Why wasn't doing science the objective for the ID scam?

[RonO]

There seems to be a tacit agreement of all the regular IDiots of TO that
doing science was never the objective of the creationist ID scam. No
one denies that the bait and switch is all the ID scam has devolved into
at this time. No one is ever going to get the promised ID science
because it never existed. The scam artists selling the ID scam never
attempted to do any science worth calling science.

There are no counters to this reality, so what is next? We had
scientific creationism discussed on TO and those creationists actually
did try to apply science to their creationists beliefs, but they failed
so badly that the ID creationist scam had to take over. The
creationists discovered that when they applied science to their theology
they didn't like the answers that they got, so they decided to not do
that anymore and just pretend to do science. This pretense ran thin and
IDiots like Philip Johnson, Paul Nelson, and Mike Gene have long ago
(over a decade ago) admitted that there never was any ID science to
teach in the public schools. Current IDiots like Bill have admitted
that teaching the creationist alternative was the goal of the IDiots,
and the last bait and switch events demonstrated this to be true, where
the creationists didn't adhere to the switch scam, tried to teach
ID/creationism and the ID perps had to run the bait and switch on both
Louisiana and Texas in the last such creationist fiascos. Now Bill
claims to no longer be an IDiot and long time ID perp (Dembski) has
resigned his fellowship with the Discovery Institute ID scam unit, so
there doesn't seem to be any future for specified complexity, complex
specified information, or the new law of thermodynamics that Dembski
championed. Behe's irreducible complexity is still, still born and
hasn't advanced since Behe essentially lied under oath about being able
to scientifically test the bogus junk when he obviously had no intention
of ever scientifically testing IC. No on can contest these facts
because all you have to do is try to find any evidence that there is
anything like a new creationist law of thermodynamics being seriously
discussed today. When was the last time that any group of real
scientists mentioned Behe's type of irreducible complexity except to
state how bogus it was? There is no evidence that the ID perps ever
added to our understanding of nature, so no science ever got done.
Science is just the study of nature, and if you haven't added anything
to that understanding you obviously are not doing any science or you
aren't doing it very competently.

Since the IDiots don't want to face reality, they can comment on the
following example of why they never wanted to do science in the first place.

As I indicated above the scientific creationists actually took their
alternative and tried to apply the scientific method to it. They
screwed up so badly that the ID scam became necessary. What they found
out was that the science did not support their literal interpretation of
the Bible. This obviously did affect some of them. Eddie put up the
example of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They used to have a young earth
creationist theology where the earth was less than 50,000 years old. It
wasn't the standard 7 days of creation, but one where each Biblical day
of creation was 7,000 years long, and one of their leaders claimed to be
able to predict when the second coming was going to occur (we were still
living the 7th day). He kept being wrong and had to revise his
estimate, but he died before he could revise his last estimate that has
come and gone in the 1980's. You can look up the JW creationist
literature of the 1980s and determine that the JW were YEC, and that
they bought into the whole boat of scientific creationism of the time.
You will find fossil denial and bogus age of the earth arguments. That
seems to have changed. I had an exchange with a JW in Michigan in the
early 1990s and he was still YEC at that time, and he gave me the JW
creationist blue book with their anti-evolution arguments. Now, each day
of creation can be billions of years long, and the sun and moon were not
created on the 4th day like the Bible claims. The JW obviously take
many of the literal interpretations as metaphorical at this time.

The JW do not state why they changed their minds, but their theology
obviously changed with the demise of scientific creationism. When they
applied science to their theology they discovered that the earth and
universe was much older than they had previously believed. They were
able to change. This is no different from the Catholic church accepting
Newtonian reality. There aren't very many geocentric creationists left.
When is this going to be true of young earth creationists?

So if you are YEC you know why you never wanted to do any science worth
doing and apply it to your theology, and denial was all you ever wanted
out of the ID scam after the failure of scientific creationism. When is
that going to change?

The sad thing is that it is also obvious why old earth creationists
adopted the ID scam instead of actually attempting to apply science to
their theology. The answer is obvious. You have ID perps like Denton
and Behe telling you the facts of life in what they claim on the side
and not what they lie about in their ID propaganda. Both accept
biological evolution as fact. Behe is just a tweeker that thinks that
his designer might fiddle around once in a while, and Denton has given
up and just claims that the designer set it all in motion and it all
unfolded as planned. Why do these two ID perps accept biological
evolution as fact? They know more about the evolutionary science than
the average OEC. The OEC that have gone with the ID scam want to deny
that reality, so they never wanted to understand the biology. They
never wanted to know about nature because nature does not conform to
their theology. The Discovery Institute even claims that theistic
evolution is intelligent design's worst enemy, and both Denton and Behe
are theistic evolutionists.

The bottom line is that if you are serious about applying science to
your alternative you have to put up your alternative and determine where
the science leads. You can't bury your head in the sand and do
something stupid like the scientific creationists that pledged that
nothing that they would ever discover would alter their literal
interpretation of the Bible. You have to go where the evidence leads
and accept what the science tells you. As with the Catholic church and
the JWs your theology will likely change, so you have to decide if that
is what you really want to do. You can continue to live in denial, or
you can do something positive.

As Bill says all that the IDiots have done so far is put up pointless
prattle. When are you going to do more than that? Do you want to do
more than that, and is what you are currently doing worth doing?

Ron Okimoto

[Don Cates]

On 2017-08-06 10:46 AM, RonO wrote:
[snip wall of text]

Did *anyone* try to read that?> Ron Okimoto
>


--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 11:10:38 -0500, Don Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 2017-08-06 10:46 AM, RonO wrote:
>[snip wall of text]
>
>Did *anyone* try to read that?> Ron Okimoto

Ron is a bit of a fan of the "rinse and repeat" approach

[RonO]

On 8/6/2017 11:10 AM, Don Cates wrote:
> On 2017-08-06 10:46 AM, RonO wrote:
> [snip wall of text]
>
> Did *anyone* try to read that?> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
>

Snipping are running is a stupid form of denial.

If you have a point, you might want to try to address it.

What in the first paragraph do you disagree with so much that you had to
remove it and all that followed?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

So you didn't read the post either. What do you disagree with if you
think that you read the post?

I start of stating things that no one disagrees with at this time, and
if they do disagree with it, they don't want to admit it for obvious
reasons. Based on what is not in disagreement I suggest a way forward.
You can disagree with that or not, but lying to yourself about it won't
change reality. Here is the post again so you can't lie to yourself
about what is in it if you take the time to figure out what it is.

TO is moribund. Discussing the science isn't the goal of the people
that should be discussing the science. That can change, but the
creationists have to figure out if they want to accomplish something
positive or not. Many of them have pretended to discuss the science for
years. The pretending is obviously over for most of them, so what is next?

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Don Cates wrote:
> On 2017-08-06 10:46 AM, RonO wrote:
> [snip wall of text]
>
> Did *anyone* try to read that?> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
>

Unlikely, he's talking to himself for some time now

[Don Cates]

Did you miss that I called it a "wall of text"?
That is a clue that I considered it not worth reading because of format,
not content.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:10:18 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 8/6/2017 11:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 11:10:38 -0500, Don Cates
>> <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-08-06 10:46 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> [snip wall of text]
>>>
>>> Did *anyone* try to read that?> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> Ron is a bit of a fan of the "rinse and repeat" approach
>>
>
>So you didn't read the post either.

Actually I did - that's how I knew it was "rinse and repeat".

> What do you disagree with if you
>think that you read the post?

I don't disagree with anything in it, I just don't think your
reposting of the same stuff over and over is particularly effective.

[snip yet even more rinse and repeat]

[RonO]

Why was it worth such a worthless comment by you?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Beats me why this kind of thing happens. Stupid back biting nonsense
serves what purpose?

I basically leave you guys alone. Really, do you see me doing what you
just did? Do I tell you that you have been doing something stupid for
decades? Most of the science side is just happy with the status quo and
seems to like browbeating the creationists for whatever reason. You
likely have noticed that things are changing. The creationists aren't
putting up any junk to browbeat them about. When was the last time Kalk
put up anything that he got from the ID perps?

TO is moribund, but it is because the creationists realize that they had
nothing all these years. It is evident in that all they can do is snip
and run from what they know that they can't deal with. Bill is an
example that reality is taking hold to some extent and that denial about
IDiocy isn't a platable option. Bill has tried to change, but the
change isn't very apparent. If he really wanted to do what he was
claiming to do for years, I have a suggestion, and it is what the
creation scientists tried to do. It is just what anyone that wanted to
employ science on their alternative would have done. If you had read
the post you would know that there is something that the creationists
can do that is positive. Something that they should have done if they
ever wanted to argue the science. It is something that the ID perps
don't do because all they are interested in is running the bait and
switch at this time. That is the extent of the creationist argument.
Lie and run when it is time to put up or shut up.

No one denies that science works. That is why the scientific
creationists tried to wrap their beliefs in science, and why the ID
perps pretend to do science. The scientific creationists put up their
alternative and tried to apply the scientific method to it. The only
problem was that most of them had signed a pledge that they would never
discover anything that would contradict their beliefs so they ended up
denying pretty much everything that they came up with. ID perps like
Behe and Denton know how wrong the scientific creationists were.

It wasn't all for nothing because it is apparent that the JWs changed
their alternative to better fit the science. There is still a lot of
denial, but it was progress for those YEC who are no longer YEC. Who
else did that? Pat Roberson comes to mind as someone who is an
unexpected old earth creationist. Beats me if he always had that
belief. My guess is that most of his followers aren't OEC.

What should the creationists do if they still want to use science to
support their alternative? They can continue to lie about it, or they
can try to do something. With guys like Bill admitting that ID was
bogus and trying to walk away, why shouldn't he try to do what he was
claiming to do all these years?

If you had read the post you would have gotten that message. There is
something positive that creationists can do if they want to do it. The
only problem is that the real issue has always been that IDiots never
wanted to know what science could tell them about their alternative.
That is the main reason why the ID perps have never done any science in
terms of their alternative. Behe and Denton understand that there are
already scientific accomplishments that deal with the creationist
alternative. So there is science that can be done, but they never deal
with it.

Ron Okimoto

[Don Cates]

A faint hope you might see to problem and modify that bit of your
behaviour. What can I say, I'm a cockeyed optimist.

