Why didn't they tell us?

Posted 30 September 2005 by Nick Matzke

Due to the Kitzmiller case, it is now becoming widely known that the modern "intelligent design" movement originated as nothing more than a new label for 1980's creationism. The intermediate form was Of Pandas and People, which was originally written as an explicitly creationist book, but when published in 1989, became the first book to systematically use the term "intelligent design." This was first reported in the local York press in July, and more details were reported on the Thumb just before the trial began. The fact was also highlighted in the plaintiffs' opening statement on Monday, September 26. It is expected that all of the scandalous details will come out when plaintiffs' expert Barbara Forrest testifies on Wednesday, October 5. This fact appears to be driving the folks at the Discovery Institute crazy, if recent postings are any guide. (See: 1. Revisionist history pretending that the Pandas drafts don't exist, 2. A desperate attempt to denigrate Barbara Forrest's expert report, 3. Bizarre, juvenile parodies of imaginary issues.) In the meantime, it is worth considering the implications. The intelligent design movement has sworn up-and-down that they are not creationists. They have given this spin to every member of the press who has ever called them. Googling the DI website on the phrase "not creationism" gives 28 hits. However, the fact that Pandas was originally a creationist book means that core figures of the ID movement -- many of whom contributed to, or reviewed, drafts of Pandas -- must have been deliberately hiding this skeleton in their closet, for over 15 years. This is a scandal of the first order. What have they got to say for themselves? On Thursday, a few details came out in the Wall Street Journal. (This article has not yet made it online, but it is available via ProQuest.) Jon Buell, one of the designers of Pandas, was interviewed. Check out what he had to say for himself:

Drafts of the book's first edition contained this passage in an introductory chapter: "Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands. Gaps exist . . . not because vast numbers of transitional forms mysteriously failed to fossilize but because they never existed." According to the same chapter in the 1993 "Pandas" edition, "there is still no positive fossil evidence for evolutionary descent . . . Many scientists conclude that there never was a progression from one cluster to another -- that each really did originate independently. This idea accords with the theory of intelligent design. Design theories suggest that various forms of life began with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands . . . Might not gaps exist . . . not because large numbers of transitional forms mysteriously failed to fossilize, but because they never existed?" Jon A. Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, says that despite the draft terminology, "Pandas" is not advocating creationism -- "even though it was written by three people who were creationists." The term "creationism" was "a placeholder term," in the draft, says Mr. Buell, 65 years old, who has devoted much of his life to working for conservative Christian groups. "They had to put something in there until the terminology could be worked out . . . It does raise the suspicion. I acknowledge that."

Are we really supposed to take this seriously? How about this?

"The concept of creationism -- a divine being -- is universal in human history," said Nancy Pearcey, author of the overview and a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank that is intelligent design's leading proponent. But she says the textbook "is not creationist . . . It doesn't start with any holy text. Instead it starts with scientific data and says 'what does that mean?'"

Nancy Pearcey, now a DI Senior Fellow, is the author of the Overview chapter of Pandas. In 2005, in the above Wall Street Journal passage, she follows the ID movement's party line, that ID is not creationism. However, back in 1989, she was rather less clear on the distinction. As an editor for the young-earth creationist Bible-Science Newsletter, Pearcey more-or-less republished the entire Overview chapter in three 1989 issues of the Bible-Science Newsletter. The articles are: Pearcey, Nancy (1989). "Of Fins and Fingers: Patterns in Living Things." Bible-Science Newsletter, 27(5), pp. 6-9. May 1989. Pearcey, Nancy (1989). "What Species of Species? -- or, Darwin and the Origin of What?" Bible-Science Newsletter, 27(6), pp. 7-9. June 1989. Pearcey, Nancy (1989). "Echo of Evolution? The Revolution in Molecular Biology." Bible-Science Newsletter, 27(12), pp. 7-10. December 1989. In the first two articles, there are large exact matches to Pandas text -- basically Pearcey took chunks of the Pandas Overview chapter and put them in as articles in the Bible-Science Newsletter. The third article came out in December 1989, which was after Pandas was published. Pearcey references Pandas as a citation (not as a source for the text), and in this case the text is basically the same as Pandas, but with minor revisions (words flipped around, changes in phrasing, etc.) For example, consider these two parallel passages. First, from the 1993 Of Pandas and People:

