Intelligent Design = Creationism: The Missing Link

An explanation of evidence that was used in the Dover Intelligent Design trial to show that Intelligent Design equals Creationism, and is therefore unscientific and unconstitutional. The segment is from the Nova special "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" which aired in November 2007. Text overlays have been added here. For further information, or to view or purchase the program online, visit the PBS/Nova website:

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

For more information about the trial, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Educational Resources:

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

All major scientific organizations worldwide support the teaching of evolution:

http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/6159.aspx
---

NARRATOR: If they could show Pandas started out as a creationist book, that would suggest intelligent design is simply creationism repackaged and therefore inherently religious.
Matzke emailed this information to Eric Rothschild, who immediately issued a subpoena to the publisher of Pandas for any drafts the book went through before printing. In a few months, they received two boxes of material. The lawyers sent them to Barbara Forrest. A philosophy professor and author who has been tracking intelligent design for years, she was scheduled to testify in the trial.
BARBARA FORREST: Oh, my goodness, those two boxes contained about 7,000 pieces of paper. I had to sit down with those documents and just start flipping through them, which is what I did day and night.
NARRATOR: After much digging, she hit pay dirt. Buried in these documents were two drafts of Pandas straddling the 1987 case of Edwards versus Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science class. One draft was written before the case and the other revised just after.
BARBARA FORREST: In the first 1987 draft, which is the pre-Edwards draft, the definition of creation reads this way "Creation means that 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, et cetera." The same definition in this draft, after the Edwards decision, reads this way: "Intelligent design means that 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, et cetera." Same definition, just one is worded in terms of creationism, the other one worded in terms of intelligent design.
NICK MATZKE: Everyone said intelligent design is creationism re-labeled. Never in our wildest dreams, though, did we think that this would actually be recorded in paper in a way that could be documented in a court case.
ERIC ROTHSCHILD: And that became probably our best single piece of evidence at trial.
NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony would make a strong case that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the classroom. And in comparing the Of Pandas and People drafts, Forrest discovered that the authors had apparently made their revisions in haste.
BARBARA FORREST: In cleansing this manuscript, they failed to replace every word properly. I found the word "creationists." And instead of replacing the entire word, they just kind of did this, and got "design proponents" with the "c" in front and the "ists" in the back from the original word.
NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is "Cdesign proponentsists." And everyone now refers to this as the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.
NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony not only traced the creationist lineage of Pandas. Citing a Christian magazine's interview, Forrest let one of the intelligent design movement's own leaders, Paul Nelson, speak for himself.
BARBARA FORREST: The question he was asked was, "Is intelligent design just a critique of evolutionary theory or does it offer something more? Does it offer something that humankind needs to know?" This is his answer: "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."
WITOLD "VIC" WALCZAK: The evidence she bought into that courtroom really exposed the hypocrisy of the intelligent design movement in a way that's irrefutable. You know, she used their own language, things that they had written and said, to show that they themselves knew that this isn't science.

---

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• PBS
• Nova
• Judgement
• Day
• Intelligent
• Design
• Creationism
• Science
• Dover
• Kitzmiller
• Evolution
• Darwin
• CdesignProponentsist

[sixwingproductions]

un constitutionle to teach one without the other and that is indoctrination and that is un constitutional

[CdesignProponentsist]

@sixwingproductions

The Supreme Court has ruled on this already, and you are wrong. Superstitious nonsense does not have the same standing as accepted science, and the process of understanding accepted science is called education, not indoctrination. To equate one with the other on any level is just an expression of ignorance.

[cheomire]

@NWM11Bravo religion is about introspection, which feeds the ego. all religions speak of a uniqueness, of how god has blessed us and not the others. science shows how we are all amazing, not just a select few.

[Floortjahh]

Every single scientific theory has to be based upon sound methodology and must then undergo brutal peer review, before it goes into school textbooks. It is absurd that creationists feel they do not need to participate in this system.

Without the academic approach the claims they make are void. How can they not see that?!

[cheomire]

@autocon2002 true. however, religion was a way of trying to solve those problems that arise such as: where did we come from, where do we go from here, and where do we go afterwards. i don't have an issue with asking questions about life. what i have a problem with is the idea that one particular sect has the answers. i want investigation over revelation. even science needs to be put under the bright light of investigation. not all science is benign, and not all religion is corrupt

[autocon2002]

@cheomire Not all religions even mention a god.

[BEOWULF9965]

@sixwingproductions I suppose it would be fine to teach creationism in a class about mythology, but being that it has been proven false several times it should never be taught in a scinece class.

[BEOWULF9965]

@CdesignProponentsist I suppose it would be fine to teach creationism in a class about mythology, but being that it has been proven false several times it should never be taught in a scinece class.

[fourbabies1]

I Design? don't make me laugh. if there was intelligence in my design, my balls would be protected and wouldn't be forever choking with laughter when a creationist tries to sell us god.

[nroys]

This is a debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution held at the largest public high school in the state of Illinois.

[Scurvebeard]

@Dansharpjr

This country was not developed on Christian beliefs. I refer you to the article at atheists.org entitled "Founding Fathers".

[liquidthex]

@sixwingproductions We do not need religion in today's society. Haven't you people done enough mental damage to the past? We'd like to finally have a FUTURE now please, thanks.

[00VRV5F41070]

The transitional fossil between the creationism and the Intelligent design is the cdesign proponentsists evolution has a new evidenece