Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute.

[RonO]

There was a recent thread up at Panda's that indicated that the
Discovery Institute had changed its policy on teaching intelligent
design in the public schools. I went over to the Discovery Institute's
web page and checked. The Discovery Institute has dropped the statement
that they have a scientific theory of intelligent design that can be
taught in the public schools from their official policy statement on the
issue. They still insinuate that alternative theories can be taught,
but they no longer include intelligent design among the viable alternatives.

I tried to use Wayback to look up the old policy statements, but
apparently Wayback has a fault in that it preserves the links on the web
page, but the contents of the link can change over time. When I click
on the Wayback Discovery Institute links to their official policy
statement I only get the new statement. Fortunately due to Nyikos'
lying about the stupidest things I did post the entire statement as it
existed a couple years ago that can be used as a comparison. It was
changing even then. I recall that when I first quoted the junk to
Nyikos the statement was less scam-like just a few months before. Until
around Dover (2004) they didn't have the qualifiers of "mandate" or
"require" in the statement. Unfortunately I do not have copies of those
old statements, but likely they have been preserved somewhere.

This is the old 2011 statement that I quoted in its entierty when Nyikos
tried to lie about it. It seems abnormal that Nyikos would be good for
anything.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/rhidrC4IExU/YpdRzXKpsQQJ

QUOTE:
What does the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
recommend for science education curriculum?

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort
to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or
state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about
intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and
open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within
the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present
time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it
accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to
increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that
evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and
they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its
unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a
scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred
dogma that can't be questioned.

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-
Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an
alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning
about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.
Additionally, Louisiana has a statewide law that protects the rights
of teachers �to help students understand, analyze, critique, and
review scientific theories in an objective manner,� specifically
naming evolution as an example. Texas�s science standards require
that students �analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations
� including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those
scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.� Texas
also requires students to �analyze and evaluate� core evolutionary
claims including �common ancestry,� �natural selection,� �mutation,�
and the formation of �long complex molecules having information such
as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.�

Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the
individual teacher�s right to academic freedom. It also recognized
that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that
case was unconstitutional, ��teaching a variety of scientific theories
about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done
with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of
science instruction.�
END QUOTE:

This paragraph is now missing from the new statement:

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

New Discovery Institute policy statement:

What does the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
recommend for science education curriculum?

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to
require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state
boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent
design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open
discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the
scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do
not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately
and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to
increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that
evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they
should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved
issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific
theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that
can't be questioned.

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching
an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning
about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.
Texas�s science standards require that students �analyze, evaluate and
critique scientific explanations � including examining all sides of
scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage
critical thinking.� Texas also requires students to �analyze and
evaluate� core evolutionary claims including �common ancestry,� �natural
selection,� �mutation,� and the formation of �long complex molecules
having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.�

Three states (Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi) have adopted
statutes that protect the rights of teachers and/or students to discuss
the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution or other
scientific theories in the curriculum. The Tennessee law permits
teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in
an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses
of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." At
the same time, the Tennessee law "only protects the teaching of
scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any
religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or
against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."

The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the
individual teacher�s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that,
while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was
unconstitutional, ��teaching a variety of scientific theories about the
origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the
clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.�
END QUOTE:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
and recommends that it not be put forward as an alternative. "Rather
than" remains in the statement but is still sort of scam language. Will
any rube be able to get the hint now about not teaching intelligent
design? Now that they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory
the meaning of this paragraph should be understandable to even the
densest rube. "Don't get caught teaching intelligent design in the
public schools!" I think that the ID perps have an obligation to make
that as clear as they possibly can. Not just with wormy language like this.

QUOTE:
Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching
an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
END QUOTE:

So my guess is that claims that ID should not be taught in the public
schools will become more common out of the IDiots and ID perps. The
only IDiots left will be the ones dishonest enough to bend over and take
the switch scam from the guys, that there is no longer any doubt, lied
to them about the ID scam. Why is ID no longer referred to as a
scientific theory or an alternative worth teaching if it was all that
the ID perps claimed that it was?

The new policy statement and what they are telling the rubes at their
summer institute makes it looks like a phase of creationism is passing
into history. As with the Scientific Creationist bull pucky it will
likely continue to be pushed around by the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest for years to come, but it looks like the perpetrators have
given up on the Teach ID scam for now. Will the ID perp's bait and
switch scam have a future without the bait? How is the Discovery
Institute going to sell their obfuscation scam without having anything
worth obfuscating the issue about?

Without ID/creationism as a teachable alternative why continue to
obfuscate the issue?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...

snip bullshit

>
> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

[RonO]

Thanks for the link. Nyikos would have likely started his denials at
some point and Discovery Institute lies from 2007 should do the trick in
making the liar flee in abject denial.

You do understand that the Discovery Institute put out this bull pucky
after their defeat in Dover and that they were still lying about being
able to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design at that time.
This is the propaganda piece where they claim that teachers outside of
Dover would not be breaking the law if they taught ID in their public
school classrooms. Sort of a stupid lie since the teachers would be
breaking the law, it would just be that the precedent had not yet been
set at the full federal level. The only legal indication that teachers
had at that time was that teaching ID was illegal even if the supreme
court had not had the chance to rule on it at this time.

It was nice of you to support the fact that the ID perp stance on
teaching the ID scam has changed over time. Thanks. I've downloaded
the pdf so that if they remove it from their site I will have a copy.

Anyone that wants more information can do what the pamphlet says and go to:

www.intelligentdesign.org

I tried and it now takes you to the Discovery Institute's web page. You
have to go to the left section and click on the Science and Culture
link. Then you can go to the center of the page and click on the link
to the Discovery Institute's science education policy. Part of the
title is hidden, but enough is showing to tell you where to click. You
can then read how wrong the Discovery Institute thinks that old pamphlet
is. What happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?

Ron Okimoto

[A.Carlson]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:45:11 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

From the current Discovery Institute's policy statement:

>Texas’s science standards require that students “analyze, evaluate and
>critique scientific explanations … including examining all sides of

>scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage

>critical thinking.”

So they are supportive of a policy that encourages critical thinking,
at least when it comes to certain scientific theories in a state
controlled by a party whose platform specifically opposes teaching
critical thinking skills and instead support the teaching of "... the
Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”

When it was founded wasn't renewing America along Judeo-Christian
principles pretty much the stated goal of the Discovery Institute as
well? If the Discovery Institute were really supportive of critical
thinking in and of itself as opposed to only selectively raising the
issue as a cudgel against science they oppose then one might think
that they should be critical of the hypocrisy reflected in the Texas
state legislator - Unless of course they share that same hypocricy....

I searched the Discovery Institute's site for articles on Critical
Thinking and all I came up with was their support of various state
legislation bills that selectively used the term "critical thinking",
as a sort of umbrella that would allow teaching of alternatives to the
ToE without repercussions. I found nothing on the site that even
suggests their support of critical thinking in and of itself.

The objectives of the Texas Republican Party and the Discovery
Institute appears to be one in the same only the Discovery Institute
is a bit more cagey at hiding their true motives.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

The existence of a document predating the policy change (it
was last modified in 2009 per the document properties) does
not refute that the policy changed; it only says that the DI
hasn't cleaned up their site links since the policy change.

HTH.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

This was the original official Mission statement of the Discovery
Institute's ID scam division when they still had God and Adam as their
logo. It is probably what you are thinking of. You have to use Wayback
to get the old mission statement. This is from 1998.


QUOTE:
What is The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture All About?

The Mission of the Center

THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale
attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science.
Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such
as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed human beings
not as eternal and accountable beings, but as animals or machines who
inhabited a universe ruled by chance and whose behavior and very
thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry,
and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually
infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and
economics to literature and music.

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were
devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective standards
binding on all cultures, claiming that environment dictates our moral
beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the
social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics,
political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that
human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and
environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal
justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of
things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his
or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking
they could engineer the perfect society through the application of
scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive
government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning
cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center
explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science
raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the
case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original
research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the
opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An
Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds
a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge
University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic
Richfield Company.
END QUOTE:

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http:/discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

"Discovery Institute opposed the Dover policy from »
the start and urged the Dover school board to repeal
it. Although the Institute believes that teachers should
have the right to voluntarily discuss ID in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner, it opposes efforts to
mandate its discussion because it thinks that such mandates
are counterproductive. They politicize what first of all should
be a scientific and intellectual debate, and they harm the
efforts of scientists to gain a fair hearing for their ideas about
intelligent design in the scientific community."

RonO falsely claims that the Discovery Institute "lost" the Dover
case. His false claim reveals a common trait among those who are fond
of constantly accusing others of lying. They are sooner or later
revealed to be the biggest of all the hypocrites they presume to
despise.

Now, watch him jump through hoops to justify his own lie. What a
mediocre putz...

[Mark Buchanan]

It may me that removing the paragraph isn't about a policy change. It
could be just a way to avoid unnecessary legal complications. Basically
the paragraph says that there is nothing wrong with a teacher
sympathetic to ID to talk about it in class and shouldn't be persecuted
for doing so. However, it is unconstitutional to teach ID and a teacher
or school board could be sued. By extension, the DI could get mixed up
in a legal battle because it could be argued that they promoted the
actions of the teacher.

It's true that they don't describe their theory as scientific in the
other parts of this particular policy statement but that doesn't mean
they don't still hold that position.

Mark

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 13:45:28 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

>On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>snip bullshit
>>>
>>> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
>>
>>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
>"Discovery Institute opposed the Dover policy from »
>the start and urged the Dover school board to repeal
>it.

Discovery Institute is trying to get fools to forget the past and
remember their new claims, but their memory hole isn't working for them.
They were totally involved in the fraudulent textbook at the center of
the attack on the First Amendment.

>Although the Institute believes that teachers should
>have the right to voluntarily discuss ID in an objective and
>pedagogically appropriate manner,

"ID is creationism and has nothing to do with science".

>it opposes efforts to
>mandate its discussion because it thinks that such mandates
>are counterproductive. They politicize what first of all should
>be a scientific and intellectual debate, and they harm the
>efforts of scientists to gain a fair hearing for their ideas about
>intelligent design in the scientific community."

DI has never cared about science or intellectual debate. They are
theists trying to hide their theism in fake science. We know it. They
know it.

>RonO falsely claims that the Discovery Institute "lost" the Dover
>case.

They bailed out when it was clear that they were going to lose.

