Creationist tactics never change. Asimov Slams ID in 82'
dali_70
years ago,it is interesting to note how much Mr. Asimov's article is
still current, twenty-seven years after publication. It seems clear
that the Creationists have yet to do anything to bring their "theory"
into the realm of possibility.
"The Dangerous Myth of Creationism"
by Isaac Asimov
From Penthouse, January 1982
There has been an outcry in recent years, by spokesmen of the radical
right wing, demanding that something they call "creationism" be taught
in tax-supported public schools.
They want this interpretation presented on an equal basis with the
concept of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe,
of life, of human beings.
It _seems_ fair. Why shouldn't both sides have the same chance? Why
should the evolutionists oppose the teaching of creationism?
Yet equal time for both views is NOT fair. It is pernicious. The
concepts of evolution and of creationism are NOT equal. The
evolutionary view has been built up painstakingly over a period of two
centuries on the basis of scientific study, and it has behind it an
enormous body of evidence and reasoning. All biologists, of any
reputation at all, accept the evidence that present-day species have
developed slowly from simpler forms; that the unit of life, the cell,
has developed from pre-cellular scraps of life; and that these, in
turn, have arisen from nonliving materials by changes that are in
accord with the laws of nature over a vast stretch of several billion
years.
The exact mechanism of evolution, the fine details, remain under
dispute, since the process of discovery and development is not yet
done and may never be entirely done. Even the most argumentative of
those who quarrel over the details do not, however, deny the
evolutionary concept itself.
Creationists, on the other hand, present no evidence in favor of
their view. They argue entirely from the negative. They maintain that
if the concept of evolution is found wanting, then that alone is
sufficient to force acceptance of creationism. They then insist that
the concept of evolution is indeed found wanting. They point out
insufficiencies, contradictions, and uncertainties in the evolutionary
arguments and say, triumphantly, "Thus we establish creationism!"
And yet, in the first place, the insufficiencies they present are
often advanced in distorted, simplistic, and downright erroneous ways.
In the second place, some of those insufficiencies are matters over
which biologists are indeed undecided, but which affect merely the
details of mechanism and not the concept of evolution itself.
And in the third place, even if the concept of evolution were indeed
insufficient, that would not itself prove the validity of the concept
of the independent production of each species by a "creator." Other
alternatives may exist, and the choice among them would have to rest
on positive evidence. Thus, if a close investigation were to show that
our notions of reproductive physiology are not entirely right, that
would not of itself prove that babies are brought by the stork. They
might, indeed, have been found under cabbage leaves or been delivered
in the doctor's little black bag.
In order to establish creationism as a rational concept, the
creationists must advance scientifically valid evidence FOR their
beliefs and not merely try to poke holes in other views. They cannot
simply question wether the universe is really 15 billion years old by
casting doubt on current scientific figures on the expansion of the
universe. They must present reasonable evidence that the universe IS,
in fact, 6000 years old (or whatever figure they would like to
maintain). Needless to say, this they have never done.
For these reasons, creationism has never established itself in the
one place that really counts - in the marketplace of scientific
ideas.
Science is a self-correcting process, and scientists DO change their
views, but they do so only on the basis of new evidence or a new and
convincing presentation of a line of reasoning. Scientists refused to
accept the notion of drifting continents on the basis of evidence
advanced in 1913 and thereafter. New evidence was obtained in the
1960s, and a revised and improved version of the concept was then
accepted with surprising speed.
It is possible that the day may come when evolution will indeed turn
out to be insufficient and when new evidence in favor of creationism
will force a change of view, but that day _has_not_yet_come_. Nothing
the creationists say bears promise that it will ever come, and since
that is so, it is impossible, scientifically, to ask that creationism
be taught in the schools today as a reasonable alternative to
evolution.
The fact that some people earnestly believe in creationism is
insufficient. The existence of that belief is a legitimate matter of
interest in courses of history, sociology, and psychology, and in
those courses creationism may be discussed in detail, but it doesn't
belong in science.
But suppose we WERE to teach creationism. What would be the content
of the teaching? Merely that a creator formed the universe and all
species of life ready-made? Is that it? Nothing more? No details?