[Öö Tiib]

The post was unusually long yes, but the content has improved.
0 mentions of "rubes"! Some other things have reduced presence: 3 times
"bait and switch" and 5 times "perp". High frequency of "scam" (12 times)
may be was because it was chosen as topic. I don't know why he needs
to push that ID was scam. May be it was scam but may be they honestly
hoped to do science at first but the political factors pushed them
into pseudoscience? One is clear that Ron's rants won't clarify that any.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 20:28:01 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

[...]

Ron, when people like Burkhard and myself who agree with what you say
and are critical only of the *way* in which you express it, what
exactly do you think you achieve by repeating the whole spiel over
again to us?

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

Having nothing to with RonO's posting style, but since you raised the
question, the Discovery Institute and Philip Johnson had hoped to
change the definition and practice of science, as specified in the
Wedge Document, to minimize or eliminate methodological naturalism and
support specific aspects of supernaturalism, in order to rationalize
ID, as illustrated for example by Michael Behe's testimony in the
Dover trial, by Douglas Axe's and Ann Gauger's re-interpretations of
scientific papers, and by DI's promotion of conclusions which assume
ID.

Given that, my impression is they never intended to "do science" as
practiced, but instead intended to merely change the rules to promote
their religious beliefs, which by definition meant they would practice
pseudo-science and just call it science.

Here are examples of what DI claims to be peer-reviewed scientific
articles supporting ID:

<http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/>

A review of these articles show they don't provide positive evidence
for ID, but instead mostly argue against biological evolution, or at
most merely assert an ID inference.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[RonO]

The point is that you guys should just mind your own business because it
just doen't matter. What you might do is likely more stupid and
worthless at this time because ID is just what I claim. No one has to
be politically correct because it is the ID perps that keep the ID
"science" out of the public schools. If the bait and switch ever fails
again the ID perps would just look as bad as they did in Dover. The ID
perps never want that to happen again. The creationists that support
them obviously don't listen to the science side, but they do bend over
and accept the switch scam when the bait and switch goes down on them.
They obviously don't like it. Just as Bill has admitted, teaching their
alternative was the goal, and when the creationist rubes try to
implement the switch scam they keep screwing up and the bait and switch
has to go down all over again. If you object to calling the
creationists that take the switch scam rubes, what they actually are is
likely worse, and rubes is giving them the benefit of doubt.

With that type of reality, calling ID what it is, should be the least of
anything that you or Burkhard should worry about.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

So you agree that it is all true, and it is just the behavior that you
want to modify. Why? There really isn't any reason for me to change.
ID is a scam. Anyone that is still and IDiot should be glad that I give
them the benefit of doubt by calling them rubes. They are likely much
worse. There is no political reason for me not to tell it like it is.
No one that would be offended would matter. The ID perps are going to
continue to run the bait and switch, and no one is ever going to get the
promised ID science. The creationists rubes will continue to need the
bait and switch run on them, but they never listen to the science side
anyway, and the ID perps make sure that the bait and switch goes down.
ID is a scam that the creationists are running on themselves. Guys like
you or me have squat to do with any of that.

So live with reality. Making it as plain as day what the IDiots are and
what they are promoting is just something that should be done. If they
want that to change, I have made a suggestion, and it is what they were
claiming to do all these years, so they might as well try to do it.

Ron Okimoto

[Don Cates]

I have no idea if it is all true because I didn't read it. Why? *Wall of
text*.

I assume it was something to do with the creationist/intelligent design
situation. I have read earlier iterations of your opinion and mostly
agreed with you, but finding your choice of language a bit hyperbolic at
times. But with repetition and increased length, i stopped reading those
posts. I didn't kill file you since you often make topical and
interesting posts and I wouldn't want to miss them.

If you have new arguments or data on that subject I will never see them
because I skip the 'wall of text' which I find difficult to read.
Perhaps I am alone in this and you can safely continue to try and get
your point across in the same way. But I suspect I am not alone.

[Martin Harran]

And people attack posters like Ray for evading the question actually
posed ... ah well, carry on old chap if it makes you feel better. I'll
just ignore you like I ignore my beloved uncle in the corner making
funny noises and talking to himself.

[jillery]

That's not your uncle. That's a mirror.

[RonO]

This just means that you don't care that your comment was worthless.
What are you doing that is any better? Try hypocrite on for size. You
guys wouldn't look so stupid if you stopped doing stupid things. ID is
a scam and there is nothing that you can do to change that or pretend
otherwise to make yourself feel better about the nothing that you are
doing. Tell me that, that isn't true in this instance. Why would you
make such a baseless comment in the face of the current reality? Is
what you are doing any better? The answer is obviously, no.

Really, do I ever tweek you guys for the nothing that you are
accomplishing in terms of the ID scam? The situation is just what it
is. Learn to live with reality.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The question obviously didn't need to be answered because the spiel
isn't repeated for you. Why would I even consider that question? What
a bonehead. Do you understand what you write? Who would believe that I
write the spiel for guys like you and Burkhard? This is just turning
into another TO fiasco where the "good" guys aren't turning out to be so
good. What do you think that you are doing on TO? What does it
accomplish? Is this stupidity worth looking so bad about.

When something doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter. Live with that
reality.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 8/7/2017 5:51 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

The original mission statement that the ID perps signed up to
accomplish. Backs you up in their own words. The logo of God and Adam
is something of a giveaway as to their religious intent in pursuing the
political objectives.

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


Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 7 August 2017 13:55:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Thanks for explaining. If their goal was to redefine what is science
then that is a political goal not scientific. If it was that then their
failure was easy to predict. Tiny group of people can't just put up
a website and redefine traditions that have been established for
centuries.

Yes, and also it is easier for me to understand why I had impression
that most religious organizations actually wanted to not be related to
ID. Religious organizations that are worth anything do well honor
traditions. Even as such it is hard to see if ID was honest failure or
scam (like Ron pushes for years here).

[Bill Rogers]

.......

>This is just turning
> into another TO fiasco where the "good" guys aren't turning out to be so
> good.

Translation: "This is turning into another instance in which a bunch of people who agree that intelligent design is nonsense and a political ploy to get creationism back in the schools don't think that repetitive screeds laced with insults are the best way to counter it."

[Öö Tiib]

Yes that is "What is CRSC" not "What is ID". Do you say that the whole point
of ID is that CRSC? Also if they really want to redefine what is meant by
word "science" then why you call it scam? It is common to want to include
currently unfalsifiable theories and fantasies (like for example "String Theory"
is) under science. Such attempts tend to fail but why it is scam?

[Martin Harran]

I challenged yourstyle of posting - not the content - and here is
part of your reply to me:

<quote>
REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

</quote>

By repeating it in a post *to* me claiming you didn't repeat it "for*
me, you sound just like Glenn

> Why would I even consider that question? What
>a bonehead. Do you understand what you write? Who would believe that I
>write the spiel for guys like you and Burkhard? This is just turning
>into another TO fiasco where the "good" guys aren't turning out to be so
>good. What do you think that you are doing on TO? What does it
>accomplish? Is this stupidity worth looking so bad about.

I suggest those are questions you should maybe be asking yourself.

>
>When something doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter. Live with that
>reality.

There is just something in me that hates watching good people making
fools of themselves :(

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:06:29 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

I'm only curious regarding what you hope to accomplish. The
rational people here tend to agree with your assessment
about ID. The IDists ignore anything which contradicts their
beliefs, and will not be persuaded by logic, and certainly
not by caustic posts about them. So who do you hope to
influence by constant repetition?
--

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 04:55:39 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Monday, 7 August 2017 13:55:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Then it depends on what you think is honest. DI's focus on
discrediting biological evolution specifically, and natural science
generally, and their unwillingness to seek for themselves positive
evidence for Design, is plenty dishonest to me. Apparently your
mileage varies.

Which is not to say I think they're insincere. IMO DI's efforts were
both sincere and a scam. I suspect you share my bemusement at
people's abilities to rationalize the most dishonest, even the most
heinous, behaviors, in their very sincere efforts to serve a higher
purpose.

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 05:13:19 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 14:15:05 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/7/2017 5:51 AM, jillery wrote:

>> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Now that's an interesting comparison, between String Theory and ID.
What predictions and/or conclusions has String Theory made which are
"unfalsifiable"?

[jillery]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:24:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

IMO your question could be asked of all here who refute the same old
arguments from the same old posters. Seriously, consider the T.O.
rogues' gallery. My impression is none of them have changed their
tunes in all the years I have posted to T.O. And even when the names
change, their claims and arguments remain the same. And yet the same
old people respond to them with their same old chorus.

Given that, ISTM the better questions are: Why do you ask RonO a
question you could as easily ask many others, including yourself? And
why wouldn't their answers work as well for RonO?

[RonO]

See what did I tell you about a stupid worthless TO fiasco? You can't
make this junk up.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You wanted me to answer a question that if it was not rhetorical was
stupid. End of story.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Why would you be curious? Hypocrite comes to mind. What do you expect
to get out of repeating the same old same old?

My posts are just a different way to do the same thing, over and over.
The fact is that there is no reason to keep going over the same old same
old IDiot stupidity because the reality is the bait and switch scam
takes care of IDiots. The IDiots are running the scam on themselves and
anyone that denies that obviously wouldn't accept anything that you have
to say about the science. Nothing that I do on TO will change the fact
that the bait and switch will go down on any group of IDiot rubes that
are too stupid to understand what the current situation is. TO is
basically moribund for the simple reason that there hasn't been a group
of creationists stupid enough to support teaching IDiocy in the public
schools since Texas and Louisiana. After the last bait and switch the
ID perps removed the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to
teach in the public schools from their education policy (back in 2013).
TO had pretty much nothing to do with that. The ID perps just got tired
of running the bait and switch on the clueless that had already bent
over for the switch scam, and the first thing that they likely do when
some clueless creationists approach them is point out what happened in
Dover and give them their revised education policy and tell them that
they actually do not support teaching ID, and then run the bait and
switch and give them the obfuscation scam instead.

If IDiots are too incompetent to understand what is going on, what is
your beef with me? What you do obviously doesn't do any good either.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

AFAIK nothing of the things it is said to predict can be tested or has
been observed. Can you show me wrong? For example it predicts magnetic
monopoles. Likely very observable but who has ever observed or made
those? https://xkcd.com/171/

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 00:50:09 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 05:13:19 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 14:15:05 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
>> >> On 8/7/2017 5:51 AM, jillery wrote:

>> >> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I claim no particular expertise about String Theory. I am unaware
what it predicts, if anything. You seem to claim some knowledge about
that. If so, can you say which of its predictions you think are not
falsifiable in principle?

