Why the intelligent design movement was never about accomplishing any science.

[RonO]

Links:
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/



3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/



4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/



5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

It is obvious that the IDiots/creationists on TO can't face the top six
pieces of supporting evidence for the intelligent design movement. The
ID perps at the Discovery Institute don't even call this junk scientific
evidence. This is all they ever had in the entire history of the
ID/creationist scam unit. It is why the bait and switch scam has been
going down on any IDiots that have thought that there was any real ID
science for over 15 years.

It is apparent from the way the IDiots on TO have dealt with this "best"
of IDiocy that they have known for a very long time that ID was bogus,
so why did they keep pretending that intelligent design was science?

The purpose of the creationist ID scam was to claim that the
creationists had something equivalent to the science that they didn't
agree with. In the 1960's the courts ruled that the creationists could
no longer ban scientific topics from the science classroom. Since they
could no longer ban the science they wanted some means to obfuscate the
issue and keep their kids from learning about nature. They wanted
something to teach in the public schools to counter what they thought
went against their beliefs. This political scam failed with scientific
creationism in the 1980's. Creationism was found to be no science worth
calling science, and the political ploy of trying to teach it failed the
Lemon test. The creationists didn't give up, and changed the name of
the political scam to intelligent design.

The point is that the political scam was the claim to have something
equivalent to teach in the public schools. The creationists understood
that science actually worked and was a very successful endeavor and they
wanted to dress themselves in that clothing in order to lie about what
they actually wanted to do. Guys like Bill were IDiots because they
understood how good science is, and they wanted to pretend to have
something as good. Now guys like Bill and Dale just have sour grapes
over the issue and claim that they never were interested in the success
of the ID/creationist scam and that science isn't that big of a deal.
They spend their time trying to drag down something that they knew was
what they wanted their beliefs to equal.

The main reason why IDiots have been lying to themselves about this
issue for decades is because they never wanted to do any science. The
last thing that they wanted to do was accomplish something so that they
would have to incorporate it into their beliefs. This fact is
demonstrated by how they deal with the "best" that IDiocy has to offer.
It is obvious that the ID perps could have dealt with a lot of science
that pertained to their alternative, but they refused to do the science
that they could accomplish and instead lied about doing nothing and
pretending to get somewhere. It is obvious that nothing was ever
accomplished by the ID perps.

There should be no denial about these facts. Just look at what the
"best" tell you and how all the IDiots are running away from the "best"
or making stupid claims like the "best" isn't the best, or that the
"best" doesn't matter because nothing really exists. The IDiots never
wanted to know that this evidence existed because they never wanted to
deal with it.

Take the first two "best" on the list. The Big Bang and the fine tuning
junk. The majority of IDiots do not want to accept these as evidence
for anything. Young earth creationists compose the majority of the
IDiot support base even though most of the ID perps are old earth
creationists (I've always said that the ID perps would be the first up
against the wall in their political nirvana, and Dembski demonstrated
that fact when he had to apologize to his students for telling them that
the earth could be older than the Bible indicated.). The Big Bang
obviously happened a very long time ago, and it isn't the type of
creation event talked about in the Bible. Fine tuning would have
occurred before or during the initial explosion of the Big Bang and
another round of fine tuning would have occurred when our solar system
was formed out of spent star dust generated by generations of dying
stars around 5 billion years ago. Pags doesn't like the first two
because they mean that his geocentric nonsense is nonsense. This is why
the ID perps never wanted to do any science. The scientific
creationists demonstrated that science doesn't do much for creationism
and if they discover something it obviously is not what they wanted to
discover.

The same goes for the other "best". None of them are evidence for
IDiocy and all they do is demonstrate that something is wrong with the
creationist alternative. Number 3 is the abiogenesis nonsense that
failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. What about the
evidence for abiogenesis makes the IDiots happy? Nothing comes to mind.
They have no equivalent evidence for their alternative and the
existing evidence tells them that they are looking at something that
likely occurred as soon as our planet cooled enough to have liquid water
over 3.8 billion years ago.

