ID is a Relabeling of Creationist Attacks on Science Education
Intelligent design is an attempt to wedge claims about the action of a supernatural designer into science, and most troublingly, into science classrooms. The history of ID shows that it is merely a relabeling of older forms of creationism, and its promoters stretch the definition of science in attempting to force their religious beliefs into classrooms.
Science is a process for testing claims, not simply a collection of facts. As such, not all seemingly factual claims can be considered science. For a claim to be scientific, it must be possible to investigate using scientific methods. Claims about the supernatural are inherently untestable by those methods, leaving such supernatural claims outside the realm of science as a matter of practice.
Attempts to force supernatural claims into science have a long history of failure. While religious belief has certainly inspired many scientists, explanations of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have not proven to be scientifically fruitful. Nonetheless, creationists in the United States have a long history of insisting that their religious views on the origin of the world, of life, and of humanity must be taught in science classes. The ID movement adopts the same rhetoric and tactics as earlier creationists, while maintaining a strategic ambiguity about the supernatural details of their claims.
There are reasons for this ambiguity. For one thing, it enables the ID movement to portray ID as scientifically respectable to the public, while still reassuring its fundamentalist base that it’s intended to promote sectarian religious beliefs. For example, William Dembski, a Discovery Institute fellow and prominent promoter of ID, tells secular audiences that ID is a thoroughly scientific endeavor. Yet in a book published by a Christian publisher he wrote that ID is “just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”
ID’s strategic ambiguity is also intended to unite creationists who differ on issues such as the age of the earth, the span of time over which God created, and the extent to which living things share common ancestry. “Life in the ‘big tent’ of the intelligent design community,” Paul Nelson, another Discovery Institute fellow and promoter of ID, explains, “certainly requires a period of acclimation, but Christians – in particular, traditional creationists – should welcome their new ID surroundings.”
That ambiguity would be useless to a real scientific theory, which needs to make specific claims about the natural world. Unsurprisingly, then, Nelson acknowledges that ID does not meet the normal standards for a science. “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community,” he wrote, “is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem." Testifying on behalf of an ID policy in Dover, PA, sociologist of science Steve Fuller similarly admitted that ID is not yet science – proposing an "affirmative action" program to help it along.
Others seek to have ID treated as science by radically redefining “science” so that it appears to prove their theological views. In 2005, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings on science standards revisions which would have redefined science to allow teachers to present supernatural explanations in science classes. At public hearings in favor of that revision, witnesses spoke in favor of revisions as necessary for discussing ID in science classes. As a measure of their understanding of science, many of the witnesses for ID insisted that they did not know whether the earth was 10,000 years old or 4.55 billion.
There is no merit to the claim that we must redefine science in order to allow sectarian views into classrooms. Until and unless intelligent design produces research and new insights, it cannot be considered a valid science, let alone appropriate for a science curriculum. Voters in Pennsylvania and Kansas rejected these attempts to redefine science, and a federal judge ruled that ID’s religious content makes it unconstitutional in public school science classes.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I happened to drop by the Discovery's Institute's website, which claims to be interested in improving the accuracy in reporting, and read an interesting blurb titled "NCSE Promotes Shrill Editorial Suggesting "Students be Forced to Consider the Possibility that There Is No God". So I decided to check out the actual articles in question and much to my dismay I came to realize that this seemed to be a blatant quote out of context.
--
By the way, speaking of religion class, if we accept the creationist's own rationale for this bill, then shouldn't right wing fundamentalist Christian schools be forced to "teach the controversy" about religion?
...
You can see how quickly their argument breaks down.
---
http://www.asbmbtoday-digital.com/asbmbtoday/200808 /
Since we have some representatives of the Discovery Institute here, in fact I believe Casey Luskin was the author, yes indeed. So Casey, can you explain?
Your rhetoric may have gotten the best of you here.