In either case, my intent is not to prove you wrong about a technical
point, but instead to show that your claiming similarity between
String Theory and ID is inapt. Even if String Theory makes no
falsifiable predictions, that's exactly what it's supporters say,
unlike ID supporters, who assume it to be true.

It seems that you misunderstand what "falsifiable" means. It does
*not* mean that something has been shown to be false. Instead, it
means it could in principle be shown to be false. A theory which
predicts the existence of magnetic monopoles is by definition
falsifiable, unless one also assumes the conditions which make
monopoles detectable are impossible in principle.

OTOH if the point of your cited XKCD cartoon were literally true, then
String Theory makes no predictions at all, and so the question of it's
falsifiability would be moot, as would be the theory itself; there's
nothing more useless that a theory which doesn't predict anything.

That's the case with ID. A sufficiently omni- Designer could have
designed the universe so that it appears to work as if it were
operating by unguided natural processes. Or, It could have Designed
the universe any way it wanted, making our universe indistinguishable.
Or, if one accepts that our existence is proof of a Designer's intent,
then ID could be disproved if we weren't here, but we can't observe
our non-existence in principle.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 00:50:06 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 04:55:39 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 7 August 2017 13:55:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

> >> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT),Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I agree that this is unfair. I understand that in English the words
unfair and dishonest are very close but for me these are not
synonyms. I have no high hopes to find much fairness in this
world of ours. Lot of "best" plans of business are about gaining
unfair advantages. If such is not built upon blackmail, lies or
deception then it is not scam for me. I can consider it "honest
robbery" at worst.

>
> Which is not to say I think they're insincere. IMO DI's efforts were
> both sincere and a scam. I suspect you share my bemusement at
> people's abilities to rationalize the most dishonest, even the most
> heinous, behaviors, in their very sincere efforts to serve a higher
> purpose.

Yes such "sincere scam" it likely was for me too. What I'm interested
in are not differences in words but in essence of thought.

I am in such substantial disagreement with how Ron O explains it.
Ron O's description seems to be that the naive and inexperienced
supporters of ID ("IDiot rubes") were mislead ("scammed") to
believe that ID can achieve the goals. People involved in DI
("perps") knew that there will be no science in ID (and redefining
the word "science" is also hopeless) but still promised to make it.
Now what DI really has is only handful of normal scientific articles
that are silent about design and few books or web pages that are
not science by any standards. ("Bait and switch")

For me it is not demonstrated to be false advertising scam, people
involved seem sincere enough and so I give the benefit of the
doubt and trust that it is failure to reach the taken goals and not
scam in that sense.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:29:36 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 00:50:06 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 04:55:39 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, 7 August 2017 13:55:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> >> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT),嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Me too, which is why I specifically refer to the essence of DI's
*behavior*. I don't imagine I can know what other people think,
except as they testify to it.

>I am in such substantial disagreement with how Ron O explains it.
>Ron O's description seems to be that the naive and inexperienced
>supporters of ID ("IDiot rubes") were mislead ("scammed") to
>believe that ID can achieve the goals. People involved in DI
>("perps") knew that there will be no science in ID (and redefining
>the word "science" is also hopeless) but still promised to make it.
> Now what DI really has is only handful of normal scientific articles
>that are silent about design and few books or web pages that are
>not science by any standards. ("Bait and switch")
>
>For me it is not demonstrated to be false advertising scam, people
>involved seem sincere enough and so I give the benefit of the
>doubt and trust that it is failure to reach the taken goals and not
>scam in that sense.

"All's fair in love and war"

IIUC you would add "and evangelism".

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 06:55:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 00:50:09 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

> >> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 05:13:19 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 14:15:05 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
> >> >> On 8/7/2017 5:51 AM, jillery wrote:

> >> >> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I don't have any deep expertise, I only like to read what experts say.
In layman terms String Theory is theory that everything consists of
tiny vibrating strings in 10-dimensional space of whose 6 dimensions
are curled-up.

First and most obvious of predictions is that quarks are therefore not
elemental but consist of those strings. I have not read that anyone has
any idea how to test it. Second almost as obvious prediction is that
there are those 6 extra dimensions. However those are supposed to be
hidden for us being extremely microscopic and curled up and so also
hard to demonstrate. The whole problem itself (tiny and curled up) is
of course the third prediction. ;)
Further there are less obvious predictions. It predicts that every
particle has supersymmetric partner. Some interpretations of it predict
multiverse. The magnetic monopoles I already mentioned. Then there are
gravity waves and coupling constant unification and cosmic strings and
few more such things.

Additionally it has a competitor (that is in not much better state) called
Grand Unified Theory. For me it is obvious that when we have two different explanations about same thing that both fit with data that we have then
we have too few data and from it follows likelihood that there may be
endless amount of similar explanations that also explain the data that
we have. We should draw line here between idea and knowledge.

So IMHO these theories can be taught in school as two semi-popular ways to
do nerdy math and to jam clouds of computational power with. These are
not explanations of our reality just fertile but raw ideas.

> In either case, my intent is not to prove you wrong about a technical
> point, but instead to show that your claiming similarity between
> String Theory and ID is inapt. Even if String Theory makes no
> falsifiable predictions, that's exactly what it's supporters say,
> unlike ID supporters, who assume it to be true.

Yes, I also have learned to not expect much food for thought
from those messengers but rejecting their explanation based on that
is technically ad hominem logical fallacy.

>
> It seems that you misunderstand what "falsifiable" means. It does
> *not* mean that something has been shown to be false. Instead, it
> means it could in principle be shown to be false. A theory which
> predicts the existence of magnetic monopoles is by definition
> falsifiable, unless one also assumes the conditions which make
> monopoles detectable are impossible in principle.

May be. I would expect a recipe how to rearrange those strings in a way
that we would have magnetic monopole particle in lab. If they tell that
it takes close proximity to black hole for making one (or other out of
reach equipment) then it sounds strange. Magnetic monopoles are not
decisive evidence of String Theory since Grand Unified Theory happens
to predict those as well.

>
> OTOH if the point of your cited XKCD cartoon were literally true, then
> String Theory makes no predictions at all, and so the question of it's
> falsifiability would be moot, as would be the theory itself; there's
> nothing more useless that a theory which doesn't predict anything.

It is not literally true. String theory has made decent amount of
predictions but each of these is unfortunately such that we don't or
can't observe it. So what it implies in practice? We don't know.

>
> That's the case with ID. A sufficiently omni- Designer could have
> designed the universe so that it appears to work as if it were
> operating by unguided natural processes. Or, It could have Designed
> the universe any way it wanted, making our universe indistinguishable.
> Or, if one accepts that our existence is proof of a Designer's intent,
> then ID could be disproved if we weren't here, but we can't observe
> our non-existence in principle.

Yes, in that sense comparing ID and String Theory is unfair since
ID has made rather few and careful "predictions" none of what contradicts
with ToE. It would be obvious to predict things that can be designed
and would be hard to explain as evolved (like horses with wings). They
however fear to fail and so they don't progress.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:24:11 -0500, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

[Jillery made essentially the same objection to my question,
so this should cover both.]

Why? I don't have a problem of any sort with your apparent
obsession; we all have obsessions of one sort or another,
both your time and your fingers are yours to use however you
wish, and it's up to me whether I read what you post or not.
As I said, I only wanted to know if you thought those posts
would accomplish anything more than self-satisfaction (which
is a perfectly valid goal, if that's what floats your boat).
And if you want to post these on a regular schedule,
regardless of whether IDiots are currently loudly infesting
t.o, feel free to enjoy.

> What do you expect
>to get out of repeating the same old same old?

You mean when I respond to some yahoo? Some entertainment in
the discussion along with a bit of self-satisfaction.

The difference I see is that I don't usually post screeds
which are *not* a direct response to posts by others. To me,
that's a different thing; YMMV.

>My posts are just a different way to do the same thing, over and over.
>The fact is that there is no reason to keep going over the same old same
>old IDiot stupidity because the reality is the bait and switch scam
>takes care of IDiots. The IDiots are running the scam on themselves and
>anyone that denies that obviously wouldn't accept anything that you have
>to say about the science. Nothing that I do on TO will change the fact
>that the bait and switch will go down on any group of IDiot rubes that
>are too stupid to understand what the current situation is. TO is
>basically moribund for the simple reason that there hasn't been a group
>of creationists stupid enough to support teaching IDiocy in the public
>schools since Texas and Louisiana. After the last bait and switch the
>ID perps removed the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to
>teach in the public schools from their education policy (back in 2013).
>TO had pretty much nothing to do with that. The ID perps just got tired
>of running the bait and switch on the clueless that had already bent
>over for the switch scam, and the first thing that they likely do when
>some clueless creationists approach them is point out what happened in
>Dover and give them their revised education policy and tell them that
>they actually do not support teaching ID, and then run the bait and
>switch and give them the obfuscation scam instead.

Yeah, and all that is fairly well-known to all the parties
involved, both pro and con.

>If IDiots are too incompetent to understand what is going on, what is
>your beef with me? What you do obviously doesn't do any good either.

I have no "beef" with you or your posts; as I said, I was
just curious whether you expected a positive result. I
really expect no such result from my replies to idiots (t.o
for me being basically entertainment with the occasional bit
of education), and I wondered if you had a different
expectation.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:50:03 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

All true. See my response to Ron.

>Given that, ISTM the better questions are: Why do you ask RonO a
>question you could as easily ask many others, including yourself? And
>why wouldn't their answers work as well for RonO?

As I noted to Ron, I see a difference between posting
repetitive screeds "out of the blue" as it were, and
responding to idiots (and IDiots), even repetitively. YMMV.

[RonO]

You can't divorce ID from the perpetrators. Why even try. ID was a
political scam. What did you think that it was?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

My posts accomplish just as much as any other posts on TO, likely more
in terms of what the regulars have to run in denial from. You don't see
Kalk going back to the ID perps any more. How long did it take him to
understand what the bait and switch meant? Things change at a glacial
pace on TO.

Eddie put up the JW alternative and who knew that they had changed their
views and were now old earth creationists? The subject never came up on
TO to my knowledge. If the JW experience with YEC scientific
creationism could change their minds (it only had to change the minds of
their central leadership because Eddied didn't even seem to know that
they had changed their minds).

If the JW can do that why not some of the TO regulars. Why not actually
try to do some science to verify parts of their alternative that science
can address? The ID scam will be no more than a scam. The last thing
that the ID perps want is for the bait and switch to fail again. So as
long as they keep selling ID the ID perps will have to run the bait and
switch.