The Products of Design If the sheer fact that living things can be classified leads inevitably to a Darwinian conclusion, it is surprising that for over two millennia classification didn't have that effect. Classification went on quite successfully before the appearance of Charles Darwin in the 19th Century without employing the concept of family relationships. Instead, structures held in common by large groups of organisms were interpreted as the outworking and adaptation of an original plan. Many things can be classified that are not derived from a common ancestor -things like cars and paintings and carpenter's tools; in short, human artifacts. What makes all Fords look similar, or all Rembrandts, or all screwdrivers, is that they are derived from a common design or pattern in the mind of the person making them. In our own experience we know that when people design things -- such as car engines -- they begin with one basic concept and adapt it to different ends. As much as possible, designers seek to piggyback on existing patterns and concepts instead of starting from scratch. Our experience of how human minds work provides an indication of how a primeval intellect might have worked. (Of Pandas and People, 1993, pp. 32-33)

Second, consider the parallel section from the May 1989 issue of the Bible-Science Newsletter:

Ideas in the Mind of God If the sheer fact that living things are classifiable leads inevitably to an evolutionary conclusion, it is surprising that over several millenia no one drew such a conclusion. Classification went on quite successfully before the appearance of Charles Darwin in the 18th century [sic!] without employing the concept of family relationships. Instead, the organic world was seen as the handiwork of a personal Being. Structures held in common by large groups of organisms were interpreted as the outworking and adaptation of an original Idea or Archetype. Consider: many things can be classified on a hierarchical basis that are not derived from a common ancestor -- things like cars and paintings and carpenter's tools. In short, human artifacts. What makes all Fords look similar, or all Rembrandts, or all screwdrivers, is that they are derived from a common design or pattern in the mind of the person making them. Critics argue that if intelligent design created life, each major form should be completely different from all the others -- the assumption being that the creative agent began from scratch in making each new design. But that assumption is unwarranted. By experience we know that when people create things -- whether car engines or computers -- they begin with one basic design and adapt it to different ends. As much as possible, designers try to piggyback on existing designs instead of starting from scratch. Our experience of how human minds work provides an analogy to how a primeval, creator mind probably worked. (p. 8 of: Pearcey, Nancy (1989). "Of Fins and Fingers: Patterns in Living Things." Bible-Science Newsletter, 27(5), pp. 6-9. May 1989.)

I doubt many theologians would have much sympathy for the piggyback view of God, but it sure applies -- in spades -- to creationism and intelligent design.

35 Comments

natural cynic · 1 October 2005

There it is, descent with modification.

Norman Doering · 1 October 2005

Nick Matzke wrote: "Due to the Kitzmiller case, it is now becoming widely known that the modern 'intelligent design' movement originated as nothing more than a new label for 1980's creationism."

I hope that comes out "widely." I've learned a lot of things only because of this website that few people around me know. Just because you have the evidence doesn't mean you can get the word out.

For example, how many people know that Rev. Sun Myung Moon (of the moonies cult fame) owns the Washington Times and is knee-deep in faith-based funds from your taxes?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/03/MNG4M936HP1.DTL

Or another example, how many people know that your whole world is nothing but an evolutionary simulation I'm running on my computer?

NelC · 1 October 2005

Critics argue that if intelligent design created life, each major form should be completely different from all the others --- the assumption being that the creative agent began from scratch in making each new design. But that assumption is unwarranted. By experience we know that when people create things --- whether car engines or computers --- they begin with one basic design and adapt it to different ends. As much as possible, designers try to piggyback on existing designs instead of starting from scratch.