American creationists seem to accept the biblical tale of creation,
but is that the only pattern of creation possible? Millions of people
the world over, who believe in a divine creator of some sort, do not
accept the Bible as a holy book.
In fact, many people who read the Bible disagree on the manner of
interpretation of its account of the creation. They may accept the
account as poetry, as allegory, as symbolism; they may see in it deep
ethical and moral meanings - but they don't accept it as a literal
description of how the universe began.
What, then, do we teach if we teach creationism? Which of the views
do we accept? Do we try to choose among them on the basis of
scientific evidence? Do we just teach them all on an equal basis? If
creationists simply want the literal words of the Bible taught, then
that is manifestly unfair to all the competing creationist notions.
It might be possible to argue that if creationism is so empty of
content and so transparently unscientific, there is certainly no harm
in offering it as an alternative. Surely, no one would accept it. Some
people even argue that if scientists object to "equal time," they must
not really have a good case.
Ah, but it is not equal time the creationists want. That little
slogan is merely the smile of the crocodile.
School is not the only place where the origins of life and the
universe are dealt with. There are also those churches that have
creationist views (not all churches, by any means, of course). In
those churches _only_ the creationist view is presented. There is no
question of "equal time" there. Children are therefore exposed only to
creationist views there, and in their homes, for many years before
they hear of evolution. in the schools. And they are threatened with
hellfire if they doubt. Where is the "equal time"?
The teaching of evolution in the public schools is a very recent
thing. It was not many decades ago that the teaching of evolution was
forbidden in the strongholds of creationism. That was what the Scopes
"monkey trial" was all about. Scopes had mentioned evolution in class,
and that was a CRIME. Where was the "equal time" then?
Even now, the teaching of evolution in public schools can be a risky
affair. In many areas of the nation, people of creationist views
heckle school boards, school principals, and school-teachers to the
point where, if evolution is mentioned at all, it is done in an
apologetic whisper. The creationists attempt to ride herd on the
libraries, too, and do their best to pull out every book that doesn't
suit them.
And they want "equal time"? Don't kid yourself. They want all the
time there is. One can see why, too. Their case is so weak, so
nonexistent, in fact, that the only way they can feel sure of
maintaining it is to make sure their victims
_never_hear_of_anything_else_.
Yet none of what I have so far said reaches the real deadliness of
the situation. Because creationism has been firmly rejected in the
marketplace of scientific ideas, the creationists have turned to
government to help them. They browbeat legislators and executives and
insist on LAWS defining what is scientifically valid and dictating
what is to be taught.
What a dangerous precedent this is! If the Supreme Court can be
bullied into declaring such things constitutional, it would go a long
way toward putting and end to pluralism in this country and to free
thought. We would be on the road to an established church and an
official orthodoxy.
All historical precedents show that the ability to censor and to
enforce orthodoxy is a dictatorial delight that knows no limits. Today
"equal time," tomorrow the world. Today it is your views on science,
tomorrow the way you dress and speak and behave.
So it is not merely creationism that we must fight. Behind its
advocates stand the old enemies, bigotry and ignorance, eager to
plunge us all into the Dark Ages. But we must not complain about this
endless battle. The price of liberty, said Jefferson, is eternal
vigilance.
fnord
Ron O
> The following article authored by Isaac Asimov appeared twenty-seven
> years ago,it is interesting to note how much Mr. Asimov's article is
> still current, twenty-seven years after publication. It seems clear
> that the Creationists have yet to do anything to bring their "theory"
> into the realm of possibility.
> "The Dangerous Myth of Creationism"
> by Isaac Asimov
> From Penthouse, January 1982
>
Penthouse is a great scientific journal. Is the issue on line and
does it come in color?
The last time that I read an article in Penthouse was the Swagart
fiasco. How long ago was that?
The Asimov essay is still applicable because nothing much has
changed. The ID perps have had to run the bait and switch scam on
their own creationist support base and they have gone back to the
obfuscation scam that the scientific creationists used to use to make
their "scientific" arguments sound sciency. Any anti-evolution
supporter that thinks that there is any value in the switch scam, just
look up the fact that it was the secondary scam for both the
scientific creationists and the ID perps they had primary scams that
blew up in their faces, and had to settle for just blowing smoke.
Ron Okimoto
Erwin Moller
Very well written and totally up-to-date.