Bill has recently admitted that ID is bogus and claims that he is no
longer an IDiot. The next step should be to actually do some science
like he claimed to be interested in doing all these years. If he puts
forward his alternative he will be able to figure out what can be
scientifically evaluated. ID perps like Denton and Behe have already
done that, and he can compare his results with theirs. The thread on
Mike Gene should tell IDiot that Denton and Behe aren't the only IDiots
that think that biological evolution is fact and that billions of years
of evolution of life is incorporated into their IDiotic alternatives.

Denial will keep happening, but you do your thing and I will keep doing
mine.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:36:59 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Ok, so RonO could use a thesaurus. I give you that one. As for "out
of the blue", it's called starting a topic, something which I thought
you would encourage, along with his identifying some of IDiots' worst
excesses. After all, it's not like IDiots have given up; look at how
many of them are in the current federal administration. It's
entirely plausible Trump will appoint some hack to SCOTUS which will
then make ID mandatory in public schools. So these differences you
only now mention, they are of little distinction, akin to which end
one opens eggs.

So yes, on this issue my mileage does very much vary. ISTM since RonO
doesn't make a point of challenging your motives and methods, you
could reciprocate, if only as a courtesy. If you can't do that
because you think he doesn't deserve such consideration, then do it
because you're at least as good as he is.

[Öö Tiib]

I tend to assume by default good from all people. There are limitations
that if their weaknesses (different people have different weaknesses
like greed, pride or envy) are put under heavy stress then everyone may
slip. Are you claiming that the organisers of DI are unordinary, evil
or that their weaknesses were under exploit?

So I assume that the organisers of DI really are religious people who
believed that their scriptures and understanding of their scriptures
(their Philosophy) are more correct than current explanations about
our reality (Science). So they decided to take a goal to work and to
call others to work to correct Science. Where and how did they lie
about it?

Also I assume that they and their supporters have simply realized by
now that they failed to reach that goal. I don't know what they think
about reasons. It can be that your regular posting about "perps",
"rubes", "IDiots" and "scam" helped. For me that would be bad reason
why they failed. I sincerely hope that they failed for reasons that
their Philosophy is less correct than Science.

[RonO]

So you were just wrong in this case. Didn't you ever read the Discovery
Institute's mission statement? That was what all the ID perps signed up
to support. There is no reason to continue to be wrong. Pretending
that things are different doesn't do much of anything. Was any ID
science ever produced? Is there any evidence that Behe and Minnich
tried to do any scientific testing on IC like they claimed in their
Dover testimony? Has any IDiot ever done any ID science? Since they
never did any ID science what do you think that they were doing all
these years with the bait and switch Discovery Institute policy? No
IDiot ever got the promised ID science. All they ever get is a switch
scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed. That is all political.
There obviously is no ID science in that tactic.

>
> So I assume that the organisers of DI really are religious people who
> believed that their scriptures and understanding of their scriptures
> (their Philosophy) are more correct than current explanations about
> our reality (Science). So they decided to take a goal to work and to
> call others to work to correct Science. Where and how did they lie
> about it?

Nelson believes this, but he signed up for the same mission. You
obviously can be religious and have a political agenda that has nothing
to so with actually accomplishing any science worth talking about.
Nelson was one of the first ID perps to admit that there was no ID
science, but he never resigned from the ID perps original mission. Why
did he accept the bait and switch scam when he admitted that the ID
science did not exist?

>
> Also I assume that they and their supporters have simply realized by
> now that they failed to reach that goal. I don't know what they think
> about reasons. It can be that your regular posting about "perps",
> "rubes", "IDiots" and "scam" helped. For me that would be bad reason
> why they failed. I sincerely hope that they failed for reasons that
> their Philosophy is less correct than Science.
>

Willful ignorance is a hallmark of IDiocy at this time. If you don't
understand that, you haven't learned much from TO.

Just the fact that not a single IDiot does more that snip and run from
the reality of the ID scam and what the ID perps have been doing for
years should tell you that they can't support the scam and they
understand that. Kalk even goes through the trouble of removing all
context before running. They know it is all true, but they literally
can't do anything about it and all they want to do is deny reality.
They have trouble doing that because I always remind them of what
reality actually is, and every time they understand that it is true. If
this wasn't the case they would have demonstrated it by now, but what do
they do? Really, why would anyone put up with someone who they thought
was lying and denegrating their beliefs so badly if they could counter?
The science side obviously has no problem with countering the IDiots, so
what is the difference? Don't you think that IDiots like Kalk and Bill
understand that? Bill's solution has been to finally claim that he
isn't an IDiot anymore. He still hasn't giving up on the science
denial, so your type of efforts have continued to fail, but he obviously
can't deal with the reality of the ID scam any other way. People can
maintain their religious beliefs and not support the ID scam or the ID
perps.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

I have. I read it that materialism is backward and wrong and Judeo-
Christian culture is correct. Possibly there have been lot of versions
of it. I thought that Behe's argument about that Irreducible
Complexity was shown to be flawed in essence and so there was no point
to test it. The Specified Complexity of Dembski was using IC as its
fundament and so it fell over as well. I already told. I hope that
they did fail to do any ID science not because they were liars but
because actual Science is more correct than their scriptures and/or
their understanding of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Otherwise it
would mean that ID science is possible to make but the wannabe
makers of it were just incompetent hoaxers and illusionists who got
caught.

>
> >
> > So I assume that the organisers of DI really are religious people who
> > believed that their scriptures and understanding of their scriptures
> > (their Philosophy) are more correct than current explanations about
> > our reality (Science). So they decided to take a goal to work and to
> > call others to work to correct Science. Where and how did they lie
> > about it?
>
> Nelson believes this, but he signed up for the same mission. You
> obviously can be religious and have a political agenda that has nothing

> to do with actually accomplishing any science worth talking about.

> Nelson was one of the first ID perps to admit that there was no ID
> science, but he never resigned from the ID perps original mission. Why
> did he accept the bait and switch scam when he admitted that the ID
> science did not exist?

Because he did not see it as a bait and switch scam. He did see that
ID science does not exist. Why he should resign from there? Skilled
professional supposedly signs up where there is work to do and hope
that it is doable.

>
> >
> > Also I assume that they and their supporters have simply realized by
> > now that they failed to reach that goal. I don't know what they think
> > about reasons. It can be that your regular posting about "perps",
> > "rubes", "IDiots" and "scam" helped. For me that would be bad reason
> > why they failed. I sincerely hope that they failed for reasons that
> > their Philosophy is less correct than Science.
> >
>
> Willful ignorance is a hallmark of IDiocy at this time. If you don't
> understand that, you haven't learned much from TO.

It is not only proponents of ID. Eridanus can also hand wave away
every evidence that people ever landed on Moon. He can believe
that people either have been mislead by "Moon Landing Scam" or
are participating in that scam themselves. He say he is believing it
but can't research it because no resources/too old.
However if someone takes to research something then they can not
keep being willfully ignorant about it at same time.

>
> Just the fact that not a single IDiot does more that snip and run from
> the reality of the ID scam and what the ID perps have been doing for
> years should tell you that they can't support the scam and they
> understand that. Kalk even goes through the trouble of removing all
> context before running. They know it is all true, but they literally
> can't do anything about it and all they want to do is deny reality.

Oh. I am not sure if Kalkidas is "perp" or "rube" by your terminology.
I have sort of started to think that what goes on in TO is just a form
of entertainment. Some people want attention of each other and so post
something to warm up that game. The aesthetics or truth are not
important if there is attention. Now for that it is not much need to
research their points. Any text from some creationist site is fine to
support their opinions endlessly that all is "Darwinist Scam" in the
very same manner as eridanus can say that there is "AGW Scam" or
"Moon Landing Scam".

> They have trouble doing that because I always remind them of what
> reality actually is, and every time they understand that it is true. If
> this wasn't the case they would have demonstrated it by now, but
> what do they do? Really, why would anyone put up with someone who they thought
> was lying and denegrating their beliefs so badly if they could counter?
> The science side obviously has no problem with countering the IDiots, so
> what is the difference? Don't you think that IDiots like Kalk and Bill
> understand that? Bill's solution has been to finally claim that he
> isn't an IDiot anymore. He still hasn't giving up on the science
> denial, so your type of efforts have continued to fail, but he obviously
> can't deal with the reality of the ID scam any other way. People can
> maintain their religious beliefs and not support the ID scam or the ID
> perps.

Bill is special case since he seems to deny knowledge whatsoever.
Of course ID is not popular since the organizers of DI themselves are
resigning, distancing and leaving from it. Yes, I also think that creationists
still believe that what is going on is just political victory of followers of
Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The good scientists have
been discriminated and Religion of Materialism and Darwinist Scam are
made more official.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:41:06 -0500, the following appeared in

I'm not sure Kalkie has changed at all, and since he's
decided to run away from my responses to his idiocies after
being handed his head a while back I don't really care what
he thinks(?).

>Eddie put up the JW alternative and who knew that they had changed their
>views and were now old earth creationists? The subject never came up on
>TO to my knowledge. If the JW experience with YEC scientific
>creationism could change their minds (it only had to change the minds of
>their central leadership because Eddied didn't even seem to know that
>they had changed their minds).
>
>If the JW can do that why not some of the TO regulars. Why not actually
>try to do some science to verify parts of their alternative that science
>can address? The ID scam will be no more than a scam. The last thing
>that the ID perps want is for the bait and switch to fail again. So as
>long as they keep selling ID the ID perps will have to run the bait and
>switch.
>
>Bill has recently admitted that ID is bogus and claims that he is no
>longer an IDiot. The next step should be to actually do some science
>like he claimed to be interested in doing all these years. If he puts
>forward his alternative he will be able to figure out what can be
>scientifically evaluated. ID perps like Denton and Behe have already
>done that, and he can compare his results with theirs. The thread on
>Mike Gene should tell IDiot that Denton and Behe aren't the only IDiots
>that think that biological evolution is fact and that billions of years
>of evolution of life is incorporated into their IDiotic alternatives.
>
>Denial will keep happening, but you do your thing and I will keep doing
>mine.

OK, fair enough. As I said, I only wanted to know if you
expect positive results. Since you do, more power to you,
although I continue to remain skeptical of any long-lasting
benefit. But as I also noted, what you post is up to you,
and I wish you well in your endeavors.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:50:23 -0400, the following appeared

OK, although to me they read more as polemics than as
requests for discussion, the usual reason for starting a
thread. Again, YMMV.