Critics also argue that real-world designers will steal from anywhere. Whenever something novel turns up in the graphic design world, for example, it is rapidly redeployed across the board to anything that could conceivably bear it: newspaper design, junk mail, TV commercials, carrier bags, etc. If the primeval Intelligent Designer was anything like a modern human designer, the similarities would be bodged together across species and even family lines. So we'd expect to see things like birds with mammary glands, mammals with chromatophores, furry slugs with human eyes, and all sorts of chimerae. Instead, we see that the patterns of similarity -- from the gross physical forms to the subtle biochemical details -- strongly follow patterns of heredity. The only reason an Intelligent Designer would have to make his patterns of design resemble heredity would be if they were in fact heredity. Either that or he has the sense of humour of a eight-year-old burning ants with a magnifying-glass.

Michael Hopkins · 1 October 2005

Look at the latest from the DI's blog. They post a cartoon about the controversy. The cartoon, of course, misses the point. It would have been more accurate to have made the the two "intelligent design" statements come from the exact same room. The second room in that cartoon has what was said until the Dover people realized just how bad a legal spot it put them and then they tried to deny ever saying it.

Ed Darrell · 1 October 2005

Witt has a point -- when it comes to wackiness and craziness for the news, the more action and table-pounding, the better the film.

It's not that the tiny handful of scientists who support ID are any less crazy -- it's that they are infinitely more dull than the average table pounder.

Jonathan Witt, Ph.D. in creative writing, fails to note that the statements from the Baptist preacher and Behe look exactly the same in the newspaper, stripped of video. So what difference does it make which advocate of intelligent design is interviewed for the newspapers? None.

On a massive construction project I had the honor to be in the bowels of once, the lead engineer for the clients putting up the money had a cartoon on his door of a guy tearing his hair out. The caption was, "Oh, s---! You did it exactly the way I told you to do it!"

For a decade and a half DI has been trying to convince school boards to censor biology and insert intelligent design. Dover's school board did it. And now, faced with the predictable legal results of their anti-science, research-deficient political agenda, they realize their error. The Dover school board did exactly what DI asked them to.

George Washington urged us to be careful as to who we make our enemies, and to be even more careful in picking our friends. That's history, though, and I doubt that many creationists have bothered to read it.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 1 October 2005

Or another example, how many people know that your whole world is nothing but an evolutionary simulation I'm running on my computer?

I knew that.

shiva · 1 October 2005

Pandas and People Many things can be classified that are not derived from a common ancestor -things like cars and paintings and carpenter's tools; in short, human artifacts. What makes all Fords look similar, or all Rembrandts, or all screwdrivers, is that they are derived from a common design or pattern... In our own experience we know that when people design things...

Imagine how dumb and silly IDC is. This is the same argument Wells and the pride of Ohio, Bob Lattimer, make. And they want this stuff to be taught in schools? Alfred E. Neuman suggests that if we don't like MAD we can use the paper to wrap fish. I wouldn't like to use a WAD of PP even for that.

Roadtripper · 1 October 2005

Or another example, how many people know that your whole world is nothing but an evolutionary simulation I'm running on my computer?

Let me guess: the answer is forty-two?

Walter Brameld IV · 1 October 2005

Look at the latest from the DI's blog. They post a cartoon about the controversy.

From the cartoon:

Darwinist theory seems to begin by making a prior commitment to materialism rather than following the facts wherever they lead.

Funny how they seem to think that following the facts and staying within the realm of natural explanations are mutually exclusive activities. It would seem the IDers begin by making a prior commitment to supernaturalism. You don't suppose they have a religious agenda, do you?

steve · 1 October 2005

Nick, kudos for the devastating set of juxtaposed quotes between the Bible-Science Newsletter, and Of Pandas and People.

Dover is like an early christmas present this year.