I wasn't aware these Taliban were that active in 1982 already.
I thought it was something of the last decade or so.
Thanks for posting.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
dali_70
> Penthouse is a great scientific journal. Is the issue on line and
> does it come in color?
It sure is! ;)
> The last time that I read an article in Penthouse was the Swagart
> fiasco. How long ago was that?
You actually read the articles?? ;)
> The Asimov essay is still applicable because nothing much has
> changed. The ID perps have had to run the bait and switch scam on
> their own creationist support base and they have gone back to the
> obfuscation scam that the scientific creationists used to use to make
> their "scientific" arguments sound sciency. Any anti-evolution
> supporter that thinks that there is any value in the switch scam, just
> look up the fact that it was the secondary scam for both the
> scientific creationists and the ID perps they had primary scams that
> blew up in their faces, and had to settle for just blowing smoke.
>
Thats why I posted it. Creationism/ID, whatever they're calling it has
nothing. No ground to stand on and the same old tired claims. In 27
years they're still in the same sunken boat, using the same scams. It
just goes to show how bankrupt it is and how desperate the dupes who
peddle it are.
Steven L.
> On Nov 11, 7:08 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The following article authored by Isaac Asimov appeared twenty-seven
>> years ago,it is interesting to note how much Mr. Asimov's article is
>> still current, twenty-seven years after publication. It seems clear
>> that the Creationists have yet to do anything to bring their "theory"
>> into the realm of possibility.
>> "The Dangerous Myth of Creationism"
>> by Isaac Asimov
>> From Penthouse, January 1982
>>
>
> Penthouse is a great scientific journal. Is the issue on line and
> does it come in color?
Hey, don't laugh.
More than once, I read in Penthouse about medical breakthroughs that
might improve men's health someday--before that info appeared in the
mainstream media.
IIRC, back around 1982, Penthouse had reported on the brand new (at the
time) research that Helicobacter pylori may be causing peptic ulcers (a
big issue for men), not spicy food or job-related stress. And at the
difficulty the scientists working on H. pylori were having convincing
their colleagues of this.
> The Asimov essay is still applicable because nothing much has
> changed.
The Martin Gardner essay on the Noah flood theory of fossils, in his
book "Fads and Fallacies" (1956), is still applicable because nothing
much has changed.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Frank J
> The following article authored by Isaac Asimov appeared twenty-seven
> years ago,it is interesting to note how much Mr. Asimov's article is
> still current, twenty-seven years after publication. It seems clear
> that the Creationists have yet to do anything to bring their "theory"
> into the realm of possibility.
(snip)
Not only "still current" but even *more relevant* than most of today's
criticisms of ID/creationism, which need more punch lines like these:
> Yet equal time for both views is NOT fair. It is pernicious. The
> concepts of evolution and of creationism are NOT equal.
and
> Creationists, on the other hand, present no evidence in favor of
> their view. They argue entirely from the negative.
and
> And yet, in the first place, the insufficiencies they present are
> often advanced in distorted, simplistic, and downright erroneous ways.
> In the second place, some of those insufficiencies are matters over
> which biologists are indeed undecided, but which affect merely the
> details of mechanism and not the concept of evolution itself.
> And in the third place, even if the concept of evolution were indeed
> insufficient, that would not itself prove the validity of the concept
> of the independent production of each species by a "creator."
and
> In order to establish creationism as a rational concept, the
> creationists must advance scientifically valid evidence FOR their
> beliefs and not merely try to poke holes in other views. They cannot
> simply question wether the universe is really 15 billion years old by
> casting doubt on current scientific figures on the expansion of the
> universe. They must present reasonable evidence that the universe IS,
> in fact, 6000 years old (or whatever figure they would like to
> maintain). Needless to say, this they have never done.
That Asmov wrote that way back in 1982 adds to the evidence that
"scientific" creationism was already evolving into the "don't ask,
don't tell" replacement scam that now calls itself ID and tries to
"distance itself from" - but never *refute* - creationism.
I don't know if Pope John Paul II read that exact article, but he must
have read enough to have been annoyed at creationism/ID's steady
*retreat* from specicfing an alternate timeline and account (not to
mention never even trying to determine "how" details) when in 1996 he
spoke of the "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" of evidence
for evolution.
