine." phet and trans ran away from it because they are for team unity. I am restricted to talking to the other person because he ran to admins to get me silenced. then blamed me when I don't bye into "don't talk about that because theist can use it.
you guys, I mean the regular middle of the roaders just doing their best, need to not leave us hanging in the wind against these anti-religion in the unites states guys. look at the news, they are winning because we have to go to work.,
woo wow ... talked about caffeine fueled rant ... lmao.
There is no middle ground allowed here, Arach. You must prove there is something more after death using evidence that has not already been assigned to "No God" or "nothing more."
I am restricted to talking to the other person because he ran to admins to get me silenced. then blamed me when I don't bye into "don't talk about that because theist can use it.
You can not know if I ran to any admins or not (I did not), so clearly you are once again inventing 'facts'. The truth is I kept refuting your claims that the biosphere had babies (a trait of life), or that you could visit other planets without a space suit (I can post the link if you wish), and the admins were annoyed because the R&S forum is not the correct place to discuss this (and for some reason you refuse to take your 'scnce' claims to the science forum).
Now can we return to the topic of the OP?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are now on the list of Theists who have got into bet with the worst atheist on the board. Yes, atheist, Pneuma, but a politically -motivated anti -atheist and basher, so you, like a few other Christians have got into the sack with him for for atheist bashing.
congratulations. In fact your last post was as much a word -salad as anything he's produced. You have nothing left and so it's blind flailing about as well as desperation for support, even from atheists.
There is no middle ground allowed here, Arach. You must prove there is something more after death using evidence that has not already been assigned to "No God" or "nothing more."
nce' claims to the science forum).