> After all, it's not like IDiots have given up; look at how
>many of them are in the current federal administration. It's
>entirely plausible Trump will appoint some hack to SCOTUS which will
>then make ID mandatory in public schools. So these differences you
>only now mention, they are of little distinction, akin to which end
>one opens eggs.
>
>So yes, on this issue my mileage does very much vary. ISTM since RonO
>doesn't make a point of challenging your motives and methods, you
>could reciprocate, if only as a courtesy. If you can't do that
>because you think he doesn't deserve such consideration, then do it
>because you're at least as good as he is.

I "challenged" nothing, merely asked if he expected positive
results from his chosen method. He's responded (in the
affirmative), so my question was answered on the second
go=round, after he realized it *wasn't* a challenge, but
only a request for information.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:27:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Since you "merely asked" RonO uniquely, and since you're into varying
mileage at the moment, and since it's RonO's ox what's being gored,
it's his mileage that matters here. I leave it at that.

>> After all, it's not like IDiots have given up; look at how
>>many of them are in the current federal administration. It's
>>entirely plausible Trump will appoint some hack to SCOTUS which will
>>then make ID mandatory in public schools. So these differences you
>>only now mention, they are of little distinction, akin to which end
>>one opens eggs.
>>
>>So yes, on this issue my mileage does very much vary. ISTM since RonO
>>doesn't make a point of challenging your motives and methods, you
>>could reciprocate, if only as a courtesy. If you can't do that
>>because you think he doesn't deserve such consideration, then do it
>>because you're at least as good as he is.
>
>I "challenged" nothing, merely asked if he expected positive
>results from his chosen method. He's responded (in the
>affirmative), so my question was answered on the second
>go=round, after he realized it *wasn't* a challenge, but
>only a request for information.



--

[R. Dean]

Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
is whats doing the goring.

[RonO]

Denial is stupid. Isn't it just a fact that denial is all that you have
at this time. Where did the ID science go? Why have the ID perps been
running the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base
for over 15 years? Why are you such a lost cause? Wouldn't you rather
discuss some actual science that pertains to your alternative rather
than wallow in denial? If there ever was any honest effort in
supporting the ID creationist scam, why not actually try to apply
science to your alternative. Wasn't that the claim? What did the ID
scam turn into instead?

Denial like yours will just keep the ID/creationist scam going, and for
what? Bill really has started to claim that he is no longer an IDiot.
When will you admit that ID was a scam and go back to your alternative
to see what you can actually do about it in terms of science? Bill
remains a creationists and all he has is continued denial of the
science, but he claims that he is no longer an IDiot. If it is not an
option to actually do what they claimed to be able to do with the ID
scam, how stupid and dishonest have you been for years? One day guys
like you and Bill will understand that if you are lucky enough to live
that long, but look how long it took an IDiot like Bill to accept the
reality of the ID scam? We are talking decades, how long has it been in
your case?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
>is whats doing the goring.

As always, you offer interesting opinions.

[R. Dean]

You repeatedly uses the terms "ID scam" "idiot" and "dishonest". But
all I'm seeing here is charges and accusations without a shred of proof
of these charges: not to mention the personal insults and derision. >

> Denial like yours will just keep the ID/creationist scam going, and for
> what? Bill really has started to claim that he is no longer an IDiot.
> When will you admit that ID was a scam and go back to your alternative
> to see what you can actually do about it in terms of science? Bill
> remains a creationists and all he has is continued denial of the
> science, but he claims that he is no longer an IDiot. If it is not an
> option to actually do what they claimed to be able to do with the ID
> scam, how stupid and dishonest have you been for years? One day guys
> like you and Bill will understand that if you are lucky enough to live
> that long, but look how long it took an IDiot like Bill to accept the
> reality of the ID scam? We are talking decades, how long has it been in
> your case?
>

Here again you call ID a "scam" without a shred of supporting evidence.

[R. Dean]

On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
>> is whats doing the goring.
>
> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
>

One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over the line.

[Ernest Major]

On 12/08/2017 18:13, R. Dean wrote:
> Here again you call ID a "scam" without a shred of supporting evidence.

"cdesign proponentists"

--
alias Ernest Major

[R. Dean]

On 8/12/2017 2:06 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 18:13, R. Dean wrote:
>> Here again you call ID a "scam" without a shred of supporting evidence.
>
> "cdesign proponentists"
>

No! Whoever it was, that brought the charges "ID scam" "idiot"
"dishonest" to this NG has the burden of proof.

[RonO]

Dean, are you really this clueless about what a scam ID has been all
these years. Have you never read any of the evidence that I put up all
those years? The reason that you don't see any is because it isn't
needed any longer. Ask Bill. There really isn't any excuse for being
so far into denial that you would even try to claim that you need
evidence at this time.

Has anyone ever gotten the promised ID science. Did you see the threads
after the last bait and switch 4 years ago? Yes, it has been 4 years
since there has been a creationist group of rubes stupid enough to have
believed the ID scam artists and claimed to be able to teach the junk in
the public schools. What happened to the creationist rubes in both
Lousiana and Texas when they wanted to put ID into textbook suppliments
back in 2013. Who ran the bait and switch on them and only gave them an
obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed?

What happened in Dover over 20 years ago?

When have the guys that sold you the ID scam ever put up the science
when they had to put up or shut up. Half of them ran from the Dover
court case.

Where have you been for the last two decades of the ID scam? You have
to admit that you have never seen the ID science or you would put it up
and demonstrate that it exists, so what is your beef?

It really has been this way since they ID perps started running the bait
and switch back in 2002. Not a single group of IDiot rubes have ever
gotten the promised ID science so what do you think is happening?

What evidence do you think that you need? Tell me what hasn't been
presented multiple times in this forum. Go for it.

> >
> Here again you call ID a "scam" without a shred of supporting evidence.

Tell me what I have not presented. Go over all the years of my posts
and tell me what I forgot to put in that leads you to think that ID
isn't the scam that everyone else knows it to be?

Do you have any evidence that ID was ever legitimate? Really, your
position is that bad because there isn't any evidence that it was legit.
The only reason that they haven't had to run the bait and switch in
years is because anyone that wanted to do it has to be so stupid that it
is just about impossible to be that stupid and still be breathing. The
ID persp made a lot of noise, but what happened when it came time to put
forward the ID science?

Here is one post about the original bait and switch that the ID perps
ran on Ohio. It is from 2014 because Nyikos kept lying about the issue.
What will you do?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

At the end of the post there is a link to the NCSE page where the IDiot
defense lawyer for the Dover Fiasco describes the bait and switch, but
calls it the Discovery Instiute's "strategy" to sell ID and then run in
the switch scam. He was contesting the lie from the Discovery Institute
rep who claimed that the Discovery Institute had never supported
teaching ID in the public schools. The Lawyer demonstrated that to be a
lie by putting forward the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to
give out with their video on teaching ID in the public schools.

Do you want the Phillip Johnson quote from when he quit the ID scam
after Dover and admitted that the ID science did not exist? This is the
Phillip Johnson that was called the godfather of the ID scam by the ID
perps. He was supposed to have been instrumental in getting the ID
perps together, but he found out that there never had been any ID
science to teach in the public schools, and that is what he had been
trying to do for years before he quit. In the same interview he even
claims that he doesn't expect ID to be taught in his lifetime, and he is
still alive eleven years after making that statement.

If you donated anything to the Discovery Instiute before 2002 you likely
got that booklet. Do you have it? I have put up links to it before.
It is linked to in the link above.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Kenyon and Thaxton participated in the scientific creationist ploy and
renamed it the ID scam.

Meyer (the director of the ID scam unit) wrote the teachers notes, and
Behe claims to have written part of the book, but was not credited.

I have put all this up multiple times. Since you seem to already know
about it, why claim that ID isn't a scam?

Read about the bait and switch in the link that I gave. I call ID the
scam that it is, not because of the bogus science, but because the ID
perps are running the bait and switch scam on creationists rubes like
you. Why do you still support them when all that you have ever gotten
from them is them telling you to bend over and take the switch scam.
You likely know by now that the switch scam doesn't even mention that ID
ever existed, so what is your beef?

Why don't you go to your local school board and sell them the teach ID
scam. Tell them about all the legitimate ID science. No one has been
that stupid for quite some time, but you could demonstrate to yourself
what a scam ID is by observing what the Discovery Institute does if you
find a school board ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest enough to
believe you.

The bait and switch would go down as it has gone down 100% of the time
since 2002. The ID perps have only had one failure for their bait and
switch scam, and Dover demonstrated why the bait and switch is necessary.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 8/12/2017 12:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
>>> is whats doing the goring.
>>
>> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
> >
> One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
> perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
> anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
> assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over the line.

You have to know that defending IDiocy at this time is utter lame
bullshit. Why even pretend? The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. What do you not get about the last 2
decades of the ID scam? Are you really claiming to be this clueless?

Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID perps
running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back in 2013 and
finally removing the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to
teach in the public schools from their education policy. Why do you
think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes stupid enough to try to
teach ID since? If the creationists try to do anything they have
already bent over for the switch scam. That is all that they have left.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

OOPs Over 10 years ago. Just a typo, I hit the wrong key.

[R. Dean]

I read what you wrote, it's just further lambasting those who hold a
view different from yours. There is a distinction between scientific
creationism and intelligent design, however critics choose to merge
the two; by doing so, they hope to "kill two birds with one stone". But
since these are different views, by ignoring this distinction, those
who attack misses the mark. I personally fault "scientific creationism".
I am convinced the YEC people hijacked the ID arguments for their own
purposes. This I think, is reprehensible and dishonest.


> Ron Okimoto
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:18:13 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
>>> is whats doing the goring.
>>
>> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
> >
>One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
>perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
>anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
>assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over the line.

You complain about old news. You have posted to T.O. long enough to
know that all your demands above have been satisfied many times over.
Apparently you didn't even bother to look at my cite in this thread of
DI's peer-reviewed evidences for ID.

Since you imply you still support DI, then be specific what your
reasons are for doing so. Otherwise you're beating a horse that died
long ago and is now a desiccated corpse. And try to keep up.

[R. Dean]

On 8/12/2017 3:16 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 12:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
>>>> is whats doing the goring.
>>>
>>> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
>> >
>> One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
>> perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
>> anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
>> assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over the
>> line.
>
> You have to know that defending IDiocy at this time is utter lame
> bullshit. Why even pretend? The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
> incompetent, and or dishonest. What do you not get about the last 2
> decades of the ID scam? Are you really claiming to be this clueless?
>

I just challenging you to prove your accusations against IDers,

>
> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID perps
> running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back in 2013 and
> finally removing the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to
> teach in the public schools from their education policy. Why do you
> think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes stupid enough to try to
> teach ID since? If the creationists try to do anything they have
> already bent over for the switch scam. That is all that they have left.
>

You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.