>His false claim reveals a common trait among those who are fond
>of constantly accusing others of lying. They are sooner or later
>revealed to be the biggest of all the hypocrites they presume to
>despise.
>
>Now, watch him jump through hoops to justify his own lie. What a
>mediocre putz...

Anyone who believes anything the DI says is a credulous fool.

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0034q$jnd$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/1/2013 11:26 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > snip bullshit
> >>
> >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
> >
> > http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
> >
>
> Thanks for the link.

snip bullshit

LOL.

> www.intelligentdesign.org

snip bullshit

> What happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?

"Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes. "

[Mitchell Coffey]

Actually, calling someone "a mediocre putz" is not as bad as calling
them "a putz."

Mitchell Coffey

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 17:20:14 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote
in talk.origins:

Only fools think that intelligent design has anything to do with science
or qualifies remotely as a theory. The Discovery Institute has a long
history of lying about their dogma.

[deadrat]

This last seems a stretch to me. It is neither illegal nor actionable
for a private party to promote a policy in conflict with those of public
schools.

<snip/>
>
> Mark
>

[J. J. Lodder]

Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0034q$jnd$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 9/1/2013 11:26 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me
> > >

> > > snip bullshit
> > >>
> > >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
> > >
> > > http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=downl
oad&id=1453
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the link.
>
> snip bullshit
>
> LOL.
>
> > www.intelligentdesign.org
>
> snip bullshit
>
> > What happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
>
> "Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes. "

You can't make something a scientific theory just by saying it is,

Jan

[TomS]

"On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:09:38 +0200, in article
<1l8kjka.11o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder stated..."

"...the most credible philosophical argument against ID being
treated as science is to point out the absence of any positive
specification of its fundamental concepts, intelligence and
design ... . The basic claim is that, in the absence of such a
specification, ID cannot be a substantive theory, scientific or
not. In the case of intelligence, there is no positive
specification at all. In the case of design, there is no coherent
specification."

page 302 in Sahotra Sarkar,
"The science question in intelligent design"
Synthese, volume 178 number 2 (2011), pages 291-305,
doi 10.1007/s11229-009-9540-x


--
---Tom S.

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8kjka.11o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

So what happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:uv4729tv76vi29hvq...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >snip bullshit
> >>
> >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
> >
> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
> The existence of a document predating the policy change (it
> was last modified in 2009 per the document properties) does
> not refute that the policy changed; it only says that the DI
> hasn't cleaned up their site links since the policy change.
>
> HTH.
> --

That helps show something, all right, but you don't realize what.

There are at least three links from the main page that identify ID as a scientific theory,
"Intelligent Design", "Frequently Asked Questions" and "About CSC".

And the latest version of their "Science Education Policy" identifies ID as an "altenative theory" to evolutionary theories:

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:30:57 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote
in talk.origins:

>

There never was one.

[Glenn]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:f7f9295fch620qj72...@4ax.com...

How many were there?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:58:33 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote

Zero.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:00:25 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:uv4729tv76vi29hvq...@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...

>> >snip bullshit

>> >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory

>> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

>> The existence of a document predating the policy change (it
>> was last modified in 2009 per the document properties) does
>> not refute that the policy changed; it only says that the DI
>> hasn't cleaned up their site links since the policy change.
>>
>> HTH.

>That helps show something, all right, but you don't realize what.

Well, it shows you failed to check whether your cited
reference predated the policy change, which it did. Since
that is what happened, the previous document has become
irrelevant to what Ron posted. Is that what you meant?

>There are at least three links from the main page that identify ID as a scientific theory,
>"Intelligent Design", "Frequently Asked Questions" and "About CSC".

Any chance you can provide the dates these were either
created or modified, as I did, so we can see whether they
also predate the policy change and have thus also become
irrelevant?

>And the latest version of their "Science Education Policy" identifies ID as an "altenative theory" to evolutionary theories:
>
>"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."

IOW, the DI, per your quote, has indeed abandoned referring
to ID as a scientific theory. So you accept Ron's original
claim, that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific
theory, and has retreated to attempts to refute the ToE
without providing a different explanation amenable to
examination by scientific methods? OK, and why didn't you
say so in the first place instead of posting what could only
be seen as an attempt to refute his statement?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:58:33 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>

Zero.

[Glenn]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:eqi9299iu679irfft...@4ax.com...

So why would Ron ask what happened to it?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:54:46 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote

He was asking about the indefensible claims of the Discovery Institute,
not about facts.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:lnj92990ct4qeltqa...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:00:25 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:uv4729tv76vi29hvq...@4ax.com...
>
> >> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> >snip bullshit
>
> >> >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
>
> >> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
> >> The existence of a document predating the policy change (it
> >> was last modified in 2009 per the document properties) does
> >> not refute that the policy changed; it only says that the DI
> >> hasn't cleaned up their site links since the policy change.
> >>
> >> HTH.
>
> >That helps show something, all right, but you don't realize what.
>
> Well, it shows you failed to check whether your cited
> reference predated the policy change, which it did. Since
> that is what happened, the previous document has become
> irrelevant to what Ron posted. Is that what you meant?

Yes, but again not how you think.

>
> >There are at least three links from the main page that identify ID as a scientific theory,
> >"Intelligent Design", "Frequently Asked Questions" and "About CSC".
>
> Any chance you can provide the dates these were either
> created or modified, as I did, so we can see whether they
> also predate the policy change and have thus also become
> irrelevant?
>
> >And the latest version of their "Science Education Policy" identifies ID as an "altenative theory" to evolutionary theories:
> >
> >"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."
>
> IOW, the DI, per your quote, has indeed abandoned referring
> to ID as a scientific theory. So you accept Ron's original
> claim, that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific
> theory, and has retreated to attempts to refute the ToE
> without providing a different explanation amenable to
> examination by scientific methods? OK, and why didn't you
> say so in the first place instead of posting what could only
> be seen as an attempt to refute his statement?
> --

You should have listened to your mother.

[Glenn]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:sok9299do4uqgeuc2...@4ax.com...

You were aware of that when your knee jerked above?

[J. J. Lodder]

Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8kjka.11ohvsr
1d5u...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> > Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0034q$jnd$1...@dont-email.me
...
> > > > On 9/1/2013 11:26 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > > > >

> > > > > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1@dont-emai

l.me
> > > > >
> > > > > snip bullshit
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theo
ry
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=d
ownl
> > oad&id=1453
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the link.
> > >
> > > snip bullshit
> > >
> > > LOL.
> > >
> > > > www.intelligentdesign.org
> > >
> > > snip bullshit
> > >
> > > > What happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> > >
> > > "Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes. "
> >
> > You can't make something a scientific theory just by saying it is,
> >
> So what happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?

It never was, so nothing can have happened to it.
You should talk about the pretence to theory instead,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:f7f9295fch620qj72jdd
5e58kgq...@4ax.com...

> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:30:57 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > in talk.origins:
> >
> > >

> > >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8kjka.11oh
vsr1d...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> > >> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0034q$jnd$1@dont-email

.me...
> > >> > > On 9/1/2013 11:26 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > >> > > >

> > >> > > > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1@dont-e
mail.me
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > snip bullshit
> > >> > > >>

> > >> > > >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" t
heory
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?comman

d=downl
> > >> oad&id=1453
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks for the link.
> > >> >
> > >> > snip bullshit
> > >> >
> > >> > LOL.
> > >> >
> > >> > > www.intelligentdesign.org
> > >> >
> > >> > snip bullshit
> > >> >
> > >> > > What happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> > >> >
> > >> > "Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes. "
> > >>
> > >> You can't make something a scientific theory just by saying it is,
> > >>
> > >So what happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> >
> > There never was one.
> >
> How many were there?

There is only one empty set,

Jan

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8l7ch.1tl...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

But how many were there?

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8l79n.16l...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

I am not?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 11:19:02 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote

Rhetoric is not your strong suit.

[Glenn]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:p8q929hrteprmh2c5...@4ax.com...

Answer the question.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 2 September 2013 17:29:42 UTC+1, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:30:57 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> in talk.origins:
> >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8kjka.11o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> >> You can't make something a scientific theory just by saying it is,
> >
> >So what happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
>
> There never was one.

It evolved into a scienteachthecontroversory.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:06:36 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote

No. I don't really care that you have been foolish enough to ever accept
the claims about Intelligent Design by the Discovery Institute.

[Glenn]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:ss4a29t2mtmuur66n...@4ax.com...

What does that have to do with answering the question?

[Desertphile]

> Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
> students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-
> Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an
> alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
> ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
>

> Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
> South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning
> about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.
> Additionally, Louisiana has a statewide law that protects the rights

> of teachers �to help students understand, analyze, critique, and
> review scientific theories in an objective manner,� specifically
> naming evolution as an example. Texas�s science standards require
> that students �analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations
> � including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those
> scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.� Texas
> also requires students to �analyze and evaluate� core evolutionary
> claims including �common ancestry,� �natural selection,� �mutation,�
> and the formation of �long complex molecules having information such
> as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.�

>
> Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> appropriate manner.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the

> individual teacher�s right to academic freedom. It also recognized

> that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that

> case was unconstitutional, ��teaching a variety of scientific theories

> about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done
> with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of

> science instruction.�

> END QUOTE:
>
> This paragraph is now missing from the new statement:
>
> QUOTE:
> Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> appropriate manner.
> END QUOTE:
>
> New Discovery Institute policy statement:
>
> What does the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
> recommend for science education curriculum?
>
> As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to
> require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state
> boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent
> design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open
> discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the
> scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do
> not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately
> and objectively.
>
> Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to
> increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that

> evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they
> should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved
> issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific
> theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that
> can't be questioned.
>

> Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
> students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
> neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching
> an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
> ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
>

> Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
> South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning
> about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

> Texas�s science standards require that students �analyze, evaluate and
> critique scientific explanations � including examining all sides of

> scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage

> critical thinking.� Texas also requires students to �analyze and
> evaluate� core evolutionary claims including �common ancestry,� �natural
> selection,� �mutation,� and the formation of �long complex molecules
> having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.�

>
> Three states (Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi) have adopted
> statutes that protect the rights of teachers and/or students to discuss
> the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution or other
> scientific theories in the curriculum. The Tennessee law permits
> teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in
> an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses
> of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." At
> the same time, the Tennessee law "only protects the teaching of
> scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any
> religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or
> against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote
> discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the

> individual teacher�s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that,

> while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was

> unconstitutional, ��teaching a variety of scientific theories about the

> origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the

> clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.�
> END QUOTE:
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

>
> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory

> and recommends that it not be put forward as an alternative. "Rather
> than" remains in the statement but is still sort of scam language. Will
> any rube be able to get the hint now about not teaching intelligent
> design? Now that they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory
> the meaning of this paragraph should be understandable to even the
> densest rube. "Don't get caught teaching intelligent design in the
> public schools!" I think that the ID perps have an obligation to make
> that as clear as they possibly can. Not just with wormy language like this.
>
> QUOTE:

> Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
> students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
> neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching
> an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
> ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

> END QUOTE:
>
> So my guess is that claims that ID should not be taught in the public
> schools will become more common out of the IDiots and ID perps. The
> only IDiots left will be the ones dishonest enough to bend over and take
> the switch scam from the guys, that there is no longer any doubt, lied
> to them about the ID scam. Why is ID no longer referred to as a
> scientific theory or an alternative worth teaching if it was all that
> the ID perps claimed that it was?
>
> The new policy statement and what they are telling the rubes at their
> summer institute makes it looks like a phase of creationism is passing
> into history. As with the Scientific Creationist bull pucky it will
> likely continue to be pushed around by the ignorant, incompetent and or
> dishonest for years to come, but it looks like the perpetrators have
> given up on the Teach ID scam for now. Will the ID perp's bait and
> switch scam have a future without the bait? How is the Discovery
> Institute going to sell their obfuscation scam without having anything
> worth obfuscating the issue about?
>
> Without ID/creationism as a teachable alternative why continue to
> obfuscate the issue?

