Fervor, maybe? Like when we get all excited and in a hurry to reply to a posting on these boards and don’t preview properly.
I still don’t really like “edit”, even though I use it. 
It shows the various steps of the editing process that the manuscript went through, with cdesign proponentist clearly being the “missing link.” 
And I think that it’s pretty easy as to how they got it fouled up. Whomever was editing the manuscript didn’t understand the concept of “find and replace” that word processors have and was just manually tweaking each and every instance and failed to fully highlight the phrase when they did the replace one time.
If they really believed that, then they wouldn’t have a problem with evolution. Remember, we’re talking about people who believe that the Earth was created in six days. They believe that there are no errors in the Bible, that everything happens exactly as the Bible recounts, none of it is allegory, all of it is fact. Errors in translation don’t exist for them (unless, of course, you’re talking about a non-King James version of the Bible), no one has altered the Bible to suit their own purposes, etc. Were it otherwise, they wouldn’t be upset with the verdict.
As a point of interest, the Dover case got a lot of mention this last election season in Berkley, Michigan. Just Google “Berkley Michigan Nativity” to get more than the gist of it. As in Dover, the Thomas More Law Center was involved in the Berkley issue, offering to provide legal representation to the City, gratis.
The two local groups who squared off were Citizens for Religious Freedom and “Berkley Vote Yes”; often members of the same household were on opposite sides of the issue.
In the end, the “No” votes won 55% to 45%, quashing Berkley’s hopes for ever appearing in a *Nova * documentary.
Apparently the Discovery Institute is challenging the NOVA documentary’s classroom teaching materials.
In all my years of computer support, I have found that quite often folks that are ignorant of science are also ignorant of computer science. They are better at the word than Microsoft Word.
Wonder how they get around the 2 of every animal on Noah’s ark? They have the dimensions of the ark IIRC, given in the bible. That there are thousands of known species today that were not known (could not BE known) back then, they wouldn’t physically fit on a boat that size.
If they claim that the American Bison is just a descendant of the “whatever Mesopotamian bison-looking animal they had back then”, then wouldn’t that mean it had evolved from such? Got kangaroos? Pandas? Polar bears?
Holes like this are just a little too obvious it would seem.
I really do understand all that (and thanks especially for replying without condescension and junior modding). But why is this the place to discuss problems with evolution? Or which Biblical interpretation is morally superior to which? Or suitable verdicts?
From Dex’s rules thread at the top:
Not acceptable:
- “Yeah, Stewart really nailed Bush as a stupid, moronic, useless President.”
- “Clinton has no moral standards whatsoever, does he?”
- "Tony Blair is such a loser."These are exactly the kinds of things people are discussing in here — how stupid, moronic, and useless the Biblical literalists are. What losers they are. And so on.
Perhaps you should report the posts instead of trying to moderate this thread.
Besides, how is a discussion about how unbelievable The Bible is any different than how unbelievable it is for Jack Bauer to get anywhere he needs to be in LA in no more than 10 minutes.
Let’s also not forget that Pandas and People has been around for a while, as have the notions of ID, so they may not have used a “find and replace” function like those we have on our software now, ten to fifteen years later.
The drafts being discussed were produced between 1983 and 1987. The SCOTUS decision they were trying to skirt was put out in 1987. That’s a bit late in the chronology of word processing, but maybe they were just doing things manually.
In a summary I’ve been reading of the “Left Behind” series of books, the writer observes that the handling of technology by the characters is pretty awkward and certainly not state-of-the-art even for when the books were written (the mid-'90s for the first book I think.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the people editing those drafts handled technology in a similarly awkward fashion.
1987 could have been in something as primative as Wordstar. A popular package with limited capabilities. The find/replace function was not friendly as I recall. It could be prone to such errors. Wordperfect 4.x was just taking over the market at that point. WordStar was not WYSIWYG and Spell check was an add-on.
Jim
Since when is asking questions modding? I’ve been TOLD by posters to shut-up or take it elsewhere. Why haven’t you said anything to them about modding?
The Bible? Then why don’t you open a thread on the Bible? Isn’t this about a documentary on PBS?
Moderator interjecteth:
First: What Exit?: Personal insults are NOT permitted in this forum. Cool it. All of you.
Second: What Exit?: this comes very close to “junior modding.” You’re putting one toe on the line, telling people to report what they don’t like. Don’t tread further, OK?
John Mace, if you think someone is “junior modding,” please report it rather than call them on it yourself. Right?
Third: for everyone else. This thread is supposed to be about the documentary, not about the Bible. I’ve said this before in this thread: please stay on topic.
And note: a discussion about whether the Bible strains credulity would (presumably) be appropriate here as long as we’re talking about the bible as literature. I suspect it would be difficult to have such a discussion without getting into religion, although it might be fun to try.
A discussion about evolution as science theory is NOT appropriate here. Admittedly, the guidelines are a little fuzzy: if it’s a Great Debate about a piece of religious literature, does it belong here or in GD? My feeling is that this is a forum for “arts and leisure” while GD is the forum for theology, insofar as we can make that distinction.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled roundabouts.
I was using WordStar ca. 1978, running on CP/M. Find & Replace was a two-character control code and had all the options I commonly use in Word today (respect/ignore case, full/partial word, forward/backward, single replace or global, # of replacements, show each & wait, etc.)
My guess is the find & replace was a multi-step operation, semi-manual, and the combination of sloppy F&R with a misspelled word caused the error.
Even without the smoking gun of the spelling/replace error, the comparison between the pre-1987 and post-1987 version of the same manuscript revealed what was really going on.
My ex-wife sold an Apple computer in the mid to late '70s (maybe early '80s that had the monitor turned vertical to look like a page to facilitate the word processor, which it was sold as.
Which Apple was that, anybody know?
Not an Apple, but a precursor, perhaps it was the Xerox Alto?
I rmember the apple apple, and that everybody thought it was cute.
Did apple ever offer the 11e with a portrait oriented monitor?
Gad, that was only twenty or so years ago. :eek:
I think AB Dick was the supplier
Technically, it was seven pairs of clean animals and the unclean were in single breeding pairs. These folks will jump through all kinds of elaborate hoops to come up with an “explaination” of how these kinds of things happened. Someone once claimed that God shrank the animals in order to fit them all on the ark. Dennis Weaver did a program that claimed to offer a “scientific explaination” for the miracles in the Bible. One of the events discussed on the program involved two people being locked in a burning building and emerging from it unscathed. They had all these elaborate computer models done, which supposedly showed that there would be air pockets in the building in which the men could have stood and survived the flames.
I have no idea if this is actually possible, but IMHO it kind of shoots holes in the entire premise that God was somehow responsible for their survival. After all, God wouldn’t need a “natural” mechanism to keep His chosen people alive. He could have simply willed them not to be burned, and it wouldn’t have mattered how close they got to the flames, they wouldn’t have been hurt.
I was trying to figure out the same thing as you.
I don’t think that they were doing global search & replace.
I suspect that they had “design proponents” on their “clip board”. They then incrementally searched through the document for “creationists”, highlighted the word (say with a double-click) and then hit ctrl-v to paste. That’s in a windows framework, obviously.
Instead of highlighting the whole word “creationists”, the editor only highlighted a portion of the word through a mouse slip. For instance, try double-clicking on a word and sliding the mouse at the same point – you’ll get the same behavior as from a single click highlight.
Why would they have been doing an incremental search instead of global S & R? Perhaps to guard against replacing the word “creation” used in its proper sense. Perhaps just to make sure of the context, like they might have actually wanted to say “design proponents are not creationists” and so a global replace wouldn’t have been useful.