Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
thing to do. I just posted links without any quoted material. This
depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
these event fade into history. So I decided to put some quotes in with
the links so that I could use them even after they break.
On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
> on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
> in 1999. All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
> been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
> it was founded.
>
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.
QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:
This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
bait and switch on Ohio and every other legislator or school board that
has needed the ID science since.
QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the
classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense
of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to
prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to
students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.
Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent
design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a
first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:
Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
"compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all:
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to speak
for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew in its
president and a half-dozen staff members. If you listened closely, you
never heard a "theory" of intelligent design. It added up to criticism
of evolutionary theory leading to an "inference," as Wells put it. It's
an assertion. It's faith.
That much was clarified later by John Calvert, the Kansas City lawyer
who co-founded the Intelligent Design Network and helped lead efforts to
remove evolution from standardized tests in his state. He said his
target was not simply evolution but the definition of science. He sees
"naturalistic" science as agnostic and atheistic, and intelligent design
as "theistic."
Meyer and Wells insisted there is scientific controversy on the subject,
though evidence suggests it is largely because they say there is. And
because there is, Meyer said, he suggested a "compromise." Don't mandate
"mastery of the scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design,"
but tell students about it. "We think that's fun and exciting, not
something people need to feel threatened about."
END QUOTE:
Calvert's ID Network bit the dust in 2009. It must have been difficult
to sell the switch scam with Intelligent Design in the name of your
creationist scam organization. Now he is associated with a group called
COPE that is selling the creationist switch scam.
QUOTE:
Two scientists, biologist Ken Miller from Brown University and physicist
Lawrence Krauss from Case Western Reserve University two hours north in
Cleveland, defended evolution. On the other side of the dais were two
representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main
sponsor and promoter of intelligent design: Stephen Meyer, a professor
at Palm Beach Atlantic University's School of Ministry and director of
the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Jonathan
Wells, a biologist, Discovery fellow, and author of Icons of Evolution,
a 2000 book castigating textbook treatments of evolution
END QUOTE:
I will note that after the Ohio bait and switch Meyer quit his religious
college and went to work full time for the ID scam unit.
The article was written in 2004 when Dover was heating up and this
statement:
QUOTE:
Since the debate, "teach the controversy" has become the rallying cry of
the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the
leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school
board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology
teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:
You can note from the above quote from the IDiot's booklet on teaching
ID that "teach the controversy" had once included intelligent design,
but by this time the bait and switch had gone down many times in the two
years since Dover and ID was being phased out and "critical analysis"
was becoming the buzz phrase of the ID scam.
There are other historical aspects noted in this article for those
interested.
>
> The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
> available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
> listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works. The
> talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
> (Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).
>
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
>
>
> I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
> things as you can find above. The IDiots expected to get the ID
> science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
> ID ever existed.
>
> There was one reference that I had never seen before. It was a report
> by Wells on the Ohio fiasco. It contains information that I never knew
> about. It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
> get the audio from.
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
I have already quoted out of this report, but I've saved a copy of it
onto my computer.
Anyone that doesn't believe that the bait and switch was run on the Ohio
rubes just has to read this report, and understand how the ID perps had
been selling the ID claptrap until they decided not to give the rubes
the ID science. Wells was even making his bogus claims to the board
(quoted previously) when he knew that the bait and switch was going down.
Santorum was a rube that believed the ID perps. He allowed Phillip
Johnson to draft his "amendment" to the No child left behind bill.
Santorums take above is exactly how most IDiot rubes believed ID was
being sold. My experience at ARN made that clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...
Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?
MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.
MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:
"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of
intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.
In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once
decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert
witnesses, which we could have done.
Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.
So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present
MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.
KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.
Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.
Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:
The Thomas More Lawyer called the bait and switch a strategy, but it is
really just a scam that has been run on creationist rubes. The ID perps
sold the rubes that they had the science of intelligent design to teach
in the public schools, but when it came time to put up or shut up they
ran the bait and switch. The bait and switch was not run on the science
side, the ID perps ran the scam on their own creationist support base.
The Lawyer was not happy about it.
Ron Okimoto