Suggestion for Casey. You are no match for the NCSE and its hard working staff who have relentlessly expressed scientific objections to the claims made by ID proponents. People such as former Public Information Project Director Nick Matzke whose elaborations on the bacterial flagella and his incredibly in depth work during Kitzmiller v Dover have exposed not just the scientific flaws in Behe's and other ID proponents claims (including your own IIRC) but also helped to formulate a winning strategy to expose not just the scientific vacuity of ID but also its well established creationist roots. And that without any legal training.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Matzke
And Casey, you are surely no Karl. Consider that a compliment.
"So I decided to check out the actual articles in question and much to my dismay I came to realize that this seemed to be a blatant quote out of context."
If you came here to convince people that the quote really was out of context then I would highly suggest you give the proper context that shows otherwise.
"By the way, speaking of religion class, if we accept the creationist's own rationale for this bill, then shouldn't right wing fundamentalist Christian schools be forced to "teach the controversy" about religion?"
No, the reason being that the bill addresses controversies among scientists about science.
"You can see how quickly their argument breaks down."
Maybe I'm biased, maybe I'm just plain ignorant, but I sure can't see any fault in the rationale behind the academic freedom bills they've been promoting. They seem fine as written:
http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php
"You are no match for the NCSE and its hard working staff who have relentlessly expressed scientific objections to the claims made by ID proponents."
If that's truly the case, then the NCSE really needs to ramp things up if they are to sway public opinion.
"People such as former Public Information Project Director Nick Matzke whose elaborations on the bacterial flagella and his incredibly in depth work during Kitzmiller v Dover have exposed not just the scientific flaws in Behe's and other ID proponents claims (including your own IIRC)"
I would like more information on this process and his paper "Evolution in (Brownian) Space." None of it seemed to convincing to me because parts of the flagellum seem to just appear out of nowhere, automatically assemble in the right order, location, with the right compatibility, right function, and all at the proper time. While it may in fact be a possibility, I would want more then just animation of parts coming from nowhere and just falling into place for me to be convinced:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5322150578555602908&ei=eDLVSJaiEZW6qAPCuNjGAg&q=flagellum&vt=lf&hl=en
What mutations occurred for this to come into play? How many ways could the process have gone wrong?
"...but also helped to formulate a winning strategy to expose not just the scientific vacuity of ID but also its well established creationist roots."
After reading the points between the NCSE and the Discovery institute on that claim, I am still skeptical of this as well. I would like to know more about the "well established roots," as far as I know the best the NCSE has come up with are early book drafts taken out of context.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html
Jon Buell, the president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics testified in court, enjoy
--
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q Mr. Buell, do you recognize the document I've given you, which is the second exhibit today, a Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax for 2003 to be a document filed by the Foundation?
A Yes, I do.
Q Okay. And if you could turn to the last page of that exhibit. Are you on that page?
A I am.
Q And if you go about 60 percent down the page, there's an entry for Statement of Organization's Primary Exempt Purpose.
A Um-hum, um-hum.
Q And the explanation that the Foundation provides to the IRS is that its primary exempt purpose is promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective, isn't that right?
A That's what it says.
Q Okay. And Pandas is one of those publications, isn't it?
A No, Pandas doesn't fit this because this is not an accurate statement.
Q Okay. This --
A This statement was -- we had a new CP A do our 990 and audit we had never used before. He wasn't even from the state of Texas. He was not familiar with us. You know, I neither saw that statement, nobody gave him that information, and I didn't -- I certainly didn't approve it.
Q Okay. So -- and so this statement that's filed with the IRS so that the Foundation can be exempt from paying income tax is false; is that what you're saying?
A Well, I'm saying that I didn't see that statement.
Q And just if you could turn to the preceding page of the document, those are your initials on the page, aren't they, towards the bottom of the page?
A Yes.
--
You still have yet to provide any passages within Panda's which state that God is directly implicated; saying that the FTE is religious, therefore so is Pandas. If you can find passages in which god or the supernatural is directly implicated, I would change my mind. What you're presenting is a fallacy of division, assuming that what is true of the whole is thus true of the parts. The content of Pandas does not change if a religious organization is what published it.
--You still have yet to provide any passages within Panda's which state that God is directly implicated; saying that the FTE is religious, therefore so is Pandas. If you can find passages in which god or the supernatural is directly implicated, I would change my mind. What you're presenting is a fallacy of division, assuming that what is true of the whole is thus true of the parts. The content of Pandas does not change if a religious organization is what published it.--
Why should God be directly implicated when it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck... Of course, God has been removed slowly, in a gradual manner and similarly creationism has become design, without much of any changes to the underlying arguments and foundations.
The content of Pandas, published by a religious organization helps connecting the dots, via the Edwards ruling which caused a global search and replace of religious terminology. The motivations, the arguments are all standard creationist material. Hard for a court to ignore.
While God has been mostly removed from these books, how else to introduce them into public schools, the attempt to provide them with a scientific foundation has failed in Edwards and now in Dover v Kitzmiller. All because there exists a well established trail of evidence linking them all together. Combine this with a lack of scientific content of ID and the flawed scientific claims of its predecessor 'creationism' and one comes to understand why courts have ruled in such a devastating manner to these attempts to get religion restored in classes.
The content of panda is explained by its religious foudations. Of course you can move the goalposts and argue that 'God' was not mentioned in these books, we can all read between the lines. Heck, as a Christian and quite well versed in the creationist arguments I myself see these prints of 'designer wink wink' all over the book. Calling Him a designer rather than by His true name, should be an insult to any Christian but I guess, when everyone understands that this is just an alias, it somehow seems ok?
I must admit this would all go a lot smoother if there were no word count limits or rules about how many posts you could make at a given time. (rolls eyes)
"Combine this with a lack of scientific content of ID"
So where not just discussing the claim that ID is repackaged creationism anymore? I guess I understand...
"...and the flawed scientific claims of its predecessor 'creationism..."
But they weren't predecessors, you know that just as much as I do.
"and one comes to understand why courts have ruled in such a devastating manner to these attempts to get religion restored in classes."
What attempts to.....oh, your just talking about Edwards right?
"The content of panda is explained by its religious foudations."
Come on PvM, you talk very confidently of these religious foundations, care to elaborate?
"Of course you can move the goalposts and argue that 'God' was not mentioned in these books, we can all read between the lines."
I moved the what? I know it's common for you guys (Musgrave is someone who comes to mind) to accuse us of moving the goalposts when we point out any straw men you've used, but if you want to state the early drafts promoted a religious idea, then fail to provide the evidence to back this up, then insist the religious content is there, we just need to "read between the lines," and finally accuse me of moving the goalposts, that's fine. But I would like to see actually passages to back this up..... please. :)
"Heck, as a Christian and quite well versed in the creationist arguments I myself see these prints of 'designer wink wink' all over the book."
Well, as a deist (I'm going through my Antony Flew right now if you know what I mean) and not quite yet a full blown Christian maybe perhaps you would know more about this then I do. I guess they were really winking hard when they said that no one can infer if the designer is natural or supernatural...right?
"Calling Him a designer rather than by His true name, should be an insult to any Christian but I guess, when everyone understands that this is just an alias, it somehow seems ok?"
I take it your also a closet fan of Hugh Ross am I right? ;D
--I take it your also a closet fan of Hugh Ross am I right? ;D--
Not really, he tries hard but fails. At least he seems to be more interested in getting the science right IIRC.
As to the religious foundations, they were exposed during the trail. See Barbara Forrest, as well as Buell and the various expert witnesses for the defense leading the Judge to rule appropriately about the FTE and the nature of the book.
All you have to offer is that the book was misunderstood.
As the plaintiffs point out in their response brief to the DI and the FTE
--Similarly, the FTE declines to address facts that it is best situated to explain. Numerous documents in evidence reveal FTE to be a religious organization with religious objectives, not a scientific one pursuing scientific aims. P12; P28; P168A; P566; P633; 10:90-92, 96-101 (Forrest). The FTE ignores all this evidence in its amicus brief.
In a pre-trial hearing in this case, FTE president Jon Buell attributed religious descriptions of his organization, in legally required public filings he had signed, to mistakes by lawyers and accountants. The Court can decide whether Mr. Buell and the FTE were filing false documents with the federal government and the State of Texas, or whether they were instead misrepresenting themselves to this Court, by disowning the religious agenda stated in those documents. The overwhelming evidence from Mr. Buell’s own writings regarding his and FTE’s Christian, creationist objectives gives the Court ample basis to make that judgment. P12; P28; P168A; P566; P633; 10:90-92,96-101 (Forrest). Either way, the FTE’s submission is entitled to no credence or respect from this Court.
This is particularly true of the FTE’s rationalization for the substitution of the phrase “intelligent design” for “creation” in versions of Pandas prepared after Edwards. FTE makes the impossibly silly argument that by discarding the words “creation” and “creationism” found in early drafts, the FTE expressly rejected creationism. FTE Brief at 17. The only way the drafting history of Pandas could be interpreted as rejecting creationism is if the authors had discarded not just the word, but the explanation of what the word means — “various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” The retention of the central creationist concepts using a different term, “intelligent design,” dictates only one inference: intelligent design equals creationism.
If this were not true, surely the FTE would have provided an explanation in its brief for why Pandas was written by two admittedly creationist authors, one of whom was an advocate for creation science in the federal courts, and for why Buell thought that the Edwards ruling on creation science would matter so much to the financial success of Pandas. P350; 10: 102-104, 126-128 (Forrest). But there is no discussion of these facts.
--
Or Minnich
--
Q. Sir, is it your understanding that creationism requires an abrupt appearance of life on earth?
A. Creationism, you know, scientific creationism, yeah, ex nihilo appearance of life forms.
Q. Is this ex nihilo appearance of life forms, is that a theological concept?
A. Yes, yes. Out of nothing.
Q. Does this statement in Pandas that I just reviewed with you, does this make intelligent design creationism?
A. No, I don't think so. I mean, this is a literal interpretation of the fossil record where you see the sudden appearance of these forms, you know, fish with fins, etc. in a geologic record. From my interpretation this isn't ex nihilo, you know, creation from nothing.
--
ROTFL
Ruling
--
Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution’s threat to culture and society, “abrupt appearance” implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its “strengths and weaknesses,” and to alert students to a supposed “controversy” in the scientific community. (10:140-48 (Forrest)). In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155-56 (Minnich)).
--
And then of all people Fuller, expert witness for the defense!!!
--Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).--
"As to the religious foundations, they were exposed during the trail. See Barbara Forrest, as well as Buell and the various expert witnesses for the defense leading the Judge to rule appropriately about the FTE and the nature of the book."
Yeah, I saw Barbara Forrest alright:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/response_to_barbara_forrests_k.html
So is your only argument now the notion that the FTE is religious, therefore pandas advocated religion, therefore ID is religious? None of this changes the content of the book, see next point.
"All you have to offer is that the book was misunderstood."
You seem to agree with me, since you have yet to take me up on the challenge I gave you a couple posts ago. The FTE being religious doesn't change the fact that nothing in any of the drafts for pandas were religious.
http://72.14.205.104/custom?q=cache:-0oQ1EDHJGYJ: www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php %3Fcommand%3Ddownload%26id%3D649+pandas+people+amicus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=pub-7542212341370520
"The retention of the central creationist concepts using a different term, “intelligent design,” dictates only one inference: intelligent design equals creationism."
Rather then quoting that whole quote I figured I'd quote this one since it seems to be the heart and soul of the entire argument your making. Now can you find a passage in which any of these are mentioned as an argument or truth:
1. Sudden creation of the universe from nothing 2. Literal six day creation 3. 10,000 year old earth 4. A global catastrophic flood (and flood geology) 5. Using the bible or any sacred text to form their conclusions
"Or Minnich
--
Q. Sir, is it your understanding that creationism requires an abrupt appearance of life on earth?
A. Creationism, you know, scientific creationism, yeah, ex nihilo appearance of life forms.
Q. Is this ex nihilo appearance of life forms, is that a theological concept?
A. Yes, yes. Out of nothing.
Q. Does this statement in Pandas that I just reviewed with you, does this make intelligent design creationism?
A. No, I don't think so. I mean, this is a literal interpretation of the fossil record where you see the sudden appearance of these forms, you know, fish with fins, etc. in a geologic record. From my interpretation this isn't ex nihilo, you know, creation from nothing."