(snip)
Erwin Moller
> I don't know if Pope John Paul II read that exact article, but...
He couldn't have missed it.
Celibacy is hard.
I am sure Pope John Paul II had a subscription to the Penthouse.
TomS
<ca2b2153-8345-4b61...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
>On Nov 11, 7:08=A0am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The following article authored by Isaac Asimov appeared twenty-seven
>> years ago,it is interesting to note how much Mr. Asimov's article is
>> that the Creationists have yet to do anything to bring their "theory"
>> into the realm of possibility.
>> =A0 by Isaac Asimov
>> =A0 From Penthouse, January 1982
>>
>
>Penthouse is a great scientific journal. Is the issue on line and
>does it come in color?
The essay was reprinted in a collection of his articles:
Isaak Asimov
The Roving Mind
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1983
chapter 2, "Creationism and the Schools", pages 16-19
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
9fingers
I remember reading a library book by Asimov on this subject. I can't
remember the title. I found his explanations to be among the most
lucid that I had read.
Even though I'm not a big science fiction fan, I'm a great admirer of
Asimov. He wrote so much (8 hours a day, 7 days a week), there's
something for everyone. For me, it's his Guide to Shakespeare.
Friar Broccoli
It could have been written yesterday but is 25+ years old.
It is extremely well written.
Since Asimov is still popular it should attract readers.
On Nov 11, 8:08 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mike Dworetsky
It was around even in the late 70s in England. I was more than a bit
surprised* to find a creationist student in my astrophysics tutorial group
one year. He was well-equipped (or indoctrinated) with all the usual
arguments, including the one about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field
somehow implying the Earth was young. As far as I could tell he was for
real. And he wasn't around in the second year, but I can't recall if he
flunked out or simply withdrew.
*It was not a big pressure group or anything like that, as mainstream
religions pretty much accepted evolution and accommodated their beliefs.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com>:
>Could/should this Asimov article go into the archive?
Sounds good to me. Asimov was one of the more knowledgeable
*and polite* science popularizers, and his arguments against
religious blindness in general, and fundamentalism in
particular, are as valid today as when he wrote them.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Frank J
> Could/should this Asimov article go into the archive?
> It could have been written yesterday but is 25+ years old.
> It is extremely well written.
> Since Asimov is still popular it should attract readers.
If you're taking votes I say definitely.
As I said in my first reply it has some criticisms of ID/creationism
that I think are neglected today. In particular the deliberate
avoidance of supporting it's own alternative in favor of
misrepresenting evolution applies even more to today's ID than to the
"scientific" creationism of that era.
> > fnord- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Xavier Onnasis
news:93b094e6-82fe-4256...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 1:23�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could/should this Asimov article go into the archive?
>
> If you're taking votes I say definitely.
>
+1
--
XO
Mike Lyle
> Could/should this Asimov article go into the archive?
> It could have been written yesterday but is 25+ years old.
> It is extremely well written.
> Since Asimov is still popular it should attract readers.
Super idea. Preferably not in off-putting small print, though...
[...]
--
Mike.
Ron O
The Asimov estate might give permission since he would have likely
been all for TO. If Penthouse holds the copyright it might be
different. My guess is that Asimov probably copyrighted all his own
stuff by that time.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Friar Broccoli
>
> The Asimov estate might give permission since he would have likely
> been all for TO. If Penthouse holds the copyright it might be
> different. My guess is that Asimov probably copyrighted all his own
> stuff by that time.
Damn, I don't even know how to contact a holder for
copyright permission.
John Wilkins
<3996deb2-1cc5-41e4...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html
Search for "permission"
Friar Broccoli
> In article
> <3996deb2-1cc5-41e4-85ad-1b6ff4405...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 7:26 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > The Asimov estate might give permission since he would have likely
> > > been all for TO. If Penthouse holds the copyright it might be
> > > different. My guess is that Asimov probably copyrighted all his own
> > > stuff by that time.
>
> > Damn, I don't even know how to contact a holder for
> > copyright permission.
>
> http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html
>
> Search for "permission"
Thanks
Steven L.
> On Nov 11, 1:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could/should this Asimov article go into the archive?
>> It could have been written yesterday but is 25+ years old.