Red Right Hand · 1 October 2005

Tom Tomorrow had a great cartoon last month blasting Fox News, with a good dig at Intelligent Design.

mark duigon · 1 October 2005

If we look at Fords or Chevys, we see things designed the way people want to buy them. If we look at nanny goats, shoats, or stoats, are we seeing things designed the way people want to buy them? Pearcey places too much reliance on human design as a model for recognizing alleged design in nature. How many things are designed to be cheap and maximize profits? Does the bacterial flagellum maximize someone's profits? Can the Designer buy out Evinrude and bring more economy to the production of tiny outboard motors?

rossum · 1 October 2005

If the primeval Intelligent Designer was anything like a modern human designer, the similarities would be bodged together across species and even family lines.
— NelC

Exactly so. Many animals designed by humans are pick-n-mix agglomerations. Examples: - a Pegasus is a horse with a bird's wings, - a Dragon is a large lizard with Bat's wings, - a Unicorn is a horse with cloven hooves and a single horn. All of these animals are of course imaginary, but they do give an insight into how humans design animals. rossum

Norman Doering · 1 October 2005

Roadtripper wrote: "Let me guess: the answer is forty-two?"

That's right!

Well, time to end this simulation, so, buy everybody... and let me just say, it's been real.

Nick (Matzke) · 1 October 2005

FYI, the May 1989 article contains drawings of:

1. A whale with a shrew's head (p. 6)

2. A bat with a pig's head (p. 7).

This kind of imagery seems to be common in the Bible-Science Newsletter, and I think represents what creationists think we should see if evolution were true.

Michael Hopkins · 1 October 2005

I got some questions. The Pearcey articles clearly help document that "Intelligent Design" is relabeled "creationism." There is something that might document it even more and give evidence to the actual intent of Pearcey (or at least what it was). In Bible-Science Newsletter, did she ever discuss
Edwards v. Aguillard or even the similiar McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed.? If she endorsed the forced teaching of young-earth creationism before Edwards made that position unviable, it could be considered evidence that the reason for the current possition is an attempt to sneak creationism past the court. Heck, looking at the web I see she started ath B-SN back in 1977. Were they still whining about Epperson v. Arkansas back then?

While we are at it do we know where any of the other ID people stood on these issues pre-Edwards?

I can say that Dean Kenyon supported the creationism law when Edwards was still in litigation.

I realize that Nick might be busy with his duties at the Dover trial, so if anyone has access to B-SN... I could check the CRSQ but I don't think many of the ID people wrote of it. Of course it might to good to document them being a bit two-faced about Epperson.

Nick (Matzke) · 1 October 2005

Heck, Pandas references Edwards v. Aguillard. It's practically the first item, and the last item, mentioned in the book. Since exhibits for the Kitzmiller case were set before the trial started, I can talk about other stuff. While working on the case, I dug through all of NCSE's issues of the Bible-Science Newsletter, approximately 1982-1994 (I think it ended then). There is a lot of proto-ID material -- Pearcey interviews Thaxton, Kenyon, Bradley, Johnson, etc., as well as with the classic figures of "creation science" such as Morris, Geisler, Gentry, etc. In the early 1990's, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, and William Dembski contributed articles. There is indeed also a lot of discussion of the McLean and Edwards cases. At some point it would be nice to develop a bibliography of all of the BSN articles for posterity. Looking just now, here is the first article I found after Edwards came out: Bartz, Paul A. (1987). "Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Law; But Offers a Valuable Gift to Creationists." Bible-Science Newsletter. 25(8), pp. 1, 13. August 1987. And look at the silver-lining the creationists found...it may be familiar:

[p. 1] But Offers a Valuable Gift to Creationists Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Law Washington D.C - On June 19, 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment" of origins law was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it had an unconstitutional legislative purpose which favored religious belief. In a strongly-worded dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia and concurred in by Chief Justice Rehnquist, this determination of purpose, based on presumed intent is questioned. The secular media was quick to proclaim a victory for secular humanists. But it was not widely reported that the ruling specifically states that "[T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might validly be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." Further the Court indicated that it assumed that teachers have a flexibility to present a number of theories on origins. Likewise rejecting the arguments for academic freedom, the Court ruled that religion was therefore the motivation and therefore the purpose of the law. [...] [p. 13] [...] The Court's Gift to Creationists In (perhaps) naively assuming that there is true freedom in the academic community to teach valid scientific information which contradicts evolution or even supports creation, the Court has produced some statements which should make school administrators take a second thought. In stating that a valid secular purpose exists in presenting scientific evidences for creation, educators have been placed on notice that the law may not support censorship of information on creation nor the discipline of educators who try to offer alternative ideas to their students. On this point the Court's position is in stark contrast to the position taken by the National Academy of Sciences in its work Science and Creationism; A View from the National Academy of Sciences. This work was sent to all public school teachers and was often used as justification for repression of creationism and creationists. Now creationists have a more authoritative statement with which to fight doctrinaire censorship and repression. [Bartz, Paul A. (1987). "Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Law; But Offers a Valuable Gift to Creationists." Bible-Science Newsletter. 25(8), pp. 1, 13. August 1987. Underline added, other emphases added.]