[RonO]

On 8/12/2017 7:03 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 3:16 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 8/12/2017 12:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that Ron's ox
>>>>> is whats doing the goring.
>>>>
>>>> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
>>> >
>>> One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
>>> perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
>>> anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
>>> assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over the
>>> line.
>>
>> You have to know that defending IDiocy at this time is utter lame
>> bullshit. Why even pretend? The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
>> incompetent, and or dishonest. What do you not get about the last 2
>> decades of the ID scam? Are you really claiming to be this clueless?
> >
> I just challenging you to prove your accusations against IDers,

So are you satisfied with what has been put up?

>>
>> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID
>> perps running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back in
>> 2013 and finally removing the claim that they had a scientific theory
>> of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy. Why
>> do you think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes stupid enough to
>> try to teach ID since? If the creationists try to do anything they
>> have already bent over for the switch scam. That is all that they
>> have left.
> >
> You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.

Why lie to yourself like this? What does it mean to you that you can't
defend the ID perps with any evidence that they ever did what they
claimed to be able to do. What do you think the bait and switch is? Go
through the evidence presented and tell me why it isn't good enough.
Who is selling the ID scam? What do they give rubes like you instead of
any ID science? You now have evidence that they planned to do it before
they went and presented their Ohio dog and pony show. What did the
creationist rubes get in Ohio instead of the ID science? What have all
such IDiots gotten instead of the ID science? The Thomas More lawyer
called it a strategy, but it is just the bait and switch scam. They
sell the ID science, but what do IDiot rubes like you get instead?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Why lie to yourself like this? I didn't write Pandas and People. The
ID perps did. Kenyon and Thaxton have been fellows of the ID scam
outfit since the beginning of the ID scam outfit. Meyer has been and is
the director of the ID scam outfit, and you know Behe's IDiot junk.
Kenyon was and likely still is a YEC scientific creationist. What a
bonehead. He even wrote up supporting documents for the scientific
creationist court cases in the 1980s The Pandas and People fiasco is
what the ID perps did. No one made them do it. Read the wiki.

About the only distinction between the ID perps and the scientific
creationist that came before them is that the scientific creationist
were more honest about what they were doing.

Thaxton, Kenyon, Meyer and Behe are all still associated with the ID
scam, and they were all involved in the Pandas and People IDiot fiasco.

http://www.discovery.org/id/about/fellows/

There is no reason to keep lying to yourself about the ID scam.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[R. Dean]

On 8/12/2017 8:22 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 7:03 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 8/12/2017 3:16 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2017 12:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that
>>>>>> Ron's ox
>>>>>> is whats doing the goring.
>>>>>
>>>>> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
>>>> >
>>>> One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
>>>> perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
>>>> anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
>>>> assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> You have to know that defending IDiocy at this time is utter lame
>>> bullshit. Why even pretend? The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
>>> incompetent, and or dishonest. What do you not get about the last 2
>>> decades of the ID scam? Are you really claiming to be this clueless?
>> >
>> I just challenging you to prove your accusations against IDers,
>
> So are you satisfied with what has been put up?
>

It doesn't matter. My satisfaction is not an issue.

>>>
>>> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID
>>> perps running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back in
>>> 2013 and finally removing the claim that they had a scientific theory
>>> of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy.
>>> Why do you think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes stupid
>>> enough to try to teach ID since? If the creationists try to do
>>> anything they have already bent over for the switch scam. That is
>>> all that they have left.
>> >
>> You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.
>
> Why lie to yourself like this? What does it mean to you that you can't
> defend the ID perps with any evidence that they ever did what they
> claimed to be able to do.
>

I don't have to. You are the one who repediatedly charges Iders with
the "scam" dishonesty "bate and switch".

What do you think the bait and switch is?
>

I do know what it means.

>
Go through the evidence presented and tell me why it isn't good enough.
>

Charges and accusations do not constitute evidence.

>
Who
> is selling the ID scam? What do they give rubes like you instead of any
> ID science? You now have evidence that they planned to do it before
> they went and presented their Ohio dog and pony show. What did the
> creationist rubes get in Ohio instead of the ID science? What have all
> such IDiots gotten instead of the ID science? The Thomas More lawyer
> called it a strategy, but it is just the bait and switch scam. They
> sell the ID science, but what do IDiot rubes like you get instead?
>

Personal insults and character assignation is all you've have.
I returned to this NG hoping I would find some element of civility
But it's not here.

[RonO]

On 8/12/2017 9:46 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 8:22 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 8/12/2017 7:03 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2017 3:16 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2017 12:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/2017 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:50:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron O' ox is being gored!? Really. It appears to me that that
>>>>>>> Ron's ox
>>>>>>> is whats doing the goring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As always, you offer interesting opinions.
>>>>> >
>>>>> One has to consider who is on the offensive here. It's acceptable
>>>>> perhaps even honorable to criticize a point of view and show where
>>>>> anther's belief system is in error, but to descend into personal
>>>>> assaults and impugn their honesty and integrity s is passing over
>>>>> the line.
>>>>
>>>> You have to know that defending IDiocy at this time is utter lame
>>>> bullshit. Why even pretend? The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
>>>> incompetent, and or dishonest. What do you not get about the last 2
>>>> decades of the ID scam? Are you really claiming to be this clueless?
>>> >
>>> I just challenging you to prove your accusations against IDers,
>>
>> So are you satisfied with what has been put up?
>>
> It doesn't matter. My satisfaction is not an issue.

Why lie like this? If you now understand what a scam ID has been all
these years, what issue is there left to discuss?

>>>>
>>>> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID
>>>> perps running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back in
>>>> 2013 and finally removing the claim that they had a scientific
>>>> theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education
>>>> policy. Why do you think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes
>>>> stupid enough to try to teach ID since? If the creationists try to
>>>> do anything they have already bent over for the switch scam. That
>>>> is all that they have left.
>>> >
>>> You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.
>>
>> Why lie to yourself like this? What does it mean to you that you
>> can't defend the ID perps with any evidence that they ever did what
>> they claimed to be able to do.
> >
> I don't have to. You are the one who repediatedly charges Iders with
> the "scam" dishonesty "bate and switch".

Since you have obviously read some of the relevant material and you know
what a scam ID has been, what else am I supposed to do?

So familiarize yourself with the bait and switch material that you have
avoided responding to (denial is stupid) and determine for yourself why
ID has been a scam for around 2 decades. Before the bait and switch
started to go down the ID perps were most known for their claims about
being able to teach the junk in the public schools. The bait and switch
has been going down for over a decade and a half. Just because that
hasn't changed doesn't mean that ID doesn't continue to be a scam. The
next group of IDiot rubes that want to teach the science of ID in the
public schools will have the bait and switch run on them. Do you deny
that? So what are your objections?

What more do you need?

>
> What do you think the bait and switch is?
> >
> I do know what it means.
> >
> Go through the evidence presented and tell me why it isn't good enough.
> >
> Charges and accusations do not constitute evidence.
> >
> Who
>> is selling the ID scam? What do they give rubes like you instead of
>> any ID science? You now have evidence that they planned to do it
>> before they went and presented their Ohio dog and pony show. What did
>> the creationist rubes get in Ohio instead of the ID science? What
>> have all such IDiots gotten instead of the ID science? The Thomas
>> More lawyer called it a strategy, but it is just the bait and switch
>> scam. They sell the ID science, but what do IDiot rubes like you get
>> instead?
> >
> Personal insults and character assignation is all you've have.
> I returned to this NG hoping I would find some element of civility
> But it's not here.

You are in denial and are an idiot and not just an IDiot. I won't sugar
coat that. The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest, and you have been supporting the ID scam for too long to be
ignorant. Willful ignorance is either mental incompetence and or
dishonesty. If you were just dishonest you would know that there is no
reason to be an IDiot at this late date. Others have gone back to being
just creationists and dropped the ID scam (ex senator Santorum is likely
the most recognized political example). There should be a limit to
dishonesty, but when coupled with stupidity it seems to be boundless.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Since you brought it up, what do you think is the relevant differences
between scientific creationism and ID, and how do you think those
differences apply to either RonO's comments or your objections to
them?

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 22:46:09 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

You could have brought some with you. Just sayin'.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:


[...]

> There is a distinction between scientific
>creationism and intelligent design

What is the distinction?

[R. Dean]

On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>> There is a distinction between scientific
>> creationism and intelligent design
>
> What is the distinction?
>

One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
founded by different people with different views of nature.

[Robert Camp]

On 8/13/17 10:03 AM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>
>> What is the distinction?
> >
> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not.

Be that as it may, each appeals to and is based upon religious belief.
That puts them both under the broad definition of creationism.

> The two were
> founded by different people with different views of nature.

They were founded by different people, but those people shared largely
similar views of nature.

[R. Dean]

He doesn't say. But This is what I consider an example of bait and
switch: The Dover trial of 2006 was brought on because of two young
earth creationist (YEC) whe were advocating "scientific Creationism".
This trial quickly _morphed_ into intelligent design. From Wikipedia,
"William (Bill) Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area
School District Board of Education who were young earth creationists,
had made various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside
evolution. At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned
creationism and raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook
Biology written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it
as "laced with Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book
that says man descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it."[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Note: the two members of the Dover school board, William Buckingham and
Alan Bonsell the instigators of the trial were both young earth
creationist. The ID people wanted no part of this and the lawyer, Seth
Cooper representing intelligent design called and advised Buckingham to
"steer the Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in
the classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum
[sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. "Cooper sent the book and
DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required the Dover High
School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not take up the
opportunity to use it in their classes".

The YEC people actually dragged ID into the fray by appealing to
resources published by the intelligent design, namely the book
"Darwin's Black Box" by Dr. Behe.

So, what we have here is a clear example of bait and switch since it
began with scientific creationism and switched to ID.

