Btw, the book Ann is referring to would be "Of Pandas and People".
From Wikipedia:
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
Btw, I'd like to dispute that:
A person who believes in the Biblical account of creation might find it fascinating that the science of ID has discovered evidence that life *was* in fact designed.
And, yes, I've been bombarded with lots of evidence for various splinter groups, and I haven't found anything "disproving" evolution that couldn't be explained just as well without a creator. (But maybe that's because most of the people I argued with were Young Earth Creationists.