Please pardon the full quote, but I could not see a decent place to
trim above.

So, this is now missing:

"Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom."

They included that false assertion (that there is "a scientific
theory of design") *AFTER* their abandoned pawns insisted under oath
in a court of law (The Dover Area trial) that there is no such thing.

If there was "a scientific theory of design" it would already be
taught in public schools.

> Ron Okimoto


--
I'm not going to have sex with you. This is not a challenge,
it's a statement of fact.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:54:46 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>

It's called "sarcasm", and is entirely appropriate.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:06:36 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>

Why should he be held to a higher standard than that to
which you hold yourself?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

"Doo-dah, doo-dah."

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 11:16:41 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:lnj92990ct4qeltqa...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:00:25 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:uv4729tv76vi29hvq...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> >> >snip bullshit
>>
>> >> >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
>>
>> >> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>>
>> >> The existence of a document predating the policy change (it
>> >> was last modified in 2009 per the document properties) does
>> >> not refute that the policy changed; it only says that the DI
>> >> hasn't cleaned up their site links since the policy change.
>> >>
>> >> HTH.
>>
>> >That helps show something, all right, but you don't realize what.
>>
>> Well, it shows you failed to check whether your cited
>> reference predated the policy change, which it did. Since
>> that is what happened, the previous document has become
>> irrelevant to what Ron posted. Is that what you meant?
>
>Yes, but again not how you think.

....a subject of which you're ignorant.

>> >There are at least three links from the main page that identify ID as a scientific theory,
>> >"Intelligent Design", "Frequently Asked Questions" and "About CSC".
>>
>> Any chance you can provide the dates these were either
>> created or modified, as I did, so we can see whether they
>> also predate the policy change and have thus also become
>> irrelevant?
>>
>> >And the latest version of their "Science Education Policy" identifies ID as an "altenative theory" to evolutionary theories:
>> >
>> >"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."
>>
>> IOW, the DI, per your quote, has indeed abandoned referring
>> to ID as a scientific theory. So you accept Ron's original
>> claim, that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific
>> theory, and has retreated to attempts to refute the ToE
>> without providing a different explanation amenable to
>> examination by scientific methods? OK, and why didn't you
>> say so in the first place instead of posting what could only
>> be seen as an attempt to refute his statement?

>You should have listened to your mother.

And once more Glenn tries to tapdance away by posting
irrelevancies, entangles his feet, and falls on his face.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 11:16:41 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

In the interest of using your selected style of response, I
provide a second reply:

>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:lnj92990ct4qeltqa...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:00:25 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:uv4729tv76vi29hvq...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> >> >snip bullshit
>>
>> >> >> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
>>
>> >> >http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>>
>> >> The existence of a document predating the policy change (it
>> >> was last modified in 2009 per the document properties) does
>> >> not refute that the policy changed; it only says that the DI
>> >> hasn't cleaned up their site links since the policy change.
>> >>
>> >> HTH.
>>
>> >That helps show something, all right, but you don't realize what.
>>
>> Well, it shows you failed to check whether your cited
>> reference predated the policy change, which it did. Since
>> that is what happened, the previous document has become
>> irrelevant to what Ron posted. Is that what you meant?
>
>Yes, but again not how you think.

Answer the question.

>> >There are at least three links from the main page that identify ID as a scientific theory,
>> >"Intelligent Design", "Frequently Asked Questions" and "About CSC".
>>
>> Any chance you can provide the dates these were either
>> created or modified, as I did, so we can see whether they
>> also predate the policy change and have thus also become
>> irrelevant?
>>
>> >And the latest version of their "Science Education Policy" identifies ID as an "altenative theory" to evolutionary theories:
>> >
>> >"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."
>>
>> IOW, the DI, per your quote, has indeed abandoned referring
>> to ID as a scientific theory. So you accept Ron's original
>> claim, that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific
>> theory, and has retreated to attempts to refute the ToE
>> without providing a different explanation amenable to
>> examination by scientific methods? OK, and why didn't you
>> say so in the first place instead of posting what could only
>> be seen as an attempt to refute his statement?

>You should have listened to your mother.

Answer the question.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:h36c29h87s9tkucoq...@4ax.com...

That isn't an answer.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:566c29lne783nfdts...@4ax.com...

You're delusional.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:6b6c29t05f0vn19ub...@4ax.com...

Why should you ask?

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ne6c295983s8tdu1a...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>
> >On Monday, 2 September 2013 17:29:42 UTC+1, Free Lunch wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:30:57 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> >> in talk.origins:
> >> >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1l8kjka.11o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> >> >> You can't make something a scientific theory just by saying it is,
> >> >
> >> >So what happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> >>
> >> There never was one.
> >
> >It evolved into a scienteachthecontroversory.
>
> "Doo-dah, doo-dah."
> --

Wow, you provided a reference!

[RonO]

On 9/1/2013 7:20 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0034q$jnd$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 9/1/2013 11:26 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>

>>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>
>>> snip bullshit
>>>>
>>>> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
>>>
>>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the link.
>
> snip bullshit
>
> LOL.

Does it feel better to sob when you are running away?

>
>> www.intelligentdesign.org
>
> snip bullshit

Reality doesn't change when you snip it out.

>
>> What happened to the scientific theory of intelligent design?
>
> "Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes."
>

Unfortunately they were caught lying about that in Dover and have lied
about it until removing it from their official policy statement. What
do you not understand? What is missing from their current official
policy statement on teaching intelligent design? What have they
removed? Putting up something that was written in 2007 doesn't negate
what they have recently done. When did they add mandate and require to
the statement? Why don't the quotes from 1999 that I put up in the
other thread mention mandate or require when they refer to teaching
their claptrap? Does that mean that they did not put it in later? What
have they taken out after nearly two decades of false claims about
having a scientific theory of intelligent design?

If there is a scientific theory of intelligent design where are the ID
perps hiding it? You know how they have prevaricated about it for years
and never come up with one. Untestable hypoitheses are not anything
anyone would call a real scientific theory. You know that for a fact.
Just because someone that considers themselves to be a scientist can
make up some wild story doesn't make it scientific. What is the current
usage of scientific theory. The kind of theory that biological
evolution is. You know the type like Atomic theory, Cell theory, or the
Theory of gravity. Intelligent design never made it past the untestable
stage.

It has been over a month since your last boondoggle and IC is still
scientifically untested. That is a fact. If you claim otherwise
demonstrate that it has been falsified or confirmed. Go for it. Be
sure to use Behe's definition. I'd like to know what "well matched" is
and how they demonstrated that it existed to confirm or falsify that the
flagellum is IC. Both Minnich and Behe did claim that they had a
falsification test for IC, but both admitted that they had never
attempted the testing, and as far as I know neither one has ever tried
to do it. This reality will not change and just snipping it out and
running away will not change the facts.

Until the ID perps change their current official policy statement your
argument is worthless. My guess is that when the policy statement
changes again, the ID perps will make it even clearer that no one should
teach intelligent design in the public schools. That is the direction
it has been going in since they added mandate and require on their do
not list during the Dover fiasco. Bringing up their past lies on the
issue is just stupid. What would Nyikos think? He denied that they
ever claimed that they had a scientific theory to teach, and he was
given your pamphlet as counter evidence and still continued to deny it.
What was his claim? That the ID perps never said that they had a
scientific theory of ID ready to teach. Take it up with him and try to
get him to explain that one.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 9/1/2013 3:45 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:26:17 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>

> wrote:
>
>>
>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:kvvne9$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> snip bullshit
>>>
>>> The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
>>
>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>

> "Discovery Institute opposed the Dover policy from �
> the start and urged the Dover school board to repeal
> it. Although the Institute believes that teachers should
> have the right to voluntarily discuss ID in an objective and
> pedagogically appropriate manner, it opposes efforts to
> mandate its discussion because it thinks that such mandates
> are counterproductive. They politicize what first of all should
> be a scientific and intellectual debate, and they harm the
> efforts of scientists to gain a fair hearing for their ideas about
> intelligent design in the scientific community."
>
> RonO falsely claims that the Discovery Institute "lost" the Dover
> case. His false claim reveals a common trait among those who are fond
> of constantly accusing others of lying. They are sooner or later
> revealed to be the biggest of all the hypocrites they presume to
> despise.
>
> Now, watch him jump through hoops to justify his own lie. What a
> mediocre putz...
>

What does this have to do with the policy statement change? Are you
really claiming that the ID perps did not lose in Dover? The Discovery
Institute used to claim that ID was their business before they started
running the bait and switch in 2002. Just because they tried to run the
bait and switch on the Dover rubes doesn't mean jack. It just means
that their dishonesty finally caught up with them and bit them in the
butt.

I am sure that the last thing that the ID perps wanted was for ID to go
to court. Why would they have been running the bait and switch for over
two years if they wanted a court case? They could have gotten the
IDiots in Ohio to teach ID (the way they wanted it taught) and any court
case would have been over years before. Not only that, but what is
Glenn arguing? Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools. What was
the Dover decision? Was that claim confirmed or rejected? I rest my case.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...

> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.

There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:

"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"

and in my first post directed you to one page where they do, and in the second post
to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.

[RonO]

Glenn you are lying to yourself again. There is absolutely no doubt
that I was talking about a recent change in policy and I demonstrated it
by putting up the most recent official Discovery Institute policy
statement showing how it had changed. What don't you get? You can't
deny the policy change with older material written before the policy
change. What is your explanation for the change in the policy
statement? Explain the Discovery Institute's summer institute behavior
in what they told the rubes and the fact that the policy statement did
change. Why did they stop referring to intelligent design as a
scientific theory worth teaching in the public schools?

You have to start dealing with reality. Nothing that you claim negates
anything recent about how the ID perps are now treating the intelligent
design scam. My guess is that some of the ID perps are still claiming
to have a scientific theory of intelligent design when they are lying to
the rubes, but what is the Discovery Institute's official statement
about the issue? Not only that, but nothing that you have put up
demonstrates that they ever had a scientific theory of intelligent
design to teach in the public schools. The whole history on this
subject has been exposure of the fact that they never had one. Deal
with that fact or counter them with the scientific theory of intelligent
design. Go for it.

You obviously don't think that you can take claims at face value, but
for some reason you can deny the evidence in front of your face that the
policy statement did change, but you can't understand that the ID perp
claims that you support have no such support. Not a single IDiot has
ever been able to put forward a scientific theory of intelligent design.
You know that all they have are wild guesses and unsubstantiated
assertions and that combination is so far from what real scientists
consider to be scientific theories that it is tragically lame.

You know that most modern scientists consider scientific theories to be
the top of the heap. They are the highest level that a scientific
notion can achieve. We are talking about real scientific theories such
as Atomic Theory, The Theory of Gravity and the Theory of biological
evolution. Scientific theories aren't the lowest untestable levels.
What was Philip Johnson admitting to when he quit the teach ID scam and
admitted that intelligent design had nothing equivalent to biological
evolution after the Dover court loss? Isn't Biological evolution a real
scientific theory? What does that tell you when the godfather of the
Wedge Strategy says that and never promotes teaching intelligent design
again? It has been around 7 years since Johnson made that admission and
he hasn't claimed that there is a scientific theory of intelligent
design to teach in the public schools since. This is the Philip Johnson
that supposedly got the ID perps together and made forming the Discovery
Institute's ID scam wing possible. He used to be listed as an "advisor"
instead of a fellow. I haven't checked lately.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0773p$4rc$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/3/2013 7:23 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
> >> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.
> >
> > There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
> >
> > "The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
> >
> > and in my first post directed you to one page where they do, and in the second post
> > to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
> > post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
>
> Glenn you are lying to yourself again. There is absolutely no doubt
> that I was talking about a recent change in policy and I demonstrated it
> by putting up the most recent official Discovery Institute policy
> statement showing how it had changed.

Yes, you made quite a few claims. Here's your first:

"The Discovery Institute has dropped the statement
that they have a scientific theory of intelligent design that can be
taught in the public schools from their official policy statement on the
issue"

That doesn't legitimize your claim that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific theory, or that
"they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory" as you also claim.

Are you now claiming that I took your claim out of context?

"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:22:25 -0700, the following appeared in

>That isn't an answer.

Yes, it is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:23:15 -0700, the following appeared in

>You're delusional.

Stock reply #3, isn't it? You can surely do better.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:24:10 -0700, the following appeared in

>Why should you ask?

Answer the question.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:23:29 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>

>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
>> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.
>
>There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
>
>"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
>
>and in my first post directed you to one page where they do,

....a post which I showed preceded their policy change...

> and in the second post
>to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
>post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.

....none of which, despite a request, were you able to show
came after the policy change.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:28:19 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>Wow, you provided a reference!

You're delusional.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:doue2953khu30e8jm...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:23:29 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
> >> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.
> >
> >There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
> >
> >"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
> >
> >and in my first post directed you to one page where they do,
>
> ....a post which I showed preceded their policy change...
>
> > and in the second post
> >to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
> >post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
>
> ....none of which, despite a request, were you able to show
> came after the policy change.
> --

I made no attempt to, because there is no need to. The "policy change" does not
evidence or imply in any way that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific theory,
and the arguments that it does, including yours, are silly.

[RonO]

On 9/4/2013 9:35 AM, Glenn wrote:
>
> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0773p$4rc$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 9/3/2013 7:23 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
>>>> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.
>>>
>>> There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
>>>
>>> "The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
>>>
>>> and in my first post directed you to one page where they do, and in the second post
>>> to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
>>> post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
>>
>> Glenn you are lying to yourself again. There is absolutely no doubt
>> that I was talking about a recent change in policy and I demonstrated it
>> by putting up the most recent official Discovery Institute policy
>> statement showing how it had changed.
>
> Yes, you made quite a few claims. Here's your first:
>
> "The Discovery Institute has dropped the statement
> that they have a scientific theory of intelligent design that can be
> taught in the public schools from their official policy statement on the
> issue"
>
> That doesn't legitimize your claim that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific theory, or that
> "they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory" as you also claim.

Why not? Wasn't I talking about the change in their official policy
statement? Do they still claim to have a scientific theory of
intelligent design to teach in it? What do you think that I was talking
about? What did I quote? I think that you were just fishing for stupid
arguments here and caught one.

>
> Are you now claiming that I took your claim out of context?
>
> "The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory
> and recommends that it not be put forward as an alternative. "Rather
> than" remains in the statement but is still sort of scam language. Will
> any rube be able to get the hint now about not teaching intelligent
> design? Now that they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory
> the meaning of this paragraph should be understandable to even the
> densest rube. "Don't get caught teaching intelligent design in the
> public schools!" I think that the ID perps have an obligation to make
> that as clear as they possibly can. Not just with wormy language like this."

Yes. You obviously did take it out of context because what was I
referring to in the same paragraph? I was referring to the policy
statement. What did you think that I was referring to when I was
obviously talking about the policy statement? Reread the paragraph and
the material before this paragraph. What was I obviously talking about?

What has been removed by the ID perps from their official policy
statement on teaching ID in the public schools?

I did not remove the claim that they had a scientific theory to teach.
You just have to live with that reality. The policy statement with the
"mandate" and "require" language has been up on their web site since
around the start of the Dover fiasco, around 2004. They have been lying
about having a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools
for a lot longer than that, and now they have decided to drop that lie
out of their official policy statement on teaching their claptrap. The
ID perps made that decision to drop the lie not me.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l08gmh$kb4$1...@dont-email.me...

No, the inclusion of "to teach" is irrelevant to whether the DI "no longer
refers to ID as a scientific theory" or that "they no longer claim that ID
is a scientific theory".
The new "policy statement" does not, repeat, not, make that claim.
You could have inferred that the DI no longer recommends that
the scientific theory of ID be taught in schools. Instead you chose the
moment to make it appear that the policy change undisputably meant
that they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory. And that is pure
silliness.

Whether lying or not, they claim ID to be a scientific theory. They didn't
"drop" that.
Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

[RonO]

This argument makes no sense because I was talking about and quoted
their education policy that is about what they think they can teach.
What do you think an education policy is? What was the quoted material
that was removed from the policy?

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the

scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

I think that I recall seeing nearly this exact statement in the pamphlet
that you linked to, but it is no longer in the current policy statement.

What are they claiming to be able to teach in the material that has been
removed from the official policy statement and is obviously no longer
part of their official policy? Why was it removed if they wanted to
keep claiming that they had a scientific theory of intelligent design
that could be taught in the public schools? This isn't some mistake
that just happened a few days ago. The date on the change is Feb 2013.
They have had months to correct any mistake that was made.

They have been lying. There is absolutely no doubt about that. About
the best that you can claim is that they mistakenly claimed that
untestable hypotheses were somehow scientific theories when they have
been corrected on that point for years before the Dover fiasco.
Conflating the casual use of theory with the modern use of scientific
theory is the same dishonest nonsense that the Scientific Creationists
were guilty of. You know from years of participating on TO what a
scientific theory is and you know for a fact that ID never was such a
theory.

What did they drop out of their education policy statement? I don't
know how you can lie to yourself like this. Try to find them claiming
that ID is a scientific theory in their current education policy. It
has been dropped. They obviously removed it and it is no longer a part
of their education policy. Bringing up dishonest junk written years
before the policy change is just stupid.

You are the one digging into the shit. What does it feel like to know
that for a fact? Denial will not change the current policy statement.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l08mv0$eph$1...@dont-email.me...

So your claim *is* that they no longer claim ID is a scientific theory,
because they dropped it from this policy statement.

[deadrat]

You're cutting the baloney mighty thin, here.

If the IDiots had a scientific theory, then it would suitable for
teaching in public schools. Why wouldn't they want their science taught
in science classes?

[Burkhard]

I must admit that I can't quite see how this follows. There are lots
of theories that are not just scientific theories, but the best
scientific theories ta we have, and nonetheless I would not consider
them suitable for teaching in schools. Pedagogical reasons e.g -
they might be too difficult, take up too much time for what is a
marginal subject, or don;t integrate well with the rest of the curriculum

E.g. no set theory in primary school (as I ad to endure, thanks
Mr Piaget)and no set theoretic topology in secondary school either

And then there are theories that are not just scientific, but I think
they are highly plausible myself - but because I'm aware that
they are a minority opinion amongst the experts in the relevant field,
and the opinion far from settled, I would not consider them suitable
for teaching at school. I woudl e.g. not necessarily teach Lyn Margulis
ideas on symbiotic relationships driving evolution in a standard
biology course at school, or m-Theory in physics.

Finally, there are lots of theories that meet the (pretty undemanding)
minimum criterion to be called "scientific" according to Dover, but
which I (and the majority of scientists in the field)hthink are plain
wrong - e.g. the aquatic ape theory.

"Being scientific" is only a necessary,not a sufficient condition for
a theory to be suitable for teaching at school.

