Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

Why did you not look at the drafts?

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

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.

As I said the term creation and creationism have clear meanings which help explain why the terms were quickly and abruptly changed after the Edwards ruling.

Since you believe in design inferences, what inference is one but to make here.

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.

From the actual ruling

--Judge Jones
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (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. ***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.*** 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.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
---

In other words, the terms as defined clearly mirrored what we know as 'creationism' and that it was an inherently religious concept. Even the expert witnesses for the defense, Minnich and Fuller had to admit this. Behe attempted to 'explain' away the evidence but was ruled to be illogical and the weight of the evidence presented.

Thus the court concluded based on the evidence presented that

--
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.
--

Such is the danger of relying on a biased set of documents from the publishers of Pandas and the Discovery Institute.

So let's see at what the book 'argues'

--
The book argues that the origin of new organisms is "in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent."
--

Clearly supernatural since common intelligent designers do not require immaterial causes. In addition, the objections to evolutionary theory mirror the same flawed criticisms of earlier religious opposition. So no wonder that reviewers such as Kevin Padian, a biologist at University of California Berkeley .. called it "a wholesale distortion of modern biology.

--Of Pandas
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc
--

Exactly mirroring Christian apologetics...