If you google on the phrase "clear secular intent" you get hundreds of hits discussing the Edwards decision, mostly creationists and ID creationists...doing it on the DI website alone gets 20 hits.

Joel Sax · 2 October 2005

Wasn't Intelligent Design a term out of 19th century pre-Darwinism?

Nick (Matzke) · 2 October 2005

The term "Design", with a capital "D", is venerable and goes back to Paley's Natural Theology and before. Rarely the word "intelligent" seems to have been added as one of many possible descriptors, e.g. "intelligent Design." I even think I saw this in a Darwin letter.

The William Safire "Neo-creo" article in the New York Times identifies one or two uses of the phrase "intelligent design" going back to the mid-1800's, but I haven't seen the original sources to know if this was another instance of an accidental use.

From what I've read, repeated use of the phrase "intelligent design" seems to have only begun occuring in the "creation-science" literature, as one of many terms for supernatural creation, and after the Edwards decision came down in 1987, this became the primary term when Pandas was published in 1989.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2005

If you google on the phrase "clear secular intent" you get hundreds of hits discussing the Edwards decision, mostly creationists and ID creationists...doing it on the DI website alone gets 20 hits.

How many do you get by Googling "that purpose must be sincere and not a sham". Not many on creationist or DI websites, I'd wager.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2005

The secular media was quick to proclaim a victory for secular humanists. But it was not widely reported that the ruling specifically states that "[T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might validly be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

They, uh, should have kept on reading.

While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that DI's blithering about their "secular purpose" is, in the very words of the Supreme Court, "a sham". DI is flat-out lying to us, and no one (not even their own supporters) believes them.

Norman Doering · 2 October 2005

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank asked: "How many do you get by Googling "that purpose must be sincere and not a sham"."

Just this one:
http://law.gilboord.com/Papers/ALS/ULP.html

That's not good.

Norman Doering · 2 October 2005

Okay, tell me if I'm getting this right, the ID people want to hide the fact that the 'intelligent design' movement is only a new label for 1980's creationism because of the Lemon test and the establishment clause of the First Amendment, right?

That should be the case right there.

But, could this thing wind up going to the supteme court, the new one stacked with 2 new Bush judges?

Michael I · 2 October 2005

On THIS specific issue, the new Bush judges on the Supreme Court won't really matter unless Bush gets a third appointment before it gets there. There used to be three pro-Creationist judges on the court and Roberts simply replaces one of them. The second Bush appointment would only raise the number to four.

That's assuming Roberts (and the unknown second appointee) are pro-Creationist. Not a safe assumption. Bush comes from the corporate wing of the GOP and the corporate wing isn't particularly eager to pay the theocrats anything more than lip service.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2005

Okay, tell me if I'm getting this right, the ID people want to hide the fact that the 'intelligent design' movement is only a new label for 1980's creationism because of the Lemon test and the establishment clause of the First Amendment, right? That should be the case right there.

That *is* the case right there. The Iders haven't a prayer of winning. Pardon the pun.

But, could this thing wind up going to the supteme court, the new one stacked with 2 new Bush judges?

