Re: [asa] Brownback on evolution

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
deception.
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?

Thank you,
David Clounch

On 6/4/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> 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 available.
> Dave
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:11:19 -0500 "David Clounch" <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> <snip>
> "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 information."
>
> 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 book).
>
> <snip>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 6 18:46:29 2007