>
>> I do know what it means.
>>>
>> Go through the evidence presented and tell me why it isn't good enough.
>>>
>> Charges and accusations do not constitute evidence.
>>>
>> Who
>>> is selling the ID scam? What do they give rubes like you instead of any
>>> ID science? You now have evidence that they planned to do it before
>>> they went and presented their Ohio dog and pony show. What did the
>>> creationist rubes get in Ohio instead of the ID science? What have all
>>> such IDiots gotten instead of the ID science? The Thomas More lawyer
>>> called it a strategy, but it is just the bait and switch scam. They
>>> sell the ID science, but what do IDiot rubes like you get instead?
>>>
>> Personal insults and character assignation is all you've have.
>> I returned to this NG hoping I would find some element of civility
>> But it's not here.
>
>
> You could have brought some with you. Just sayin'.
>

I have not attacked him personally nor have I attacked you, but when
I think there is unprovoked and unfair charges and accusation.
Do I not have the right to ask for proof?

[RonO]

What a total loser. The bait and switch is what consistently goes down
on IDiot rubes like you. The Discovery Institute ID perps are the ones
that run the bait and switch on any IDiot rube too stupid to understand
that there is no ID science to teach in the public schools. Didn't you
read the Thomas More Lawyer correcting the Discovery Institute IDiot
when he lied and claimed that the Discovery Institute had never
supported teaching ID in the public schools? The Dover rubes had the
booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out on teaching ID in
the public schools. I gave you a link to that booklet.

The Thomas More lawyer called it a "strategy" but it is plainly the bait
and switch. Sell the rubes the ID science and then only give them a
switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Where have
you been for the last decade and a half? What has the Discovery
Institute done to every creationist rube that believed them about the ID
science?

Go up to the post that you are running from and deal with the
information that you were given.

Here is a link to that post. It is a response to one of your posts to
me, and it has the information that you likely understand that you need
so you are avoiding the issue.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Y9ARb2PSVck/5j7Mc9JjAQAJ

ID is a creationist scam. They needed something to replace scientific
creationism so they started the ID scam. Didn't you read the Pandas and
People information? Their only problem was that they claimed to have a
scientific theory to teach in the public schools, but no such scientific
theory exists. What do you think the outcome of Kitzmiller was? No ID
science made an appearance to save the day. Both sides requested that
the judge rule on whether ID was science and ID came up short. This
doesn't even matter because the ID perps knew that they didn't have the
science years before and had been running the bait and switch scam since
2002. No creationist rube ever got the promised ID science. It never
existed.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>
>
> >
>>> I do know what it means.
>>>>
>>> Go through the evidence presented and tell me why it isn't good enough.
>>>>
>>> Charges and accusations do not constitute evidence.
>>>>
>>> Who
>>>> is selling the ID scam? What do they give rubes like you instead of
>>>> any
>>>> ID science? You now have evidence that they planned to do it before
>>>> they went and presented their Ohio dog and pony show. What did the
>>>> creationist rubes get in Ohio instead of the ID science? What have all
>>>> such IDiots gotten instead of the ID science? The Thomas More lawyer
>>>> called it a strategy, but it is just the bait and switch scam. They
>>>> sell the ID science, but what do IDiot rubes like you get instead?
>>>>
>>> Personal insults and character assignation is all you've have.
>>> I returned to this NG hoping I would find some element of civility
>>> But it's not here.
>>
>>
>> You could have brought some with you. Just sayin'.
>>
> I have not attacked him personally nor have I attacked you, but when
> I think there is unprovoked and unfair charges and accusation.
> Do I not have the right to ask for proof?

No one could be this incompetent about something that they have
supported for over a decade. What could possibly be your excuse?
Really pretend that your posts were written by someone else. Didn't you
ever try to figure out what the ID scam has been all these years?

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>
>> What is the distinction?
> >
>One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>founded by different people with different views of nature.

Do you think it is just coincidence that the main proponents of
Intelligent Design happen to be practising Christians? Do you think it
doesn't matter that those proponents have stated that the designer in
"intelligent design" is the God of Christianity or that Philip Johnson
explicitly admitted that they were employing secular language to
create ambiguity?

You stated earlier that " I am convinced the YEC people hijacked the
ID arguments for their own Purposes". It wasn't a case of the
arguments being hijacked, the ID proponents deliberately created the
arguments to obfuscate their religious intentions.

That is why I detest the ID movement on religious grounds as much as
scientific grounds - pretending not to be going about God's work when
you actually are going about God's work is the antithesis of Christian
practice.

[RonO]

On 8/10/2017 8:16 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 August 2017 14:25:05 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 3:25 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 10 August 2017 03:25:03 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2017 7:13 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 14:15:05 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/7/2017 5:51 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 7 August 2017 07:25:05 UTC+3, Don Cates wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-08-06 7:35 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2017 2:34 PM, Don Cates wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-08-06 11:25 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2017 11:10 AM, Don Cates wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-08-06 10:46 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip wall of text]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did *anyone* try to read that?> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Snipping are running is a stupid form of denial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a point, you might want to try to address it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What in the first paragraph do you disagree with so much that you had
>>>>>>>>>>>> to remove it and all that followed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you miss that I called it a "wall of text"?
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a clue that I considered it not worth reading because of
>>>>>>>>>>> format, not content.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why was it worth such a worthless comment by you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A faint hope you might see to problem and modify that bit of your
>>>>>>>>> behaviour. What can I say, I'm a cockeyed optimist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The post was unusually long yes, but the content has improved.
>>>>>>>> 0 mentions of "rubes"! Some other things have reduced presence: 3 times
>>>>>>>> "bait and switch" and 5 times "perp". High frequency of "scam" (12 times)
>>>>>>>> may be was because it was chosen as topic. I don't know why he needs
>>>>>>>> to push that ID was scam. May be it was scam but may be they honestly
>>>>>>>> hoped to do science at first but the political factors pushed them
>>>>>>>> into pseudoscience? One is clear that Ron's rants won't clarify that any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having nothing to with RonO's posting style, but since you raised the
>>>>>>> question, the Discovery Institute and Philip Johnson had hoped to
>>>>>>> change the definition and practice of science, as specified in the
>>>>>>> Wedge Document, to minimize or eliminate methodological naturalism and
>>>>>>> support specific aspects of supernaturalism, in order to rationalize
>>>>>>> ID, as illustrated for example by Michael Behe's testimony in the
>>>>>>> Dover trial, by Douglas Axe's and Ann Gauger's re-interpretations of
>>>>>>> scientific papers, and by DI's promotion of conclusions which assume
>>>>>>> ID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that, my impression is they never intended to "do science" as
>>>>>>> practiced, but instead intended to merely change the rules to promote
>>>>>>> their religious beliefs, which by definition meant they would practice
>>>>>>> pseudo-science and just call it science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are examples of what DI claims to be peer-reviewed scientific
>>>>>>> articles supporting ID:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A review of these articles show they don't provide positive evidence
>>>>>>> for ID, but instead mostly argue against biological evolution, or at
>>>>>>> most merely assert an ID inference.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The original mission statement that the ID perps signed up to
>>>>>> accomplish. Backs you up in their own words. The logo of God and Adam
>>>>>> is something of a giveaway as to their religious intent in pursuing the
>>>>>> political objectives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that is "What is CRSC" not "What is ID". Do you say that the whole point
>>>>> of ID is that CRSC? Also if they really want to redefine what is meant by
>>>>> word "science" then why you call it scam? It is common to want to include
>>>>> currently unfalsifiable theories and fantasies (like for example "String Theory"
>>>>> is) under science. Such attempts tend to fail but why it is scam?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't divorce ID from the perpetrators. Why even try. ID was a
>>>> political scam. What did you think that it was?
>>>
>>> I tend to assume by default good from all people. There are limitations
>>> that if their weaknesses (different people have different weaknesses
>>> like greed, pride or envy) are put under heavy stress then everyone may
>>> slip. Are you claiming that the organisers of DI are unordinary, evil
>>> or that their weaknesses were under exploit?
>>
>> So you were just wrong in this case. Didn't you ever read the Discovery
>> Institute's mission statement? That was what all the ID perps signed up
>> to support. There is no reason to continue to be wrong. Pretending
>> that things are different doesn't do much of anything. Was any ID
>> science ever produced? Is there any evidence that Behe and Minnich
>> tried to do any scientific testing on IC like they claimed in their
>> Dover testimony? Has any IDiot ever done any ID science? Since they
>> never did any ID science what do you think that they were doing all
>> these years with the bait and switch Discovery Institute policy? No
>> IDiot ever got the promised ID science. All they ever get is a switch
>> scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed. That is all political.
>> There obviously is no ID science in that tactic.
>
> I have. I read it that materialism is backward and wrong and Judeo-
> Christian culture is correct. Possibly there have been lot of versions
> of it. I thought that Behe's argument about that Irreducible
> Complexity was shown to be flawed in essence and so there was no point
> to test it. The Specified Complexity of Dembski was using IC as its
> fundament and so it fell over as well. I already told. I hope that
> they did fail to do any ID science not because they were liars but
> because actual Science is more correct than their scriptures and/or
> their understanding of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Otherwise it
> would mean that ID science is possible to make but the wannabe
> makers of it were just incompetent hoaxers and illusionists who got
> caught.

The political scam was that they already had the ID science to teach in
the public school science class. It was supposed to be their wedge into
public education so that they could brainwash the masses and create some
type of theocracy where their religious beliefs would have the political
power that they thought they had lost since the middle ages when ID
could have been considered to be science. You might laugh at that
description, but did you read their mission statement when they started
the ID scam? Behe actually claimed that ID was equivalent to things
like astrology of the dark ages. They wanted to return to a time when
we didn't know any better, and science was little better than religion.

They touted junk like IC as if they had already evaluated it and
scientifically verified the junk, but it turned out that no verification
was attempted. Both Behe and Minnich claimed that IC was scientifically
testable under oath, and both put up the same test, but it has been over
a decade since they made those claims and IC remains untested. If they
ever did the testing they never put up the results.