Number 4 is the creationist irreducible complexity bull shit that is
just the scientific creationist's "the flagellum is a designed machine"
stupidity with IC thrown in on top. Behe has admitted that IC systems
can evolve, just not his type of IC systems. You should realize how
bankrupt this junk is by the fact that the flagellum is the only
bacterial system that Behe claims is his type of IC when Minnich's test
for interacting parts had been used by biochemists and geneticists for
over half a century before Minnich used it on the flagellum. Behe
claims that IC systems like the lever and fulcrum are not his type of IC
systems, and it is a fact that Behe has never demonstrated that his type
of IC systems even exist in nature to talk about. The real issue with
IC isn't that it has always been bogus, but that the IDiots can't accept
what goes with it. Behe understands that biological evolution is a fact
of nature. His claims that he will be able to tell if the flagellum is
his type of IC or not depends on descent with modification. Behe is
looking for an order and arrangement of mutations that is so highly
improbable that he can claim that it didn't happen without designer
help. Not only that, but Behe doesn't see any IC systems that may have
evolved in the last 400 million years or so, and admits that his
designer might be dead, so we can't expect it to have done anything
after it died or currently observe it fiddling with life. So the
majority of IDiots can't face what IC is telling them anyway. The
flagellum evolved over a billion years ago. Behe's blood clotting and
adaptive immune system evolved in our fishy ancestors around half a
billion years ago. These are not recent events that the designer was
involved with.

Number 5 should really tick off the majority of IDiots. The argument
depends on the fact that fossil dating has become more accurate since
the scientific creationists tried to use the Cambrian explosion. Meyer
claims that the interval has been reduced from around 40 million years
for the duration of the Cambrian explosion when many major phyla of
multicellular animals appeared in the fossil record to a shorter 20
million years. The ID perps claim is that 20 million years is too short
of a time interval for this amount of evolution to occur, so that must
mean that their designer was involved in doing it within those 20
million years. The problem for the majority of IDiots is they don't
want to hear about anything that took 20 million years to accomplish let
alone something that happened over half a billion years ago. Like the
others this evidence tells everyone that the creationist alternative
that the majority of IDiots want to teach their kids is bogus.

Nunber 6 is just as stupid as the rest. There are gaps in the fossil
record, but so what? The gaps tell anyone with a brain that life forms
were different in the past and that change has occurred over time.
Before there were humans there were our relatives and ancestors that
were different. Coupled with the DNA evidence there is no question that
common descent is a fact of nature. Even ID perps like Denton and Behe
agree with that. To accept the fossil record is to deny the alternative
of the majority of IDiots. They don't want to know that the gaps can be
millions of years long or as short as 50,000 years. They want to claim
that the entire earth is less than 20,000 years old. The disconnect
between accepting this evidence and claiming that the YEC alternative is
still viable is senseless. If IDiots still don't know what this means
it means that number 6 is better evidence for biological evolution or
theistic evolution than it is for what the majority of IDiots want to
believe.

So this is why the IDiot political scam never had any intention of doing
any science. The IDiot support base doesn't want to know the answers.
The ID perps never did the science that they could have done because
their IDiot supporters would not accept the facts of life. This is why
the IDiots are claiming that the "best" is not the best or running away
in denial of reality. Denial will not change reality.

So what is next? Scientific creationism and intelligent design are
obvious creationist failures even for the creationists themselves.
Running away in denial is no future at all.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 4/29/2018 10:49 AM, RonO wrote:
> Links:
> 1.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>
> 2.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>
>
>
> 3.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>
>
>
> 4.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>
>
>
> 5.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>
> 6.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

This is the propaganda pamphlet that Glenn always puts up to claim that
the ID perps still claim to have the ID science. For some reason the
contents seem to be from the 2013 edition of this pamphlet. I had
thought that they updated it in 2017 but the refs only go up to 2013.

They still have the old education policy that they changed by deleting
the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public
schools on page 15.

Paragraph deleted from their current education 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:

The current education policy up on their web site.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164/

The pamphlet still claims that the Dover decision was wrong, but they
don't seem to believe that anymore, or they would be calling their
"best" scientific evidence.

So how does this all fit in with the "best" evidence for ID when the ID
perps do not claim the "best" is scientific evidence?

It is difficult to claim the "best" as scientific evidence when 5 of the
6 "best" failed the scientific creationists as creation science over 30
years ago, and the 6th failed as IDiot science in Dover.

So what kind of ID theory can be put together using the "best" evidence
for IDiocy? It obviously doesn't have to be a scientific theory, but
there should be some type of IDiot alternative supported by the "best"

that IDiocy has to offer.

Why are all the IDiots running from the "best" IDiotic evidence instead
of wallowing in the greatness of it?

If the "best" really is the best evidence supporting IDiocy, what is IDiocy?

The ID perps have had 5 months to retract and claim that they made a
boo-boo, but they haven't done that. They should have and could have
put up this same list over 22 years ago when the ID creationist scam
outfit started at the Discovery Institute. If they had there would be a
lot fewer IDiots today and they likely would not have to keep running
the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes that believe them about the ID
science. The "best" should tell any IDiot why no IDiot has ever gotten
the ID science from the ID perps when they have needed it and all they
ever get is a switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed. That was the reality years before the ID perps lost in federal
court. No IDiot has ever gotten the ID science. The 6 "best" for
IDiocy is the reason why.

Ron Okimoto