>> It is extremely well written.
>> Since Asimov is still popular it should attract readers.
>
> If you're taking votes I say definitely.
>
> As I said in my first reply it has some criticisms of ID/creationism
> that I think are neglected today. In particular the deliberate
> avoidance of supporting it's own alternative in favor of
> misrepresenting evolution applies even more to today's ID than to the
> "scientific" creationism of that era.
That's a good point,
and it might be worth adding an addendum to Asimov's article explaining
what has changed between the time it was written and now.
What changed, of course, were the Dover and other cases, which
effectively banned creationists from teaching their own theory of
creation, which depended on a Creator creating life on Earth. So they
were left with only attacking evolution.
Steven L.
> Could/should this Asimov article go into the archive?
> It could have been written yesterday but is 25+ years old.
> It is extremely well written.
> Since Asimov is still popular it should attract readers.
I liked it.
Until the copyright issue is resolved, at least a link to the article
can be provided in the archive.
Andre Lieven
Googling "Asimov creationism" also finds a couple more of his
essays:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html
One is a longer form of the other. Enjoy.
Andre
Chris Rohrer
> The following article authored by Isaac Asimov appeared twenty-seven
> years ago,it is interesting to note how much Mr. Asimov's article is
> still current, twenty-seven years after publication. It seems clear
> that the Creationists have yet to do anything to bring their "theory"
> into the realm of possibility.
> "The Dangerous Myth of Creationism"
> by Isaac Asimov
> From Penthouse, January 1982
> There has been an outcry in recent years, by spokesmen of the radical
> right wing, demanding that something they call "creationism" be taught
> in tax-supported public schools.
Historic context: This would article would have hit the stands
shortly before the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education decision was
rendered on Jan. 5, 1982, which nullified the "Balanced Treatment for
Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" passed by the Arkansas
legislature in 1981. The suit was filed in May, 1981.
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Chris Rohrer
Frank J
Actually the DI gave up on teaching ID 2-3 years before Dover, and
switched to the phony "critical analysys" that does not mention design
or creationism. They were not happy that the Dover board wanted to
teach ID so directly, but had to defend them anyway to show their fans
that they will fight "Darwinism"*. The board itself had recognozed
that teaching Biblical creationism directly had both legal problems
and the fact that different versions contradicted each other. So they
backpedaled, but not far enough. They probably would have lost anyway
if they promoted the "replacement scam" because Judge Jones made sure
to reference it in his decsion as a reminder to the DI that he is
aware of their games.
*Dembski and a few other key players did chicken out of testifying,
though.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Ron O
They didn't just switch, they still ran the ID propaganda mill full
tilt, but kept running the bait and switch on any rube too stupid to
know that the scam had changed. They seem to have given up on
teaching ID by the late 1990s and started serious work on the switch
scam, but the first bait and switch scam went down in 2002-2003 when
the Ohio State Board of Education wanted to teach ID and Wells and
Meyers went down there and ran the first public bait and switch that I
am aware of. All the rubes on the board got was the "Teach the
Controversy" switch scam. The ID perps have run the bait and switch
on every rube school board and legislator that has ever popped up and
wanted to teach the science of intelligent design (This includes
legislators as well known as Senator Santorum who looked like a true
IDiot when he flip flopped on the issue and tried to go with the
switch scam. He didn't get reelected). The Dover board members claim
that the Discovery Institute tried to run the bait and switch on them,
but they didn't take the switch scam. The rest is legal history. The
Discovery Institute most recently ran the bait and switch on the
Florida rubes early this year, when a bunch of school boards wanted to
teach intelligent design, and even after the bait and switch went
down, one of the legislators came back a few months later and still
tried to put a bill in to teach ID, and had to eat crow when they ran
in the switch scam. It is currently their worst problem. The
creationist support base that they rely on are the ignorant, the
incompetent and/or dishonest, and they can't get them to perpetrate
the swtich scam effectively or at least believably.
Anyone clueless enough not to know that the bait and switch has been
going on for over half a decade, just has to get their local school
board to teach the wonderful science of intelligent design and watch
how fast the switch scam comes in. Look up the switch scam and who is
perpetrating it and you find the Discovery Institute ID perps and a
scam that doesn't even mention that ID nor creationism ever existed.