[RonO]

What is the title of this thread? Has there been a change in policy?
Yes. It is a major change and not just a little shift in wording. So
what is your beef? Why don't you tell the ID perps what the scientific
theory of intelligent design is and make them put the claim back into
their education policy statement.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Glenn is just being the stupid sniper. He knows that he doesn't have an
argument, but it is all that he can come up with.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I have a pretty loose definition of science. Science is anything
someone does that adds something to our knowledge of nature. That does
not mean that anyone's wild ass idea is a scientific theory. You are
talking about working hypotheses with your talk about the aquatic ape
junk. These notions have not risen to the level that modern science
considers to be scientific theories. Even the string theory guys will
tell you that even though they call it a theory at this time they do not
have a scientific theory such as what the theory of gravity is. They
are still working to bring it up to that level. Scientists are people
and use theory in many ways, but how is it being used in the ID scam?
What are they comparing it to? Uncle Joe's theory of how the corn
harvest affects the outcome of the Superbowl is more scientific than the
ID perp junk because we can check out uncle Joe's harvest records and
future records as they come and correlate them with the Superbowl
statistics. Try to test and verify the ID perp junk.

The ID perps have added nothing in terms of the ID scam to our
understanding of nature. Way back when they started running the bait
and switch instead of putting up or shutting up the Ohio rubes
understood that what they were hawking wasn't science because one member
put the proposal before the board that the Ohio State board of education
change the generally accepted definition of science in order to include
the ID scam as science. They were sad that scientists could not rely on
miracle poofing and supernatural undetectable beings as reasonable claims.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:42:51 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:doue2953khu30e8jm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:23:29 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >
>> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> >> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
>> >> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.
>> >
>> >There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
>> >
>> >"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
>> >
>> >and in my first post directed you to one page where they do,
>>
>> ....a post which I showed preceded their policy change...
>>
>> > and in the second post
>> >to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
>> >post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
>>
>> ....none of which, despite a request, were you able to show
>> came after the policy change.

>I made no attempt to, because there is no need to. The "policy change" does not
>evidence or imply in any way that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific theory,

It says exactly that, by failing to list ID as part of the
"controversy" the DI wants to see taught.

>and the arguments that it does, including yours, are silly.

You're delusional.

[deadrat]

You're right, and no algebraic topology either. But really the baloney
is now so thin that it's practically transparent. The IDiots claimed to
have a scientific theory *on par with TOE*, i.e., an alternative
scientific theory to explain what we see in the biosphere. If we teach
TOE, we could just as well add IDiocy if the claims about it were true.

Or did the IDiots just now discover that their theory is so technically
challenging that it would be like trying to cover algebraic topology in
middle schools?

> And then there are theories that are not just scientific, but I think
> they are highly plausible myself - but because I'm aware that
> they are a minority opinion amongst the experts in the relevant field,
> and the opinion far from settled, I would not consider them suitable
> for teaching at school. I woudl e.g. not necessarily teach Lyn Margulis
> ideas on symbiotic relationships driving evolution in a standard
> biology course at school, or m-Theory in physics.

Except that IDiocy is not the M-Theory of biology, unless "M" stands for
"Moronic." I think _Of Pandering to People_ proves that point.

> Finally, there are lots of theories that meet the (pretty undemanding)
> minimum criterion to be called "scientific" according to Dover, but
> which I (and the majority of scientists in the field)hthink are plain
> wrong - e.g. the aquatic ape theory.
>
> "Being scientific" is only a necessary,not a sufficient condition for
> a theory to be suitable for teaching at school.
>
>> Why wouldn't they want their science taught
>> in science classes?

In other words why wouldn't they want *their* science taught in science
classes?

[Glenn]

"deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message news:YsadnQWfvNpzXbXP...@giganews.com...

"Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. "
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

[deadrat]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the amusement.

Translation from the IDiotic:

"Attempts to mandate teaching intelligent design in US public schools
will only result in our getting our asses handed to us again in federal
court. Scholars and scientists have also dismissed our work as
unscientific bullshit, which we're gonna blame on the politicized
decision in Dover. So much easier than actually doing any science,
dontcahknow?"

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 September 2013 18:23:34 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:42:51 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:doue2953khu30e8jm...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:23:29 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

> >> >There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
> >> >
> >> >"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
> >> >
> >> >and in my first post directed you to one page where they do,
> >>
> >> ....a post which I showed preceded their policy change...
> >>
> >> > and in the second post
> >> >to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
> >> >post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
> >>
> >> ....none of which, despite a request, were you able to show
> >> came after the policy change.
> >
> >I made no attempt to, because there is no need to. The "policy change" does not
> >evidence or imply in any way that the DI no longer refers to ID as
> >a scientific theory,
>
> It says exactly that, by failing to list ID as part of the
> "controversy" the DI wants to see taught.

ID never /was/ science and always was a hoax, and a "stalking-horse" behind
which was the desire to teach creationism to everyone's kids on the public
dollar. Surely no one on any side believed that it /was/ about ID-as-science.
If someone /did/ teach ID in a science lesson, it wouldn't really serve
the purpose of the creationists. The students would simply be baffled.

The DI has just chosen a different set of emphases for their campaign
for creationism: it's all about controversy, even though they now don't
offer an alternative to evolution for there to be a controversy /with/.

(I think that's what I wanted to say, but maybe I should re-read it... nah.)

[Glenn]

"deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message news:RbmdnRFnjqqFRLXP...@giganews.com...

Were you ever any good at ping pong?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:26:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Thursday, 5 September 2013 18:23:34 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:42:51 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:doue2953khu30e8jm...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:23:29 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >> >There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
>> >> >
>> >> >"The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
>> >> >
>> >> >and in my first post directed you to one page where they do,
>> >>
>> >> ....a post which I showed preceded their policy change...
>> >>
>> >> > and in the second post
>> >> >to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
>> >> >post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
>> >>
>> >> ....none of which, despite a request, were you able to show
>> >> came after the policy change.
>> >
>> >I made no attempt to, because there is no need to. The "policy change" does not
>> >evidence or imply in any way that the DI no longer refers to ID as
>> >a scientific theory,
>>
>> It says exactly that, by failing to list ID as part of the
>> "controversy" the DI wants to see taught.
>
>ID never /was/ science and always was a hoax

Of course it was; all this says is they've apparently
abandoned that position.

>, and a "stalking-horse" behind
>which was the desire to teach creationism to everyone's kids on the public
>dollar.

....a desire which has *not* been abandoned, so "eternal
vigilance" and all that...

> Surely no one on any side believed that it /was/ about ID-as-science.
>If someone /did/ teach ID in a science lesson, it wouldn't really serve
>the purpose of the creationists. The students would simply be baffled.
>
>The DI has just chosen a different set of emphases for their campaign
>for creationism: it's all about controversy, even though they now don't
>offer an alternative to evolution for there to be a controversy /with/.

Since they've been thrashing like pithed frogs for over a
century and a half, with zero actual progress regarding
evidence, don't expect it to end any time soon regardless of
the (lack of) merit of their position.

>(I think that's what I wanted to say, but maybe I should re-read it... nah.)

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

I am reviving this thread because Ron O lied about its contents
yesterday, and people need an easy way of verifying that fact.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 8:02:38 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l08gmh$kb4$1...@dont-email.me...
> - hide quoted text -

> > On 9/4/2013 9:35 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l0773p$4rc$1...@dont-email.me...
> > >> On 9/3/2013 7:23 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:l05rhn$d6d$1...@dont-email.me...
> > >>>
> > >>>> Glenn is arguing that the ID perps are still claiming to
> > >>>> have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools.

Glenn never added that part about "to teach in the public schools"
on this thread. But Ron O repeated his allegation, above,
earlier this week, and again yesterday in response to repeated
challenges by me, and linked me to this thread as "proof."

[QUOTE:]
Pamplet in question:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

The thread where Glenn last used it to claim that the ID perps were
still selling the teach ID scam even if they had deleted the claim from
their education statment.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J
END OF QUOTE from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/0IACGBS8gT4J


Anyone checking back over this whole thread can see what a lie
that was.

> > >>> There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
> > >>>
> > >>> "The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
> > >>>
> > >>> and in my first post directed you to one page where they do, and in the second post
> > >>> to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
> > >>> post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
> > >>
> > >> Glenn you are lying to yourself again. There is absolutely no doubt
> > >> that I was talking about a recent change in policy and I demonstrated it
> > >> by putting up the most recent official Discovery Institute policy
> > >> statement showing how it had changed.
> > >
> > > Yes, you made quite a few claims. Here's your first:
> > >
> > > "The Discovery Institute has dropped the statement
> > > that they have a scientific theory of intelligent design that can be
> > > taught in the public schools from their official policy statement on the
> > > issue"
> > >
> > > That doesn't legitimize your claim that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific theory, or that
> > > "they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory" as you also claim.
> >
> > Why not? Wasn't I talking about the change in their official policy
> > statement? Do they still claim to have a scientific theory of
> > intelligent design to teach in it? What do you think that I was talking
> > about? What did I quote? I think that you were just fishing for stupid
> > arguments here and caught one.

Yes, you caught a stupid argument from Ron O. He spoke truer than
he knew.

> No, the inclusion of "to teach" is irrelevant to whether the DI "no longer
> refers to ID as a scientific theory" or that "they no longer claim that ID
> is a scientific theory".

Here is where you addressed that "to teach"
issue of Ron O's. If he actually thinks you were alleging that
they claimed "to have a scientific theory of intelligent design
to teach in the public schools [see above quote from yesterday]
then he is mentally ill.

But I think he discovered this week that he had painted himself
into a corner [see above quote] and figures he can bluff and
bluster his way out of it. He's behaved like that many, many
times before. Posting a link that DISproves what he claims
to be proving may be a new level of blustering, but it is true
that his links never prove any wrongdoing by me.

> The new "policy statement" does not, repeat, not, make that claim.
> You could have inferred that the DI no longer recommends that
> the scientific theory of ID be taught in schools. Instead you chose the
> moment to make it appear that the policy change undisputably meant
> that they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory. And that is pure
> silliness.

Absolutely. But Ron O kept up his charade, until "deadrat" posted
a diversion and Burkhard corrected what "deadrat" wrote. Ron O, of
course, took advantage of deadrat's diversion.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:e8c525da-d648-43be...@googlegroups.com...

Again, some of this is indicative of delusion. It may not be that he "figures he can bluff",
but that he really believes that the things he says about others is real and true.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:39:23 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

> Again, some of this is indicative of delusion. It may not be that he
> "figures he can bluff", but that he really believes that the things
> he says about others is real and true.

Either way, people in this newsgroup deserve to know about it.

Here is a description of a special kind of pathological liar
called a "pseudologue." Ron O is the only person I have ever encountered
who fits the whole description that follows--assuming you are right about
him sometimes believing his own elaborate falsehoods.

According to psychiatrist Dr. Charles V. Ford,
"the pseudologue spins tales that appear plausible
on the surface but do not hang together over time.
Fact and fiction are woven together in an interesting
matrix until the two are virtually indistinguishable.
Unlike a delusional psychotic person, the pseudologue
will abandon the story or change it if confronted
with contradictory evidence or sufficient disbelief.
The stories do have an enduring quality and after
repeating them enough times, even the pseudologue
begins to believe them."
http://www.answers.com/topic/pseudologue
Charles V. Ford is the author of _Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!: The
Psychology of Deceit_:
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-The-Psychology-Deceit/dp/0880489979

The "change it" (the story) applies very well to Ron O as
he removes "to teach" and/or "in the public schools"
and/or "claimed to have" from his description of the alleged "bait"
when hard pressed, in order to perpetrate his latest falsehood
on what you or I have supposedly said about
"the bait and switch scam."

His bizarre and illogical expression "the switch scam"
is used when he wants to focus on the "rubes" never getting
"what they want." He does this to minimize the risk of being
pressed on "the bait." And well he might: his evidence
for that is so laughable, I've never seen anyone besides him
try to argue for it.

Peter Nyikos

[Sneaky O. Possum]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote in
news:cd338c68-81b8-47f5...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:39:23 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>
>> Again, some of this is indicative of delusion. It may not be that he
>> "figures he can bluff", but that he really believes that the things
>> he says about others is real and true.
>
> Either way, people in this newsgroup deserve to know about it.
>
> Here is a description of a special kind of pathological liar
> called a "pseudologue." Ron O is the only person I have ever
> encountered who fits the whole description that follows--assuming you
> are right about him sometimes believing his own elaborate falsehoods.
>
> According to psychiatrist Dr. Charles V. Ford,
> "the pseudologue spins tales that appear plausible
> on the surface but do not hang together over time.
> Fact and fiction are woven together in an interesting
> matrix until the two are virtually indistinguishable.
> Unlike a delusional psychotic person, the pseudologue
> will abandon the story or change it if confronted
> with contradictory evidence or sufficient disbelief.
> The stories do have an enduring quality and after
> repeating them enough times, even the pseudologue
> begins to believe them."
> http://www.answers.com/topic/pseudologue
> Charles V. Ford is the author of _Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!: The
> Psychology of Deceit_:
> http://www.amazon.com/Lies-The-Psychology-Deceit/dp/0880489979

Thus we see that the only difference between Ron and you is the fact
that your tales don't even appear plausible on the surface.
--
S.O.P.

[RonO]

Go for it. What the post that you are responding to is about is
obviously a mis communicaiton between Glenn and I because I did not
understand what he was trying to do Glenn's own explanation means that
our argument was senseless because I agree with Glenn on the point that
he now claims that he was making.

My first post to start this thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

It is obvious that I am talking about the education policy.

Glenn's response:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/rXbYZrTI96gJ

Glenn does not state that he is doing something stupid and dishonest by
taking the quote out of context.

I was glad to see the pamhlet because it demonstrated just what I was
claiming. It had the old education policy from 2007 in it that
contained the paragraph that the Discovery Institute had deleted about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design, and it also
demonstrated that the ID perps had claimed to be able to teach the junk
in the past even after their loss in Dover. No one could miss the fact
that they were claiming that it was still legal to teach the ID claptrap
in other places than Dover because they claimed that the Dover decision
only applied to Dover (that is likely wrong, it applies to the entire
middle Federal court district of Penn.).

My response:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NXJM6_9kUk4J

Glenn answered with some other links that seemed nonsensical and did not
respond to my post to confirm or deny what he was doing.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/PlyfLO5k-VwJ

My response:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NnnDPsG38YgJ

This further exchange is basically both of us talking past each other
because Glenn does not make it clear that he did something stupid and
dishonest by trying to take the quote out of context.

It made no sense to me that he would take the quote out of context,
because that would be senseless. I never contested that the ID perps
were still claiming to have the bogus ID science. I would have agreed
with Glenn if he had made it clear. I have no reason to believe that
the iD perps do not continue to lie about having the ID science. It was
a basically stupid and senseless thing for Glenn to try, and I didn't
expect him to do it. My contention was always that the education policy
had changed and the change was itself obvious.

>
>>>>>> There is no need for me to argue. Facts speak for themselves. You claimed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Discovery Institute no longer refers to ID as a "scientific" theory"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and in my first post directed you to one page where they do, and in the second post
>>>>>> to another, which happened to be one of your own references. And again in a later
>>>>>> post to Casanova, three more in links from the DI main page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glenn you are lying to yourself again. There is absolutely no doubt
>>>>> that I was talking about a recent change in policy and I demonstrated it
>>>>> by putting up the most recent official Discovery Institute policy
>>>>> statement showing how it had changed.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you made quite a few claims. Here's your first:
>>>>
>>>> "The Discovery Institute has dropped the statement
>>>> that they have a scientific theory of intelligent design that can be
>>>> taught in the public schools from their official policy statement on the
>>>> issue"
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't legitimize your claim that the DI no longer refers to ID as a scientific theory, or that
>>>> "they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory" as you also claim.
>>>
>>> Why not? Wasn't I talking about the change in their official policy
>>> statement? Do they still claim to have a scientific theory of
>>> intelligent design to teach in it? What do you think that I was talking
>>> about? What did I quote? I think that you were just fishing for stupid
>>> arguments here and caught one.
>
> Yes, you caught a stupid argument from Ron O. He spoke truer than
> he knew.

I was talking about the change in policy. That was the point of the
whole thread. Glenn now claims that he was taking the quote out of
context to make a point that was not in contention, and was essentially
a senseless point because I would have agreed with it.

>
>> No, the inclusion of "to teach" is irrelevant to whether the DI "no longer
>> refers to ID as a scientific theory" or that "they no longer claim that ID
>> is a scientific theory".

See, we are talking past each other.

>
> Here is where you addressed that "to teach"
> issue of Ron O's. If he actually thinks you were alleging that
> they claimed "to have a scientific theory of intelligent design
> to teach in the public schools [see above quote from yesterday]
> then he is mentally ill.
>
> But I think he discovered this week that he had painted himself
> into a corner [see above quote] and figures he can bluff and
> bluster his way out of it. He's behaved like that many, many
> times before. Posting a link that DISproves what he claims
> to be proving may be a new level of blustering, but it is true
> that his links never prove any wrongdoing by me.

Glenn was no longer talking about the education policy. I was talking
about the education policy. I was always talking about the education
policy. What do you not get?

>
>> The new "policy statement" does not, repeat, not, make that claim.
>> You could have inferred that the DI no longer recommends that
>> the scientific theory of ID be taught in schools. Instead you chose the
>> moment to make it appear that the policy change undisputably meant
>> that they no longer claim that ID is a scientific theory. And that is pure
>> silliness.
>
> Absolutely. But Ron O kept up his charade, until "deadrat" posted
> a diversion and Burkhard corrected what "deadrat" wrote. Ron O, of
> course, took advantage of deadrat's diversion.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

So you are wrong and Glenn's use of the pamphlet in the way he claims
means that the ID perps were claiming to have the scientific theory of
ID whether they claimed to teach it or not. So your lie about the ID
perps not claiming to have a scientific theory in that pamphlet is
another lie according to Glenn. You two can duke it out about that.

The plain and simple fact is that the education policy changed and the
Discovery Institute deleted the claim that they had a scientific theory
of ID to teach in the public schools from that policy.

I agree with Glenn's contention that the ID perps continue to claim to
have the ID science whether they claim to be able to teach it or not,
and if Glenn would have claimed straight out at the beginning that he
was doing something stupid and dishonest by taking the quote out of
context, it would not have been an issue because I would have agreed
with him.

Why not get back to those posts that you are running from and address
them in detail like you claimed to Glenn that you were going to do, but
"tomorrow" never came and still has not come.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:cd338c68-81b8-47f5...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:39:23 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>
>> Again, some of this is indicative of delusion. It may not be that he
>> "figures he can bluff", but that he really believes that the things
>> he says about others is real and true.
>
> Either way, people in this newsgroup deserve to know about it.
>

Why?

[Josko Daimonie]

Given this response, I must say the post made by Peter is a bit weird.
I find the spirit in which it is written weird. Instead of a "Look,
guys, this weird difference is here" it is an attack on RonO's integrity.

As RonO says the topic was education, why is it weird that he things
Glenn is talking about the same thing?

If we're going to talk about fish, I'm not going to assume that you are
suddenly talking about birds?

[RonO]

It is surreal that I would have had to assume that someone was doing
something bogus in order to not be accused of lying. It isn't just
that, but I still cannot figure out what Glenn thought that he was doing
by taking that quote out of context as he claims that he did. It was
not a point in contention and the point that he claims that he was
making is one that I totally agree with, so we would have had no
argument at all.

Ron Okimoto

[A Non E Mouse]

On 2013-09-01 15:45:11 +0000, RonO said:

> This is the old 2011 statement that I quoted in its entierty when
> Nyikos tried to lie about it. It seems abnormal that Nyikos would be
> good for anything.

That's unkind. I'm sure that he must be good for something. Give me
some time and I'll try to think up what that might be.

[jillery]

Don't take too long. Remember, the Universe is scheduled to burn out
in 10^100^100 years (give or take).

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:51:01 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

Hi, Josko. It's nice to see you return to posting here after about
two months of absence, but I'm sorry that it was at such an inopportune
time. If you want to see some on-topic discussion by me, the thread on
predictions of evolutionary theory is a reasonably good place
to look.

You wrote in reply to Ron O:

> Given this response,

...which was a massive diversion from the topic of the demonstrable
lie which I documented Ron O saying on another thread last week...

> I must say the post made by Peter is a bit weird.
> I find the spirit in which it is written weird. Instead of a "Look,
> guys, this weird difference is here" it is an attack on RonO's integrity.

I have megabytes of evidence on a lack of integrity, on a massive
scale, by Ron O stretching from his very early posts attacking me
in December 2010. His lie about what Glenn had written on this thread
barely scratches the surface. It is, morever, a lie that everyone
can verify for himself by reading everything Glenn wrote on this
thread before I revived it. And that shouldn't take more than an
hour for a reasonably fast reader.

The fact that it was a lie rather than an honest mistake takes
longer, and you need to look on the other thread for evidence.
It is in the way Ron O kept trying to cover up for the lie by
inaccurately referring to it. My reply to Glenn where I talk
about the concept of "pseudologue" gives some clue as to how
that was done.

> As RonO says the topic was education, why is it weird that he things
> Glenn is talking about the same thing?

