I’m not sure what a poll would say people thought “creationism” was. I also think it is pretty orthogonal to discussing what meanings people who haven’t studied the matter attach to terms, just as one wouldn’t try to dictate the content of particle physics by a poll of hot dog stand customers.

Dave S.,

Yes, exactly. The same strategy applies: obscure the connections that led to legal defeat. At each step so far, the antievolutionists have simply underestimated how much obscuring needed to be done.

“Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts.”

That sounds like an admission that “creation-science” includes what would become ID as we know it. Unless he has since changed his mind, that’s quite a contrast from the claim of today’s IDers. Yes I know they usually say that ID is not “creationism,” but think that they equate the latter, not ID, with “creation science.”

Am I wrong on the second paragraph?

The re-labeling of “creation science” as “intelligent design” is no “speciation event”. It is at best an analogue of evolution of cryptic camouflage if one wishes to extend the biological metaphor. The “camouflage” strategy began, as indicated before, in the wake of the Epperson decision, and the extent of the “camouflage” was extended following the Edwards decision, but the same strategy continued to be the guiding principle of the movement. Nor has the IDC movement “abandoned” YEC arguments; there has been no repudiation, and people within the IDC movement have been punished for explicitly repudiating YEC claims. At best, IDC de-emphasizes certain YEC arguments and steadfastly defers discussion of validity of YEC claims. As the post mentions, IDC arguments, though, are a subset of those made by explicit “creation science” advocates before them (and, in fact, a not-inconsequential fraction of IDC advocates are simply “creation scientists” who moved along with the “camouflage” program). The de-emphasis of certain arguments is easily explained by the need to obscure religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. The fact that the claims are not repudiated — and, in fact, are assiduously protected from internal criticism — is a point against the conjecture that an assessment of scientific invalidity was part of the decision to de-emphasize them.

Another item I’ll correct if necessary: Am I wrong to assume (based on my own discussions with those who don’t follow the “debate,” which may not be representative of the general public) that when most people hear “creationism” they think YEC, not even “scientific” YEC, and not anything like ID?

Dean Kenyon’s affidavit only passed on what was already long-settled policy among “creation scientists”. It was not an expression of a new strategy.

The redefinition of creation science to omit all biblical references is set out fully in Dean Kenyon’s 1984 affidavit for what becomes Edwards v. Aguillard, and even ID proponents seem to see that as a pivotal argument.

Yet it went exactly the opposite way. Instead of sticking to cold, dry evidence of a young Earth, or even conceding an old Earth (& old life) and just cold, dry evidence that humans and other apes originated independently (what Biblical literalists desire most) they kept only the “design” part that, to me at least, screams “religion.” Of course they abandoned that too with the “teach the controversy” replacement scam.

The deception began following the Epperson decision. The Edwards v. Aguillard decision was a huge deal, but you made much of the “speciation event” that brought deception on board the antievolution movement as a full-blown strategy, and I’m telling you that was Epperson, not Edwards, and it was, indeed, a problem with a legal issue. At the time, there was no issue of “alternatives”, and it seems to me that you are inventing a rationalization for your previous argument instead of looking at the facts on the ground.

Unless your name is Hutton, getting the argument right should prove to resolve most of the issues you are having in expressing it.