This proves my point that they were describing the fossil record rather then saying everything was created in a puff of smoke creation.
"And then of all people Fuller, expert witness for the defense!!!
--Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).--"
If creationism can mean a totally non-religious concept based on observations of the natural world, then he's right.
"Why should God be directly implicated when it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck..."
Because it isn't, that's why. This "duck" you speak of could use more elaboration, can you find any words in the early pandas drafts which pertain to the idea that ID specifically requires supernatural causation?
"Of course, God has been removed slowly, in a gradual manner and similarly creationism has become design, without much of any changes to the underlying arguments and foundations."
That wasn't necessary, "God" was never present in the early drafts as being the primary source of design. You seem to be admitting this already. The arguments and foundations between creationism and ID are nowhere near the same; ID does not depend on any of the following premises: 1. Sudden creation of the universe from nothing 2. Literal six day creation 3. 10,000 year old earth 4. A global catastrophic flood (and flood geology) 5. Using the bible or any sacred text to form their conclusions
"The content of Pandas, published by a religious organization..."
So it's not that the early drafts are religious but the fact that religious groups are open to ID that meant it was "repackaged creationism?" Oh wait...
"...helps connecting the dots, via the Edwards ruling which caused a global search and replace of religious terminology."
What religious terminology? I've asked several times now for you to find passages that state that the supernatural is required for ID. Is this just a tough pill to swallow?
"The motivations, the arguments are all standard creationist material. Hard for a court to ignore."
Ok, let's try this again until you satisfy this challenge:
In the early drafts of pandas and people, find a passage which uses one of the following premises as a foundation for ID- 1. Sudden creation of the universe from nothing 2. Literal six day creation 3. 10,000 year old earth 4. A global catastrophic flood (and flood geology) 5. Using the bible or any sacred text to form conclusions 6. Use of god or supernatural as the primary explanation.
"While God has been mostly removed from these books,..."
Oh come on PvM, you yourself seem to be facing the fact that god never even was used in those early drafts as the way to explain life.
"how else to introduce them into public schools, the attempt to provide them with a scientific foundation has failed in Edwards and now in Dover v Kitzmiller."
Any passages which directly implicate god or the supernatural? Any at all? I'll give you as much time as you need to fulfill my challenge.
"All because there exists a well established trail of evidence linking them all together."
Let me help you PvM, you will not win the public over by making the same claims again and again while failing to provide proof to back them up. This trail of evidence must have suffered some serious overgrowth huh? ;D
F2XL insists that just because God is absent from the book that it therefor could not have been based on creationism, even though it defined creationism to be in line with its predecessors and later renamed the term to read design.
The book defines creation/design in a manner totally consistent with how its predecessors defined it, but in those cases they were more upfront about the religious implications.
As I have shown you, you avoid looking at the evidence by arbitrarily setting your requirements for what you would accept. It's the preponderance of evidence that shows the historical change of the book to coincide with the Edwards ruling in which it was found that the use of creationism was not valid as a scientific alternative and a more neutral descriptor was needed. ID matched this, and not the concept since it was just a global find and replace not a rewrite of the arguments. This thus linked ID to creation to its God filled predecessors.
Surely you do understand the history behind creationism, which believed that by removing references to God, but still repeating the same old flawed arguments, that it would be constitutionally permissible to teach it in schools. Edwards showed them to be wrong, their response? Not rewriting the arguments but renaming the Creator to be a designer (wink wink) and still the same old misleading arguments.