Ron Okimoto
>
> > --
> > Steven L.
> > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Good point. I was focusing only on their efforts regarding public
education. In all their other efforts "evidence of design" is freely
promoted. As you know, for some audiences they are trying to sound
even more YEC-friendly:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/10/more-evidence-f.html
> They seem to have given up on
> teaching ID by the late 1990s and started serious work on the switch
> scam, but the first bait and switch scam went down in 2002-2003 when
> the Ohio State Board of Education wanted to teach ID and Wells and
> Meyers went down there and ran the first public bait and switch that I
> am aware of. All the rubes on the board got was the "Teach the
> Controversy" switch scam. The ID perps have run the bait and switch
> on every rube school board and legislator that has ever popped up and
> wanted to teach the science of intelligent design (This includes
> legislators as well known as Senator Santorum who looked like a true
> IDiot when he flip flopped on the issue and tried to go with the
> switch scam. He didn't get reelected).
As a PA resident I wrote to Santorum several times warning him that
his selling out to the DI would lose the support of people who value
science and consider it a sin to bear false witness. When I read his
editorial entitled "Illiberal education" where he hinted that he might
not agree with ID nonsense but considered it not "liberal" enough to
omit it from science class, I was fairly sure that he was in on the
scam.
Ron O
> On Nov 13, 7:50 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 6:19 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 10:19 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
SNIP:
>
> > > Actually the DI gave up on teaching ID 2-3 years before Dover, and
> > > switched to the phony "critical analysys" that does not mention design
> > > or creationism. They were not happy that the Dover board wanted to
> > > teach ID so directly, but had to defend them anyway to show their fans
> > > that they will fight "Darwinism"*. The board itself had recognozed
> > > that teaching Biblical creationism directly had both legal problems
> > > and the fact that different versions contradicted each other. So they
> > > backpedaled, but not far enough. They probably would have lost anyway
> > > if they promoted the "replacement scam" because Judge Jones made sure
> > > to reference it in his decsion as a reminder to the DI that he is
> > > aware of their games.
>
> > > *Dembski and a few other key players did chicken out of testifying,
> > > though.
>
> > They didn't just switch, they still ran the ID propaganda mill full
> > tilt, but kept running the bait and switch on any rube too stupid to
> > know that the scam had changed.
>
> Good point. I was focusing only on their efforts regarding public
> education. In all their other efforts "evidence of design" is freely
> promoted. As you know, for some audiences they are trying to sound
> even more YEC-friendly:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/10/more-evidence-f.html
They always were YEC and depended on that faction as their major
support base. They have just had to cater to that faction a little
more lately because they are about the only dolts that are still
willing to support the scam. Kenyon and Thaxton were fellows from the
very beginning.
Basically they have to go with the audience that they can more easily
run the scam on. A telling list would be all the guys that have
essentially said that the Discovery Institute's intelligent design
scam is basically bogus. It is even more telling the number that
haven't bothered to leave the Discovery Institute, but still line up
at the trough after dissing ID. Nelson was the first guy to step
forward and claim that he was aware that there never was a scientific
theory of intelligent design right after the bait and switch was run
on the Ohio rubes. Yet, Nelson just signed up and went with the
switch scam and is one of the authors of their "Evolution textbook"
that doesn't even mention intelligent design along with the rest of
the ID perp co authors. Berlinkski came out and claimed that he had
never bought into the ID scam junk. This might be true because all
that ever came out of him was the bogus creationist claptrap that the
scientific creationists used to use decades ago. Philip Johnson
pointed the finger of failure at the "science" side of the ID scam and
blamed them for never coming up with any ID science to teach, West
admitted that ID wasn't ready for prime time after the bait and switch
went down in Ohio. Schloss left the Discovery Institute claiming that
he didn't support the scam anylonger, and Beckwith just left and
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, even though he had
written several pro ID editorials in venues like the NY Times.
They did sign up Medved, and they just signed on three YEC
"scientists" to work at the Biologic Institute, but what should that
tell any thinking human being about how bogus ID was and is?