I think everyone overestimates the chances that Bush-appointed judges will overturn Aguillard and allow creationism in classrooms. First, the Supreme Court has rejected religious arguments against evolution twice already, and has refused to hear several other cases in which they could have overturned the decisions. Second, Supreme Court justices are appointed from the ranks of Federal courts, and creationists have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. And third, the Republicrat Party has shown no indication that it is actully willing to implement any of the fundie agenda -- it is quite happy to take the fundie votes, take the fundie money, and give them diddley doo in return. The fundie agenda has zero popular support. Implementing it would be political suicide for the Republicrats. So I don't think a new Supreme Court will vote to overturn Aguillard.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2005

So I don't think a new Supreme Court will vote to overturn Aguillard.

It should be noted that the Dover judge himself is a Bush appointee, and he shows zero inclination to make nice-nice with the fundies.

shiva · 2 October 2005

The Court's Gift to Creationists In (perhaps) naively assuming that there is true freedom in the academic community to teach valid scientific information which contradicts evolution or even suppor...

Replace [creationism/ist] with [ID/ID theorists] and you get a document from a certain 'scientific" organisation on the West Coast. Interesting ain't it?

Michael Hopkins · 2 October 2005

The secular media was quick to proclaim a victory for secular humanists.
— Bible-Science Newsletter

Notice the false division of the controversy between the "secular humanists" and ~~creationists~~ IDists. The bit that Nick quoted in response to what asked further documents the relabeling. Now we have: Supreme Court strikes down teaching of creationism, creationists notice a possible "loop hole", so they change the Pandas draft from "creation" to "intelligent design" and start a "new" movement. Some pre-Edwards writings could make this even more complete: Creationists want to teach creationism, they get laws passed, Supreme Court strikes down teaching of creationism, creationists notice a possible "loop hole", so they change the Pandas draft from "creation" to "intelligent design" and start a "new" movement. I belive that creationists, as a general rule, did not oppose the laws outlawing the teaching of evolution until courts made it established reality.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 2 October 2005

Joel Sax questions: Wasn't Intelligent Design a term out of 19th century pre-Darwinism?

In William Paley's Natural Theology, ID as a single phrase is not mentioned but the following terms appear: intelligent and designing Creator intelligent author intelligent beings intelligent appointment intelligent Power intelligent agent intelligent will You may ascribe definitions to each intelligence. The following examples of text appear:

His omniscience also, as far as respects things present, is deducible from his nature, as an intelligent being, joined with the extent, or rather the universality, of his operations. Pg 444. (italics mine)

"It is a step to have it proved, that there must be something in the world more than what we see. It is a further step to know, that, amongst the invisible things of nature, there must be an intelligent mind, concerned in its production, order, and support. These points being assured to us by Natural Theology, we may well leave to Revelation the disclosure of many particulars, which our researches cannot reach, respecting either the nature of this Being as the original cause of all things, or his character and designs as a moral governor; and not only so, but the more full confirmation of other particulars, of which, though they do not lie altogether beyond our reasonings and our probabilities, the certainty is by no means equal to the importance." Pg 542.

Sounds like ID in a nut shell. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Michael Hopkins · 2 October 2005

It should be noted that the Dover judge himself is a Bush appointee, and he shows zero inclination to make nice-nice with the fundies.
— Lenny Flank

