OzAnt wrote:That was my point - which is why I said "OPaP backed [the] argument [that Christians were effectively using ID as another way to keep bangin' on the same old drum] up quite well".marc wrote:Google "cdesign proponentists" to see just how much "OPaP" is without a doubt religously inspired....and change "Creator" to "Intelligent designer". I didn't link Wikipedia's entry for the book because if you google "Of Pandas and People" it's the first hit that pops up. In there are links to the Dover trial etc.marc wrote:Basically it has been shown (in court, Kitzmiller v. Dover PA) that between one early revision of the book (originally called "Creation Biology", then "Creation and Biology") and a later one, someone did a horrible job trying to change "creationists" to "design proponents".
Thanks though, for clearing up why I mentioned it - I probably should have made it clearer.
OzAnt wrote:Hi DU,
Ummm, I'm feeling like I'm in the twilight zone here. First Marc, and now you. Why are you (both) getting me to read about OPaP? As I said to Marc, I was using that book to back up my argument that ID was creationism in another guise.
It's Pseudonym who isn't aware of this - or to use his words, "hasn't read the book".
What's going on here?!?
OzAnt wrote:Thanks for explaining, and in the process, clarifying your supposition. It sounds a little too conspiratorial to me and I'm not sure that I'd credit DI with that much foresight and intelligence.
Pseudonym wrote:OzAnt wrote:Thanks for explaining, and in the process, clarifying your supposition. It sounds a little too conspiratorial to me and I'm not sure that I'd credit DI with that much foresight and intelligence.
You're right that the proposed idea that I made was conspiratorial. I don't think it was worked out that far in advanced.
However, the DI are extremely good at public relations, and it would shock me if the phrase "intelligent design" hadn't gone through some kind of market research, if only informally.
Mr. Sluagh wrote:This conspiracy is so far within reason that to call it implausible would be naive. The Wedge Document illustrates that the Discovery Institute's main goal is to create cultural change; science is a means, not an end. Marketing is the field concerned with influencing people's emotions on a large scale--that is to say, creating cultural change. I see no evidence that the people of the Discovery Institute are either stupid enough or honest enough not to use the right tool for the job.
Wikipedia wrote:In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest