The Panda Book and the Edwards Case: What Does “Creationist” Mean?

Long before the Edwards case, the panda authors specifically rejected the view that science could discover whether the intelligent cause identified was supernatural. Of course, the process by which the intelligent agent produces a designed object can be called a leniency; creating – as we say this article was created by several writers – ... as Miller himself admitted on the platform: "Question: Sir, in the familiar sense of the word Khalqawi is simply anyone who believes in the act of creation, right? Answer: Yes, I think I am also preparing that familiar meaning of the word Khalsavi. Question: Do you believe that the universe was created by God? Answer: I believe that God is the Creator of all things; visible or invisible. So, the answer to that, sir, is yes. QUESTION: So in that context, that makes you moral, under that definition... Answer: In that context, any believer in a God, that is, one who accepts the idea of the Supreme Being, is said to create according to the familiar definition of the word, because they believe in some kind of creation. Question: Does this include you personally? Answer: That certainly includes me. If Miller’s admission that he is a creationist as the familiar meaning of the word implies, it does not make him an advocate of creationism as that term is generally understood nowadays. Why then are panda authors treated with a different standard? Whatever the differences in terms used in the initial drafts of pandas, they clearly do not defend creationism in the widespread sense... John Paul, Retrial: The Hidden Story of the Dover Case, p.37-39. https://books.google.com/books?id=7o71DQAAQBAJ&hl=ar... Video clip attached to the post: https://www.diyaa-alandalus.com/api/media/videos/braheen-org-956497194529352-1e3d6a32.mp4 — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/videos/956497194529352