Yes not all conservatives are fundamentalists. But don't over read the current situation. 1) District judges nominees don't get the scrutiny from either the president or the senate that a higher court judge would. In other words don't be surprised to see a few O'Connors in district court nominees. 2) A good judge should not "make nice-nice" with anyone. Judges can and do subject a side with harsh questioning and/or treatment before ruling in their favor. And most judges regardless of their ideological convictions really are sincere in doing their jobs. 3) It is my impression that the defense lawyers have been a bit inept so far. 4) The defense has not put on its case yet. Until this happens it might be a bit too early to judge the judge. But all things considered, I do expect a victory at the District Court. But lets go on. 5) Most importantly of all: A district court judge regardless of what they would like to do are required to obey the rules set by a Supreme Court rulings which Bush nominees have not in any way changed. Only one person has been replaced and he has yet to hear a case yet. After O'Connor is replaced, the court will have a significant shift. And it likely that Bush will have more replacements: those justices are old. This should be more than enough to rewrite the rules. Many who want less church/state separation are putting a big target on Lemon. Some modification of Lemon seems fairly likely. Thus by the time this reaches the Supreme Court some years from now, the case law might not be nearly as friendly for our side and the justices are likely to more sympathetic to creationism than they are now. (Actually that is one reason why it is nice to have actual trials since establishing facts helps our case.) In the end our side must do far better than it has done politically and in public perception. 1) We must be prepared to continue the fight on the ground no matter if we win or lose court rulings. 2) Until we start doing better we will have these problems no matter how strongly the courts rule in our favor. Real progress on almost anything really requires making progress in the court of public opinion. Why? While half the population is outright disbelieves in evolution, most not realizing the strength of evidence of evolution or its importance, and vast majority not accepting evolutionary biology we can expect continual resistance to science teaching we can expect school boards to try to slight evolution. We expect teachers to be afraid of parental reaction. And so on. However if we get a majority of Americans to be outright on our side, then we win even if every single court rules against us. Sure winning in court is important. It can help modify public discussion (just look at Edwards). It can also provide immediate relief to immediate problems. But long term, we must make progress outside of the courts. These rulings are a tool. I fear that some in the past have gotten the idea that once we won (as was the case for Edwards) the battle was over and one only needed to flash that decision. So even if we win all the ID cases, our side must continue to press the creationists and must continue to work on public outright and education. That means the scientific community must stay engaged. I really don't most of them stayed engaged after Edwards. Hopefully this time it will be different. The various museums starting on evolution education projects is certainly a good sign. If other scientific groups get involved and stay involved we can win. But if the scientific establishment thinks that they rest on any court ruling and let the NCSE handle any mopping up alone then they will eventually be sorely disappointed as the creationists repackage their nonsense yet again for another round, continue grass roots pressure on boards and teachers, and provide "Christian" alternatives like the creationist museums sprouting across the nation. This is not a criticism of the NCSE by the way. They are doing a great job. But regardless of how good a job they do, their ultimate effectiveness depends on the support of scientists, educators, and individual citizens. This is true for any group.

hessal · 2 October 2005

I agree that winning in court really won't help anything in the long run, it will just be cited as another example of the liberal bias of the activist judicial system, bent on tearing down the Christian foundation blah blah blah, and installing the communistic atheistic yada yada yada...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2005

Sure winning in court is important. It can help modify public discussion (just look at Edwards). It can also provide immediate relief to immediate problems. But long term, we must make progress outside of the courts.

I quite agree. But alas, we will not make any "prograss" outside of the courts until we have a real education system in the US, and, colelctively, we demonstrate time and time and time again that we simply dont' want one. As a result, we are largely a nation of uneducated idiots, many of whom can't even find their own country on a world map. The world will pass us by, once it is able to disarm us so we stop invading small countries with which we disagree.

the pro from dover · 2 October 2005

Intelligent human designers do not design and manufacture their products with useless and dangerous additions that can only serve to destroy their creations. The human appendix is just such an addition the intelligent designer must have added for no reason other than cruelty. On top of that what good is it to intelligently design anything if you lack the power to make physically manifest your design. Since design is only an idea it may not leave a "paper trail" but if that design was put into effect demonstrable evidence of this would be plentiful. If I was walking along the path and my foot should strike a watch I could pick it up and find out who designed it who manufactured it where and when it was made where the raw materials came from who mined the metals and diamonds and on and on and on. This would qualify as a "no brainer." This evidence should be easily found by routine scientific investigation.

Ed Darrell · 3 October 2005

Error upon error.

The secular media was quick to proclaim a victory for secular humanists.

I cannot find a single article contemporary with the decision that makes anything close to such a claim. Most news outlets ignored the decision. Those that did not ignore it gave it very little coverage. The persecution complex demands that anti-science types claim persecution from everywhere, all the time, even when they have to make it up.

Betsy Markum · 20 January 2006

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $51438. Isn't that crazy!