>
> > They seem to have given up on
> > teaching ID by the late 1990s and started serious work on the switch
> > scam, but the first bait and switch scam went down in 2002-2003 when
> > the Ohio State Board of Education wanted to teach ID and Wells and
> > Meyers went down there and ran the first public bait and switch that I
> > am aware of. All the rubes on the board got was the "Teach the
> > Controversy" switch scam. The ID perps have run the bait and switch
> > on every rube school board and legislator that has ever popped up and
> > wanted to teach the science of intelligent design (This includes
> > legislators as well known as Senator Santorum who looked like a true
> > IDiot when he flip flopped on the issue and tried to go with the
> > switch scam. He didn't get reelected).
>
> As a PA resident I wrote to Santorum several times warning him that
> his selling out to the DI would lose the support of people who value
> science and consider it a sin to bear false witness. When I read his
> editorial entitled "Illiberal education" where he hinted that he might
> not agree with ID nonsense but considered it not "liberal" enough to
> omit it from science class, I was fairly sure that he was in on the
> scam.
Santorum was just another incompetent boob. He missed the winks and
nods from the Discovery Institute ID perps when they went to
Washington in 1999 and ran their ID dog and pony show for Santorum and
his cronies. By 1999 the Discovery Institute had already worked up
the switch scam, but it blew over Santorum's head. He had to start
waffling once the ID perps probably came back to him and clued him in
that the ID scam was history, the switch was in, and that he had to
temper his rhetoric. It probably didn't surprise Santorum when the
bait and switch went down in Ohio, but he couldn't give up on the scam
and took heat for giving ID lip service during the Dover fiasco. He
really was that incompetent. By then I suspect that all the major ID
perps knew that the bait and switch was going down and that ID had no
future except as bait to run in the switch scam. It did take a lot of
their supporters by surprise over at ARN when the bait and switch came
down on the Ohio rubes. No one had an explanation for why the bait
and switch was necessary. Mike Gene came out and admitted that he had
given up on teaching intelligent design back in 1999. You would have
never guessed this from how he portrayed the ID scam on that board.
He was apparently at some of the ID perp meetings at that time (back
in the late 1990's) and decided to distance himself from the
Discovery Institute scam, but it didn't stop him from participating in
the bait and switch on ARN. He even published an ID perp book after
the bait and switch went down. These are the kinds of people that
supported the ID scam. Sad but true.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
Frank J
I agree with "depended on that faction as their major support base"
but am not sure what you mean by "always were YEC." I'm sure they had
always hoped to promote it directly. At least Henry Morris'
heliocentric YEC compromose, if not the geocentrism'flat-eathism that
they really wished were true. OTOH I don't think anyone associated
with the DI really has any confidence that the evidence supports YEC
or even the more extreme forms of OEC. But they know it sells.
I don't know much about the BI "scientists" but there too I would
guess that they don't really *believe* YEC as much as find it
necessary to *promote* it. As for Medved, he is definitely *not* a
YEC. His late father was a physicist who wrote a book *defending* the
Big Bang (as evidence of God) and spoke of it on his son's radio show
as also validating the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis. No mention
for or against common descent, however, from either Medved, though the
younger often raves about Behe. A true old-style creationist, YEC or
OEC variety, would not let Behe's acceptance of common descent go
unchallenged.
Note. To be clear, I just wrote a reply on the Curmudgeon's blog
suggesting that there might be some hope for Santorum, even though at
he is at least partly aware that he is misleading the "masses." In
contrast, LA governor Bobby Jindal is probably beyond hope.
Back to the DI's shenanigans: Rather than react with "ID is too
creationism" the proper way to put them on the spot is to ask:
1. If, as *you* say, ID has no science, *and* ID is not creationism,
should we go back to creationism to find some science? If so, which
version, YEC? OEC? OEC + common descent?
2. If you agree that creationism is not science either, what should
students take away from the "critical analysis" of evolution? Should
the alterrnatives that have been proposed in the past be "critically
analyzed" too, or are they exempt for some reason? Note that, unlike
ID, YEC and OEC claims can be stated in testable "what happened when"
terms without "designer" or "Creator" language.
A true YEC would have no problem answering those questions. But an ID-
sell-out would either refuse to reply, or dance around them with
irrelevant doublespeak. That's because they don't care what the
student infers from the phony "critical analysis" as long as they bad-
mouth evolution to others.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> SNIP:- Hide quoted text -