What is weird is that he LIED last week about what Glenn had written about
education on this thread.

Usually, he does not provide readers with documentation that he was
lying. But that is what he did in this case.

> If we're going to talk about fish, I'm not going to assume that you
> are suddenly talking about birds?

I see you are unfamiliar with Ron O's *modus operandi*. I'm not sure
it is worth your time to learn about it. You may wind up feeling like
C.S. Lewis did when he finished writing _The Screwtape Letters_. He
found it deadening to have to descend over and over again into a
frame of mind of a cunning devil advising another how to tempt people.
He was very much relieved when it was over.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Because, either way, they will know that Ron O's word is not to
be trusted. And they do deserve to know about it, no matter
what they do with this information.

Just look at how Josko Daimonie innocently took Ron O at his word.
So far, Josko seems to be quite a sincere, level headed person, but he obviously doesn't see what manner of man Ron O really is,
not even how utterly different Ron O is from everyone else
in this newsgroup when he is under fire.

There are other reasons. One is a ripple effect, which would
have a number of facets, if more people realize that
Ron O is either conscious of being habitually dishonest,
or else is deluded into not realizing what a thorough vehicle
of disinformation he is.

First and most simply, people could be warned if they were acting
like Ron O in a certain way. Even if they do not back off on
being told this, those who see the connection will be oriented
in the right direction.

Second facet: there are people who have supported Ron O against me
in the past. A prime example in this respect was the way Jillery
teamed up with Ron O on the Turtle genome sequence and analysis thread.
The two of them swapped more and more outrageous claims about me,
making it look like Ron O was the innocent victim of massive attacks
by me. Jillery knew better, but she could get away with it because
there was no general perception that Ron O is either a habitual,
deliberate liar or mentally ill.

There are other facets, but I hope this will be enough to persuade
you to stay the course as Ron O uses his unique repertoire of
dirty debating tactics to avoid facing up to the lie he wrote
on that "Why do the ID perps..." thread about what you had done
on this thread.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:

>On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:51:01 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

>> I must say the post made by Peter is a bit weird.
>> I find the spirit in which it is written weird. Instead of a "Look,
>> guys, this weird difference is here" it is an attack on RonO's integrity.

>I have megabytes of evidence

"I have in my hand a piece of paper, signed by Mr. Hitler,
promising peace in our time."

"While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the
State Department who have been named as members of the
Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my
hand a list of 205."

[jillery]

OTOH there is exactly that general perception about you. Now ain't
that ironic?

Remember the standard test for insanity; doing the same thing over and
and over while expecting different results. Take the hint.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

That "general perception" is something whose existence you cannot
document, because few people try to claim I am a liar, and
no one makes an effort to prove it, not even you or Ron O.

Do you deny having teamed up with Ron O on that thread, while
I steadfastly stuck to scientific issues of relevance to talk.origins
and especially sci.bio.paleontology?

Do you deny Gans and Camp and Isaak having supported the two of you
briefly but unmistakably in your character assassination campaign?

Do you deny that Burkhard and <gasp> Shrubber PLONKED Ron O (and
in Shrubber's case, you too) because you were too over the top
even for them?
Do you deny that your words here are motivated by revenge,
and not by any ability to support what you so maliciously say
about me here?

> Now ain't that ironic?

There is nothing ironic, only business as usual, about this latest
attempt to deflect criticism from Ron O.

But you DO perform a nice job, probably inadvertently, of showing
Glenn why it is important to expose Ron O as a completely
untrustworthy witness.

> Remember the standard test for insanity; doing the same thing over and
> and over while expecting different results. Take the hint.

Ron O is the one who needs to take that hint, but he may be too far gone
to see it. And he is just the kind of "useful idiot" you need in your
own campaign of revenge against me.

You never spoke truer words than when you told Ron O on that "Turtle..."
thread that you were joining him for your sake, and not his.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On 9/22/14 11:47 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
>> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:51:01 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
>
>>> I must say the post made by Peter is a bit weird.
>>> I find the spirit in which it is written weird. Instead of a "Look,
>>> guys, this weird difference is here" it is an attack on RonO's integrity.
>
>> I have megabytes of evidence
>
> "I have in my hand a piece of paper, signed by Mr. Hitler,
> promising peace in our time."
>
> "While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the
> State Department who have been named as members of the
> Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my
> hand a list of 205."

I may be in the minority, but I'm not sure it's fair to impute either
craven accommodationism or malicious ideological opportunism to Peter. I
think the following better captures his pathology,

- Amy: I don�t understand. What difference does it make if Leonard goes
to Wil Wheaton�s party?
- Penny: Wil Wheaton is Sheldon�s mortal enemy.
- Amy: Mortal enemy?
- Penny: Mm-hmm.
- Amy: Sheldon, I know you�re a bit of a left-handed monkey wrench, but,
you really have a mortal enemy?
- Sheldon: In fact, I have 61 of them. Would you like to see the list?
- Penny: Oh, say no, say no, say no, say no.
- Sheldon: You just got off the list. Would you like back on it? This�ll
just take a moment. It�s on a five and a quarter inch floppy.
- Amy: A floppy disk?
- Sheldon: Well, I started the list when I was nine.

Take away Sheldon's genius and the occasional quirky charm, turn the
paranoia, social dysfunction, and self-importance up to eleven, and he
makes a pretty good model of Peter's disorder.

[Robert Camp]

On 9/22/14 12:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, September 22, 2014 2:45:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:02:51 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>> Second facet: there are people who have supported Ron O against me
>>> in the past. A prime example in this respect was the way Jillery
>>> teamed up with Ron O on the Turtle genome sequence and analysis thread.
>>> The two of them swapped more and more outrageous claims about me,
>>> making it look like Ron O was the innocent victim of massive attacks
>>> by me. Jillery knew better, but she could get away with it because
>>> there was no general perception that Ron O is either a habitual,
>>> deliberate liar or mentally ill.
>
>> OTOH there is exactly that general perception about you.
>
> That "general perception" is something whose existence you cannot
> document, because few people try to claim I am a liar, and
> no one makes an effort to prove it, not even you or Ron O.
>
> Do you deny having teamed up with Ron O on that thread, while
> I steadfastly stuck to scientific issues of relevance to talk.origins
> and especially sci.bio.paleontology?
>
> Do you deny Gans and Camp and Isaak having supported the two of you
> briefly but unmistakably in your character assassination campaign?

I do. Let's see some evidence.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Here we go. The "he" to whom you and Ron O are referring is myself, the
[...] is in place of dialogue that did not involve you.

Subject: Re: Turtle genome sequence and analysis
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:09:30 -0700 (PDT)

On Apr 5, 4:19�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

[...]

>You have to demonstrate that he really is the
> asshole that he himself understands himself to be.

My opinion, Ron, is that he really doesn't understand. He's missing
the bit of wiring that allows him to see himself as others see
him...to maintain a balanced perspective.

Surely you can see by now that nothing will be accomplished by taking
offense at someone who cannot help himself. When the interaction
descends from substance to squabbling, the only person your continued
involvement can reflect upon is you.

________________ end of excerpt from
Message-ID: <3ffcc176-df0b-4d26...@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/_5VUAvu8FB4/XZoeL0tjAY4J

Note the implication that continued involvement cannot reflect
upon me--presumably because I am so far beyond the pale that
even a megabyte of intense back and forth between me and Ron O, could
not possibly make me look any worse than I already am.

Nor, of course, could it ameliorate anyone's bad opinion of me,
for similar reasons.

I wonder whether Glenn still wants to know why people here deserve
to know that Ron O is either insane or tremendously, deliberately
dishonest. Maybe your comments will help him see the light.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:47:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>
>>On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:51:01 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
>
>>> I must say the post made by Peter is a bit weird.
>>> I find the spirit in which it is written weird. Instead of a "Look,
>>> guys, this weird difference is here" it is an attack on RonO's integrity.
>
>>I have megabytes of evidence
>
>"I have in my hand a piece of paper, signed by Mr. Hitler,
>promising peace in our time."
>
>"While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the
>State Department who have been named as members of the
>Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my
>hand a list of 205."

"I am not a crook"

"Mission Accomplished"

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Monday, September 22, 2014 2:45:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:02:51 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> >Second facet: there are people who have supported Ron O against me
>> >in the past. A prime example in this respect was the way Jillery
>> >teamed up with Ron O on the Turtle genome sequence and analysis thread.
>> >The two of them swapped more and more outrageous claims about me,
>> >making it look like Ron O was the innocent victim of massive attacks
>> >by me. Jillery knew better, but she could get away with it because
>> >there was no general perception that Ron O is either a habitual,
>> >deliberate liar or mentally ill.
>
>> OTOH there is exactly that general perception about you.
>
>That "general perception" is something whose existence you cannot
>document, because few people try to claim I am a liar, and
>no one makes an effort to prove it, not even you or Ron O.

There is no way to "prove" anything without wallowing in the mud with
you. I freely admit that you're talents and experience in that field
exceed mine. So I limit my reply to this post, and limit this post to
making clear what you obfuscate for your own benefit.

I used to reply to all of your false claims that I noticed and at the
time that you posted them, so that others couldn't reasonably claim
that you don't lie. That upset a lot of people. You posted so many
howlers I couldn't keep up. Besides which, you always obfuscated the
real issues with massive injections of irrelevant noise.

So I don't reply to your nonsense anymore. Now I just comment
whenever you irrelevantly inject my nym into a topic, as I did above,
in order to document your compulsion.

But for evidence of the "general perception" to which you refer, one
need only read the numerous and unsolicited testimonials in the
currently active "Peter Nyikos" subject. My single contribution to
that thread is out-of-place in its understatement.

>Do you deny having teamed up with Ron O on that thread, while
>I steadfastly stuck to scientific issues of relevance to talk.origins
>and especially sci.bio.paleontology?

As I recall, it was you, John Harshman, and RNorman who teamed up to
hijack to a different newsgroup a topic Ron O. started. Reactivating
S.B.P. might be a laudatory goal, but moving topics from T.O. isn't
the way to do that. So if I had "teamed up" with Ron O, it would have
been to help balance the sides.

>Do you deny Gans and Camp and Isaak having supported the two of you
>briefly but unmistakably in your character assassination campaign?

That's what's called a prosecutor's claim. Whatever character
assassination campaign you imagine was most likely pointing out your
many howlers, as I described above. Since you did most of the work
for me, by making such obvious lies, one could reasonably infer that
you were a co-conspirator in your own assassination.