By making information immaterial, it all but admits that it is about the supernatural, by making Pandas to oppose the science of evolution which the FTE considers to be atheistic, Buell clearly admitted that the 'alternative' was what historically was presented as God the Designer.
I guess we need to define some terms here such as immaterial versus abstract.
What do you mean by information is immaterial?
"F2XL insists that just because God is absent from the book that it therefor could not have been based on creationism, even though it defined creationism to be in line with its predecessors and later renamed the term to read design.
The book defines creation/design in a manner totally consistent with how its predecessors defined it, but in those cases they were more upfront about the religious implications."
I don't know if there's some law present which requires that I repeat something several times before it's even noticed or if I'm just not making myself clear. The book does NOT define design/creation (speaking in the context of the early drafts) the same way as what was banned in Edwards, or creationism by any definition. ID practically rejects every major pillar of creationism:
1. No mention that god or the supernatural is required (it in fact states the opposite, but you probably know that already).
2. No statements about the universe being created suddenly out of nothing.
3. Not a single claim that everything was made in 6 24 hour days (not even in an old-earth metaphorical context either), which means ID does not state animals showed up in a day either.
4. No statements about the earth being 10,000 years old (says the opposite from what I can recall)
5. Nothing which tries to explain the geology of the earth through a global catastrophic flood.
6. Last (well, I could list more, but I have to stop somewhere) but not least, ID does not depend on the bible or any religious text to draw it's inferences.
Unless the goalposts of what would be creationism have been moved, ID does not, has not, and never will advocate the same principles as creationism. Unless "creationism" can mean a totally non religious idea which relies on observation of the natural world to come to conclusions, ID has always been entirely different than creationism.
Now find that passage for me will ya?
"As I have shown you, you avoid looking at the evidence by arbitrarily setting your requirements for what you would accept."
I think it's totally fair that for something to be religious it would AT LEAST require the supernatural, don't you agree?
"It's the preponderance of evidence that shows the historical change of the book to coincide with the Edwards ruling in which it was found that the use of creationism was not valid as a scientific alternative and a more neutral descriptor was needed."
Right, the whole point was to stop any confusion and make it easier for people to distinguish the two.
"ID matched this, and not the concept since it was just a global find and replace not a rewrite of the arguments. This thus linked ID to creation to its God filled predecessors.""
See the list of things ID does not advocate. ID is far more then just different wording.
"Surely you do understand the history behind creationism, which believed that by removing references to God, but still repeating the same old flawed arguments, that it would be constitutionally permissible to teach it in schools."
No I don't. I do remember people at the ICR trying to state that since they weren't requiring kids to read the bible in class that they thus far weren't violating any rules, but that's it.
"Edwards showed them to be wrong, their response? Not rewriting the arguments but renaming the Creator to be a designer (wink wink) and still the same old misleading arguments."
I'll keep linking to this passage so readers are aware of why the above claim is wrong:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=796
"By making information immaterial, it all but admits that it is about the supernatural,"
"Material" refers to matter and energy, "information" being a third fundamental entity is more then that. It doesn't work to try and make a false dilemma stating that if something isn't just matter and energy then it must be supernatural.
"...by making Pandas to oppose the science of evolution which the FTE considers to be atheistic, Buell clearly admitted that the 'alternative' was what historically was presented as God the Designer."
It's amazing how the very same people who accuse ID of promoting a false dichotomy feel like they are exempt from following that rule. Buell is saying that evolution is the prime foundation of belief for those who have a "lack" of belief. Saying that if you are opposed to evolution means that you must think god did it is nothing more then a false dilemma.
--
After reading the points between the NCSE and the Discovery institute on that claim, I am still skeptical of this as well. I would like to know more about the "well established roots," as far as I know the best the NCSE has come up with are early book drafts taken out of context.
--
On the contrary, the NCSE has done far more than that and all the data are available to anyone interested.
However, the NCSE did not take these early book drafts out of context but showed, in context, how creationism became intelligent design coinciding with the Edwards ruling.
The smoking guns are well established.
"The smoking guns are well established."
Sure they are:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html