RE: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS

It was "intelligent design" that created the transitional form "CDESIGN
PROPONETSISTS", and further intelligent design that later corrected it to
"design proponents". The question has been asked, why can't Intelligent
Design take in a method of gradual change employed by the Creator?
 
Of course, this was evidence of fallible human efforts, rather than a
perfect Deity engaging in the transitional forms. But here's a question:
Does God always do everything perfect the first time? What about His
efforts to bring an individual to salvation -- doesn't that involve a
gradual process, interrupted by certain "catastrophic" events in many cases?
What about His efforts to sanctify and purify the Body of Christ as a whole
(cf. Eph 5:26-27)? In a sense He did a perfect work in the sacrifice of
Christ to effect the end result, but the working out of that perfection has
been a long process, with more setbacks than advances, I dare say. If God
can only be attributed with "creating" things perfectly, in final form (e.g.
species), in order to be properly looked on as a Creator, is even this basic
theological assumption flawed as a general principle?
 
Jon Tandy
 <http://www.arcom.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:21 AM
To: 'Jack'; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS

Not to mention that if this copying error did make it to bumper stickers and
further into the media and press, we would have a perfect analog of the
evidence for common descent. Imagine trying to explain the design value of
that.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:06 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS

I do not know if this is old news or not, but did anyone see Nova last
night? It was a short documentary about the Dover trial.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

It is worth watching if and when they broadcast it again.

One of the more illuminating and ironic segments regarded the different
drafts of Pandas and People. The lawyers for the plaintiff were trying to
prove that ID was just a repackaging of what had previously been called
creationism. One of the pieces of evidence was text from comparing pre and
post Edwards editions of Pandas and People. After the Edwards decision the
editors wanted to take "creationism" out of the book. One of the witnesses
for the plaintiff found a couple of example where creationism/creator was
changed to ID/design, with otherise identical wording. But the most
humorous and ironic example was an attempt to remove the word creationist
with the words design proponents. But something went wrong in the editing,
and the actual wording in the post-Edwards draft was cdesign proponentsists.
So, unkowingly, they created a "transitional form", and clear evidence that
the authors of Pandas equate ID with creationism.

I had never heard that little detail before, and thought it was worth
mentioning here.

I think CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS would make a great bumper sticker.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 14 08:48:05 2007