>Do you deny that Burkhard and <gasp> Shrubber PLONKED Ron O (and
>in Shrubber's case, you too) because you were too over the top
>even for them?

Yet another prosecutor's claim, in this case resting on incomplete
facts. RNorman also plonked Ron O. There likely were others at the
time. The problem was that Ron O. was being persecuted for defending
himself against your nonsense, and for making plain your behavior that
other posters willfully refused to see at the time. Apparently that's
no longer the case.

Given Shrubber's posts to you and about you in recent months, he might
regret not plonking you as well.

>Do you deny that your words here are motivated by revenge,
>and not by any ability to support what you so maliciously say
>about me here?

Yet another prosecutor's claim. Revenge for what? What could you
possibly have done to me that my replies haven't been consistent with
them and appropriate to them?

And I have supported with documentation everything I have written
about you. You just conveniently forget about it.

>> Now ain't that ironic?
>
>There is nothing ironic, only business as usual, about this latest
>attempt to deflect criticism from Ron O.
>
>But you DO perform a nice job, probably inadvertently, of showing
>Glenn why it is important to expose Ron O as a completely
>untrustworthy witness.

I hope you and Glenn have lots of fun playing with each other. You
deserve each other. Really.

>> Remember the standard test for insanity; doing the same thing over and
>> and over while expecting different results. Take the hint.
>
>Ron O is the one who needs to take that hint, but he may be too far gone
>to see it. And he is just the kind of "useful idiot" you need in your
>own campaign of revenge against me.
>
>You never spoke truer words than when you told Ron O on that "Turtle..."
>thread that you were joining him for your sake, and not his.

Any rational person who reads my post to which you refer would
recognize no declaration of joining, but an acknowledgement of
separate paths.

[jillery]

Be careful what you ask for. If past behavior is any guide, his
evidence has little correlation to his claims.

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:34:39 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>There is no way to "prove" anything without wallowing in the mud with
>you. I freely admit that you're talents and experience in that field
>exceed mine. So I limit my reply to this post, and limit this post to
>making clear what you obfuscate for your own benefit.

And for the compulsively pendantic,, I acknowledge that it's "your",
not "you're".

[Robert Camp]

In what way could these remarks (notice that my criticism was directed
*at* Ron) be interpreted as support for either RonO or jillery?

> Nor, of course, could it ameliorate anyone's bad opinion of me,
> for similar reasons.

How is that relevant to, or confirmation of, a charge that I
"...supported the two of you..." (i.e., Ron and jillery)?

> I wonder whether Glenn still wants to know why people here deserve
> to know that Ron O is either insane or tremendously, deliberately
> dishonest. Maybe your comments will help him see the light.

Maybe you should go back and reread your remarks, my subsequent request
for evidence, and your entirely irrelevant response.

That you need professional help is not news, but the above rhetorical
misadventure suggests you're having difficulty connecting coherent thoughts.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/22/14 12:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>

> Do you deny Gans and Camp and Isaak having supported the two of you
> briefly but unmistakably in your character assassination campaign?

I deny it. The only person assassinating Peter's character is Peter.
Complaining about a bad state of things is quite a different thing from
trying to damage the state. And the ONLY reason people say similar
things about you is because they see the same things and arrive at the
same conclusions independently.


(Incidentally, you are making lists again, just minutes after denying
that you do so.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:46:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

>On 9/22/14 11:47 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:51:01 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
>>
>>>> I must say the post made by Peter is a bit weird.
>>>> I find the spirit in which it is written weird. Instead of a "Look,
>>>> guys, this weird difference is here" it is an attack on RonO's integrity.
>>
>>> I have megabytes of evidence
>>
>> "I have in my hand a piece of paper, signed by Mr. Hitler,
>> promising peace in our time."
>>
>> "While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the
>> State Department who have been named as members of the
>> Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my
>> hand a list of 205."
>
>I may be in the minority, but I'm not sure it's fair to impute either
>craven accommodationism or malicious ideological opportunism to Peter.

It was actually intended to be a comment regarding his
"megabytes of evidence". I consider him neither craven nor
exceptionally malicious, but I do consider him to at least
tend toward paranoia and associated conspiracy theories.

> I
>think the following better captures his pathology,
>

>- Amy: I don�t understand. What difference does it make if Leonard goes
>to Wil Wheaton�s party?
>- Penny: Wil Wheaton is Sheldon�s mortal enemy.

>- Amy: Mortal enemy?
>- Penny: Mm-hmm.

>- Amy: Sheldon, I know you�re a bit of a left-handed monkey wrench, but,

>you really have a mortal enemy?
>- Sheldon: In fact, I have 61 of them. Would you like to see the list?
>- Penny: Oh, say no, say no, say no, say no.

>- Sheldon: You just got off the list. Would you like back on it? This�ll
>just take a moment. It�s on a five and a quarter inch floppy.

>- Amy: A floppy disk?
>- Sheldon: Well, I started the list when I was nine.
>
>Take away Sheldon's genius and the occasional quirky charm, turn the
>paranoia, social dysfunction, and self-importance up to eleven, and he
>makes a pretty good model of Peter's disorder.

Valid points; thanks.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

You criticized Ron O, but as I am explaining, any perceptive reader
could see that you were looking upon him (and, by extension, jillery)
as being by far the lesser of two evils.

Thus reassured, Ron O replied to you with a deluge of additional
character assassination of me, and that ended the matter: you never
criticized him for replying in that way. In fact, you never
posted to that thread again.

> > Nor, of course, could it ameliorate anyone's bad opinion of me,
> > for similar reasons.
>
> How is that relevant to, or confirmation of, a charge that I
> "...supported the two of you..." (i.e., Ron and jillery)?

Good point: I was careless in my wording. I should have
characterized you (and maybe the other two) as indirectly reassuring
Ron O that you were in his corner (and jillery's, of course) but
you thought his actions (but not jillery's?) were counter-productive.

Ron O certainly read you that way, but declined to follow your
advice:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/_5VUAvu8FB4/Ak5slCzJ4LkJ

> > I wonder whether Glenn still wants to know why people here deserve
> > to know that Ron O is either insane or tremendously, deliberately
> > dishonest. Maybe your comments will help him see the light.
>
> Maybe you should go back and reread your remarks, my subsequent request
> for evidence, and your entirely irrelevant response.

Now that I have corrected the wording, can you see why it was relevant?

> That you need professional help is not news, but the above rhetorical
> misadventure suggests you're having difficulty connecting coherent thoughts.

Wrong. I just thought along a different dimension than you did, but along
at least equally valid lines.

And you might want to rephrase the first half your sentence, which suggests
that you are once again in Ron O's corner, where need of professional
help is concerned.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, September 22, 2014 7:34:39 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 22, 2014 2:45:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:02:51 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> >> >Second facet: there are people who have supported Ron O against me
> >> >in the past. A prime example in this respect was the way Jillery
> >> >teamed up with Ron O on the Turtle genome sequence and analysis thread.
> >> >The two of them swapped more and more outrageous claims about me,
> >> >making it look like Ron O was the innocent victim of massive attacks
> >> >by me. Jillery knew better, but she could get away with it because
> >> >there was no general perception that Ron O is either a habitual,
> >> >deliberate liar or mentally ill.
> >
> >> OTOH there is exactly that general perception about you.
> >
> >That "general perception" is something whose existence you cannot
> >document, because few people try to claim I am a liar, and
> >no one makes an effort to prove it, not even you or Ron O.
>
>
> There is no way to "prove" anything without wallowing in the mud with
> you. I freely admit that you're talents and experience in that field
> exceed mine.

Wallowing in the mud is the only way you can try to "prove"
anything nasty about me. And you did plenty of it below.

<snip self-serving bilge by jillery>

> But for evidence of the "general perception" to which you refer, one
> need only read the numerous and unsolicited testimonials in the
> currently active "Peter Nyikos" subject. My single contribution to
> that thread is out-of-place in its understatement.

Ha! a "general perception" voiced by a tiny fraction of the regulars,
with about half of that fraction having long-standing grudges against me
for exposing them for what they are, and the other half not even touching
on the topic of mental illness, making at most comments about what they
perceive to be my social ineptitude. And NONE of them saying anything
about me being "a habitual, deliberate liar."

More relevantly, NONE of the comments had anything to do with "either a
habitual, deliberate liar or mentally ill" as it was meant by me in
context.

The context was the vast (and constantly growing) number of megabytes
of falsehoods and grotesque distortions by Ron O, with
these two alternatives being the only way to account for them.

> >Do you deny having teamed up with Ron O on that thread, while
> >I steadfastly stuck to scientific issues of relevance to talk.origins
> >and especially sci.bio.paleontology?
>
> As I recall, it was you, John Harshman, and RNorman who teamed up to
> hijack to a different newsgroup a topic Ron O. started.

The word "hijack" is your way of denigrating a perfectly acceptable
and quite common crossposting practice. The topic which Ron O started
was actually more relevant to s.b.p. than to t.o.

Ron O showed NO interest in continuing the topic he started beyond
the OP. All he was interested in was character assassination, despite
my being completely on-topic in my reply to *his* OP, and directly
addressing some statements in it.

> Reactivating
> S.B.P. might be a laudatory goal, but moving topics from T.O. isn't
> the way to do that.

You were drowning out the on-topic discussion with character
assassination. When you finally realized how badly it was alienating
even such unlikely people as Shrubber and Burkhard, along with
Richard Norman, you very belatedly returned to the topic of turtle
evolution, but Ron O didn't follow your lead.

> So if I had "teamed up" with Ron O, it would have
> been to help balance the sides.

Overbalance, you mean, a torrent of character assassination
versus discussion of turtle phylogeny. That discussion continued
on BOTH newsgroups, while the character assassination, with
each of you reinforcing the other, was crossposted
only when you chose to crosspost it.

> >Do you deny Gans and Camp and Isaak having supported the two of you
> >briefly but unmistakably in your character assassination campaign?

> That's what's called a prosecutor's claim. Whatever character
> assassination campaign you imagine was most likely pointing out your
> many howlers, as I described above.

You are either lying or deluded. There WERE no howlers by any of us
discussing the phylogeny, and you two were exclusively talking
to each other about what a blackguard I supposedly was.

>Since you did most of the work
> for me, by making such obvious lies, one could reasonably infer that
> you were a co-conspirator in your own assassination.

Keep digging yourself deeper into the mud, twit.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

><snip self-serving bilge by jillery>

<snip self-serving bilge by "peter">

You make this way too easy.