Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

I'm still not convinced

"You argue, based on the FTE's claims that the term 'creation' and 'creationism' had nothing to do with religion."

And based on my own experiment in which I check Pandas out from the library and checked to see what the book would implicate if the term "creator" was used throughout the book.

"Now I understand why you want to rely on the DI and the FTE's claims but this means that you are shielded from the facts."

I beg to differ. They wrote the contents, I think they are just as qualified as anyone else to explain what was and wasn't in the early drafts.

"In addition you have fallen victim of the claim that just because the FTE was denied to be heard, that the argument was not heard."

Nothing in the passage of the ruling mentions that their argument was heard.

"(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;"

If that's true, then the context of the term "creation science" was not used in a religious manner at all.

"(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and"

Then that clearly means they did not specifically implicate god in the passages (if that's truly the change that happened). Having drafts that say "We can't tell if the creator is natural or supernatural" does not constitute a religious idea.

"(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards."

Right, because they wanted people to be aware that they were pursuing a completely different methodology then that of the people who lost their case in Edwards. From one of the authors of the book:

"I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."

(Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))

That was how he coined the term "Intelligent Design."

"***This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.***"

Considering the source of Judge Jones' ruling, it's no surprise that he would come to this conclusion without giving the FTE a fair trial. The answer is no, it doesn't. None of the three points Judges Jones and the ACLU make show that the early drafts specifically implicate god or the supernatural in Pandas. All it does show is that they wanted people to be aware they were writing about a completely different set of ideas then what creationists where aiming for in the late 80's.

"In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.)."

Again, there is nothing within that definition which would show that the early drafts of Panda's specifically stated God or the Supernatural was the source of the various things they were trying to explain. "Intelligent Agency" could mean just about anything, nothing about it points directly to God.

(onto part 2)