SNIP:
Since Nyikos is lying about this material and questioning the evidence
it just so happens that I took this day into consideration and put in
quotes that Nyikos would not be able to deny like he is doing in his
posts. Some of the links have broken as I predicted, but You can see
how Nyikos dealt with the material before the first time around.
Wells on the Ohio Bait and switch:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
I put the relevant quotes from these sources into this post of the same
thread. Nyikos can lie about what he couldn't lie about then.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
REPOST with quotes:
Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
thing to do. I just posted links without any quoted material. This
depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
these event fade into history. So I decided to put some quotes in with
the links so that I could use them even after they break.
On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
> on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
> in 1999. All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
> been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
> it was founded.
>
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.
QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:
This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
bait and switch on Ohio and every other legislator or school board that
has needed the ID science since.
>
> ARN also has the Santorum editorial, written for the Washington Times
> the day before the Bait and Switch went down, where he obviously
> believed that ID would have it's day in the sun and would be taught in
> Ohio.
>
http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the
classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense
of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to
prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to
students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.
Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent
design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a
first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
END QUOTE:
>
> I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there
> was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
> taught in the public schools.
>
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ohio-debates-evolution-Scientists-accuse-2864344.php
QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:
>
>
> The article that stated that the president of the Discovery Institute
> and half a dozen staff members also came to Ohio to support Meyer and
> Wells in their dog and pony show is still available.
>
http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html
Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
"compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all:
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to speak
for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew in its
president and a half-dozen staff members. If you listened closely, you
never heard a "theory" of intelligent design. It added up to criticism
of evolutionary theory leading to an "inference," as Wells put it. It's
an assertion. It's faith.
That much was clarified later by John Calvert, the Kansas City lawyer
who co-founded the Intelligent Design Network and helped lead efforts to
remove evolution from standardized tests in his state. He said his
target was not simply evolution but the definition of science. He sees
"naturalistic" science as agnostic and atheistic, and intelligent design
as "theistic."
Meyer and Wells insisted there is scientific controversy on the subject,
though evidence suggests it is largely because they say there is. And
because there is, Meyer said, he suggested a "compromise." Don't mandate
"mastery of the scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design,"
but tell students about it. "We think that's fun and exciting, not
something people need to feel threatened about."
END QUOTE:
Calvert's ID Network bit the dust in 2009. It must have been difficult
to sell the switch scam with Intelligent Design in the name of your
creationist scam organization. Now he is associated with a group called
COPE that is selling the creationist switch scam.
>
>
> The Wired article that Nyikos has been given before is also still
> available.
>
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html
QUOTE:
Two scientists, biologist Ken Miller from Brown University and physicist
Lawrence Krauss from Case Western Reserve University two hours north in
Cleveland, defended evolution. On the other side of the dais were two
representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main
sponsor and promoter of intelligent design: Stephen Meyer, a professor
at Palm Beach Atlantic University's School of Ministry and director of
the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Jonathan
Wells, a biologist, Discovery fellow, and author of Icons of Evolution,
a 2000 book castigating textbook treatments of evolution
END QUOTE:
I will note that after the Ohio bait and switch Meyer quit his religious
college and went to work full time for the ID scam unit.
The article was written in 2004 when Dover was heating up and this
statement:
QUOTE:
Since the debate, "teach the controversy" has become the rallying cry of
the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the
leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school
board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology
teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:
You can note from the above quote from the IDiot's booklet on teaching
ID that "teach the controversy" had once included intelligent design,
but by this time the bait and switch had gone down many times in the two
years since Dover and ID was being phased out and "critical analysis"
was becoming the buzz phrase of the ID scam.
There are other historical aspects noted in this article for those
interested.
>
> The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
> available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
> listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works. The
> talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
> (Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).
>
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
>
>
> I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
> things as you can find above. The IDiots expected to get the ID
> science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
> ID ever existed.
>
> There was one reference that I had never seen before. It was a report
> by Wells on the Ohio fiasco. It contains information that I never knew
> about. It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
> get the audio from.
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
I have already quoted out of this report, but I've saved a copy of it
onto my computer.
Anyone that doesn't believe that the bait and switch was run on the Ohio
rubes just has to read this report, and understand how the ID perps had
been selling the ID claptrap until they decided not to give the rubes
the ID science. Wells was even making his bogus claims to the board
(quoted previously) when he knew that the bait and switch was going down.
Santorum was a rube that believed the ID perps. He allowed Phillip
Johnson to draft his "amendment" to the No child left behind bill.
Santorums take above is exactly how most IDiot rubes believed ID was
being sold. My experience at ARN made that clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
- hide quoted text -
>
>
> In this report Wells claims that he and Meyers discussed the issue with
> others and decided to run the bait and switch scam before they went to
> Ohio. They never intended to give the Ohio IDiots any ID science to
> teach. They should have brought Santorum into the loop so he wouldn't
> have made such a fool of himself in the editorial linked to above. It
> isn't nice to run the bait and switch scam on a US Senator. Wells does
> not say who else was involved in deciding that they were only going to
> give the Ohio rubes the obfuscation scam instead of the ID science. The
> Thomas More lawyer was correct. It seems to have been the Discovery
> Institute strategy to sell the teach ID scam, but fold and only give the
> rubes the switch scam with no ID science in it at all.
>
> QUOTE:
> Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
> time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
> state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
> include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the
controversy.
> END QUOTE:
>
> One of the articles linked to above indicated that Chapman (the
> president of the Discovery Institute and half a dozen staffers attended
> the Ohio bait and switch to support Meyer and Wells. In this report
> Wells mentions that DeWolf (head of legal) and Scott Minnich (senior
> fellow) were part of that entourage. Minnich testified in Dover that he
> was not paid by the Discovery Institute, but he likely had his airfare
> and other travel expenses paid by the Discovery Institute, and I don't
> know if he counts his fellowship as salary (he is not staff, but a
> fellow). Who knows, maybe he was there all on his own at his expense.
> Since DeWolf and Minnich attended the fiasco, my guess is that they were
> among the ID perps that were involved in deciding to run the bait and
> switch before the Discovery Institute group came to Ohio. It is a
> possibility that they ran the bait and switch on Minnich and the
> president of the Discovery Institute too. Since Both Meyer and Wells
> kept their Discovery Institute jobs that isn't a likely scenario.
>
> Wells doesn't drop anymore names that I didn't know about. John Calvert
> was there. Calvert ran the Intelligent Design Network, but their web
> page hasn't been updated since 2009, and their last press release was in
> 2007 complaining that the Ohio rubes had dropped the controversy switch
> scam after Dover. The ID Network used to be the second most influential
> ID scam unit out there.
>
> So Wells claims that the bait and switch was a done deal before they
> performed their dog and pony show in front of the Ohio IDiot rubes. The
> rubes never had a chance. The Discovery Institute obviously sold the
> Ohio rubes the teach ID scam, but when it came time to put up or shut up
> they did neither and ran in a bogus switch scam that does not mention
> that ID ever existed.
>
> It disturbs me that Wells would think that this was worth reporting as
> something positive about Meyer's behavior after the two of them had just
> run the bait and switch on the Ohio State Board of Education. It
> reminds me of Dembski's farting episode involving Judge Jones.
>
> QUOTE:
> Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by
> Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID
> advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the
> approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating
> Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for
> all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Can you just imagine Meyer carrying on like this in front of the other
> Discovery Institute people that attended?
>
> The conclusion is that there is still more than enough information
> floating around the web to demonstrate that the bait and switch did go
> down on Ohio, just as it has gone down on every single IDiot legislator
> or school board that has wanted to teach the science of ID for over 12
> years. The significant Discovery Institute participation indicates how
> important Ohio was to the ID scam. Ohio was trumpeted by the IDiots as
> the first place where ID was going to be exposed to the world so that it
> could not be denied. Intelligent design was certainly exposed, but more
> like a drive by mooning than the announcement of a valid scientific
> discovery. Not a single IDiot rube has ever gotten the ID science from
> the ID perps when they needed it. Ohio happened two years before the
> Dover fiasco broke into the news. The ID perps sold the IDiot rubes
> that they had the science of intelligent design to teach, but all the
> rubes were going to get was the obfuscation switch scam that does not
> mention that ID ever existed. Wells' report indicates that this was
> something that they had planned to do before they went to Ohio.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> This is the link to the Thomas More Lawyer's beef with the Discovery
> Institute's "strategy."
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704
QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...
Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?
MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.
MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:
"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of
intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.
In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once
decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert
witnesses, which we could have done.
Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.
So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present
MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.
KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.
Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.
Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:
The Thomas More Lawyer called the bait and switch a strategy, but it is
really just a scam that has been run on creationist rubes. The ID perps
sold the rubes that they had the science of intelligent design to teach
in the public schools, but when it came time to put up or shut up they
ran the bait and switch. The bait and switch was not run on the science
side, the ID perps ran the scam on their own creationist support base.
The Lawyer was not happy about it.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
So this is why Nyikos has run from this evidence for years. There is no
doubt that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years. It is what
they were most known for until they started to run the bait and switch
on their own creationist supporters. If you go to the 1999 Discovery
Institute material:
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
You can read the entire propaganda document on teaching ID in the public
schools and what you should note that the "required" statement as in
they never wanted ID required to be taught in the public schools was
added after they started to run the bait and switch and it was not in
the propaganda material that they were producing in the 1990's.
This is the guide book that the Discovery Institute used to give out
with their IDiot video. It is also the guide book that the Thomas More
Lawyer quoted out of to demonstrate that the Discovery Institute
representative was lying when he claimed that the Discovery Institute
had not claimed to be able to teach the ID science in the public schools.
This is the material that Nyikos has had to lie about for years.
Ron Okimoto