Ron Okimoto

>
>>
>>>
>>> So I assume that the organisers of DI really are religious people who
>>> believed that their scriptures and understanding of their scriptures
>>> (their Philosophy) are more correct than current explanations about
>>> our reality (Science). So they decided to take a goal to work and to
>>> call others to work to correct Science. Where and how did they lie
>>> about it?
>>
>> Nelson believes this, but he signed up for the same mission. You
>> obviously can be religious and have a political agenda that has nothing
>> to do with actually accomplishing any science worth talking about.
>> Nelson was one of the first ID perps to admit that there was no ID
>> science, but he never resigned from the ID perps original mission. Why
>> did he accept the bait and switch scam when he admitted that the ID
>> science did not exist?
>
> Because he did not see it as a bait and switch scam. He did see that
> ID science does not exist. Why he should resign from there? Skilled
> professional supposedly signs up where there is work to do and hope
> that it is doable.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Also I assume that they and their supporters have simply realized by
>>> now that they failed to reach that goal. I don't know what they think
>>> about reasons. It can be that your regular posting about "perps",
>>> "rubes", "IDiots" and "scam" helped. For me that would be bad reason
>>> why they failed. I sincerely hope that they failed for reasons that
>>> their Philosophy is less correct than Science.
>>>
>>
>> Willful ignorance is a hallmark of IDiocy at this time. If you don't
>> understand that, you haven't learned much from TO.
>
> It is not only proponents of ID. Eridanus can also hand wave away
> every evidence that people ever landed on Moon. He can believe
> that people either have been mislead by "Moon Landing Scam" or
> are participating in that scam themselves. He say he is believing it
> but can't research it because no resources/too old.
> However if someone takes to research something then they can not
> keep being willfully ignorant about it at same time.
>
>>
>> Just the fact that not a single IDiot does more that snip and run from
>> the reality of the ID scam and what the ID perps have been doing for
>> years should tell you that they can't support the scam and they
>> understand that. Kalk even goes through the trouble of removing all
>> context before running. They know it is all true, but they literally
>> can't do anything about it and all they want to do is deny reality.
>
> Oh. I am not sure if Kalkidas is "perp" or "rube" by your terminology.
> I have sort of started to think that what goes on in TO is just a form
> of entertainment. Some people want attention of each other and so post
> something to warm up that game. The aesthetics or truth are not
> important if there is attention. Now for that it is not much need to
> research their points. Any text from some creationist site is fine to
> support their opinions endlessly that all is "Darwinist Scam" in the
> very same manner as eridanus can say that there is "AGW Scam" or
> "Moon Landing Scam".
>
>> They have trouble doing that because I always remind them of what
>> reality actually is, and every time they understand that it is true. If
>> this wasn't the case they would have demonstrated it by now, but
>> what do they do? Really, why would anyone put up with someone who they thought
>> was lying and denegrating their beliefs so badly if they could counter?
>> The science side obviously has no problem with countering the IDiots, so
>> what is the difference? Don't you think that IDiots like Kalk and Bill
>> understand that? Bill's solution has been to finally claim that he
>> isn't an IDiot anymore. He still hasn't giving up on the science
>> denial, so your type of efforts have continued to fail, but he obviously
>> can't deal with the reality of the ID scam any other way. People can
>> maintain their religious beliefs and not support the ID scam or the ID
>> perps.
>
> Bill is special case since he seems to deny knowledge whatsoever.
> Of course ID is not popular since the organizers of DI themselves are
> resigning, distancing and leaving from it. Yes, I also think that creationists
> still believe that what is going on is just political victory of followers of
> Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The good scientists have
> been discriminated and Religion of Materialism and Darwinist Scam are
> made more official.
>

[R. Dean]

Obviously, you are attempting to avoid the challenge I issued, by
trying to "turn the tables on me". Rather than expressing your present
argument disproving ID, you elect to send me on some futile and
perhaps idle search.

>>>>>
>>>>> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID
>>>>> perps running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back
>>>>> in 2013 and finally removing the claim that they had a scientific
>>>>> theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education
>>>>> policy. Why do you think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes
>>>>> stupid enough to try to teach ID since? If the creationists try to
>>>>> do anything they have already bent over for the switch scam. That
>>>>> is all that they have left.
>>>> >
>>>> You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.
>>>
>>> Why lie to yourself like this? What does it mean to you that you
>>> can't defend the ID perps with any evidence that they ever did what
>>> they claimed to be able to do.
>> >
>> I don't have to. You are the one who repediatedly charges Iders with
>> the "scam" dishonesty "bate and switch".
>
> Since you have obviously read some of the relevant material and you know
> what a scam ID has been, what else am I supposed to do?
>

Make your _own_ case against ID.

When one resorts to personal insults and attacking the personal
character of another, in his own mind he has lost.

>
I won't sugar
> coat that. The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or
> dishonest, and you have been supporting the ID scam for too long to be
> ignorant. Willful ignorance is either mental incompetence and or
> dishonesty. If you were just dishonest you would know that there is no
> reason to be an IDiot at this late date. Others have gone back to being
> just creationists and dropped the ID scam (ex senator Santorum is likely
> the most recognized political example). There should be a limit to
> dishonesty, but when coupled with stupidity it seems to be boundless.
>

All I asked of you was proof of your accusation. But what do I get:
personal insults, character assassination and this vendetta against
those who hold a different view from you. So, what need is there for
more of the same from you. I'm done!

[RonO]

Give it up Dean. You are the one running in denial. You have been
given enough information to meet your challenge and you have run from it
in denial. Do you want me to repost it? Why not go to the post that
you are running from and deal with it? You ask for it. I gave it to
you, and you are running.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID
>>>>>> perps running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back
>>>>>> in 2013 and finally removing the claim that they had a scientific
>>>>>> theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education
>>>>>> policy. Why do you think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes
>>>>>> stupid enough to try to teach ID since? If the creationists try
>>>>>> to do anything they have already bent over for the switch scam.
>>>>>> That is all that they have left.
>>>>> >
>>>>> You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.
>>>>
>>>> Why lie to yourself like this? What does it mean to you that you
>>>> can't defend the ID perps with any evidence that they ever did what
>>>> they claimed to be able to do.
>>> >
>>> I don't have to. You are the one who repediatedly charges Iders with
>>> the "scam" dishonesty "bate and switch".
>>
>> Since you have obviously read some of the relevant material and you
>> know what a scam ID has been, what else am I supposed to do?
> >
> Make your _own_ case against ID.

I did and you ran. Why not face reality?

You are dishonestly running from something that you obviously can't deal
with and claiming that I haven't given you the information. Do you want
me to repost it?

> >
> I won't sugar
>> coat that. The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or
>> dishonest, and you have been supporting the ID scam for too long to be
>> ignorant. Willful ignorance is either mental incompetence and or
>> dishonesty. If you were just dishonest you would know that there is
>> no reason to be an IDiot at this late date. Others have gone back to
>> being just creationists and dropped the ID scam (ex senator Santorum
>> is likely the most recognized political example). There should be a
>> limit to dishonesty, but when coupled with stupidity it seems to be
>> boundless.
> >
> All I asked of you was proof of your accusation. But what do I get:
> personal insults, character assassination and this vendetta against
> those who hold a different view from you. So, what need is there for
> more of the same from you. I'm done!

I did and you have obvioiusly run. Insults? What you are should bother
you. If you are just ignorant you can stop running in denial. Willful
ignorance is dishonest. What do you not get?

Here is the link again to the post that you are running from.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Y9ARb2PSVck/5j7Mc9JjAQAJ

The link is to a post in this thread where I respond to your post and
you have run from it. This is the second time that I am putting up the
link to this post. You have no excuse for not being able to find it.
You just have to go up the thread and find the post that you have been
avoiding. Stop lying and actually learn something.

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 16:02:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Since you haven't yet explained what you think are the relevant
differences between scientific creationism and ID, you can't
reasonably claim there was any bait-and-switch using them.

>>> I do know what it means.
>>>>
>>> Go through the evidence presented and tell me why it isn't good enough.
>>>>
>>> Charges and accusations do not constitute evidence.
>>>>
>>> Who
>>>> is selling the ID scam? What do they give rubes like you instead of any
>>>> ID science? You now have evidence that they planned to do it before
>>>> they went and presented their Ohio dog and pony show. What did the
>>>> creationist rubes get in Ohio instead of the ID science? What have all
>>>> such IDiots gotten instead of the ID science? The Thomas More lawyer
>>>> called it a strategy, but it is just the bait and switch scam. They
>>>> sell the ID science, but what do IDiot rubes like you get instead?
>>>>
>>> Personal insults and character assignation is all you've have.
>>> I returned to this NG hoping I would find some element of civility
>>> But it's not here.
>>
>>
>> You could have brought some with you. Just sayin'.
>>
>I have not attacked him personally nor have I attacked you, but when
>I think there is unprovoked and unfair charges and accusation.

You made that claim in your very first post to this topic, before
anybody even mentioned you, nevermind "attacked" you. Apparently you
still have problems with your jerky knees.

>Do I not have the right to ask for proof?

Once again, what you ask for has been posted repeatedly and regularly
over many years. It's old news. In fact, that RonO continues to
raise these points is what some posters complained about in this
topic. So a relevant question isn't if you have the right to ask for
proof. Instead a really good question is why haven't you been paying
attention all these years?

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>
>> What is the distinction?
> >
>One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>founded by different people with different views of nature.

In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.

>>> , however critics choose to merge
>>> the two; by doing so, they hope to "kill two birds with one stone". But
>>> since these are different views, by ignoring this distinction, those
>>> who attack misses the mark. I personally fault "scientific creationism".
>>> I am convinced the YEC people hijacked the ID arguments for their own
>>> purposes. This I think, is reprehensible and dishonest.
>>

[R. Dean]

On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>
>>> What is the distinction?
>>>
>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>
>
> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
>

Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
to any religious material? All anyone can do is argue that the
_motivation_ is religious. But then this is an appeal to a crystal
ball. Whereas the scientific creationist frequently quote the
Bible - chapter and verse. You've "known" me for years, do you
recall me every quoting a religious source in support of my views?
I'm rather typical of an ID advocate.

[John Harshman]

On 8/14/17 9:20 AM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>
>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>
>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>
>> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
>> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
>
> Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
> to any religious material?

Many times, though usually when he thinks he's talking only to
believers. Meyer, Wells, and Dembski have all done that sort of thing.

> All anyone can do is argue that the
> _motivation_ is religious. But then this is an appeal to a crystal
> ball. Whereas the scientific creationist frequently quote the
> Bible - chapter and verse. You've "known" me for years, do you
> recall me every quoting a religious source in support of my views?
> I'm rather typical of an ID advocate.

I'd say you're considerably more dim-witted than the typical ID
advocate, at least if we consider those who have published.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:20:16 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>
>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>
>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>
>>
>> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
>> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
> >
> Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
>to any religious material?

Phillip E. Johnson, commonly regarded as 'Father of the ID Movement':

'The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In
the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created."
Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential
to the rest of the gospel message.'
[Foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000)]

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get
the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
God, before the academic world and into the schools."
[American Family Radio (10 January 2003)]

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:20:16 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>
>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>
>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>
>>
>> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
>> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
> >
> Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
>to any religious material?

Of course I have. All ID advocates I know of, including yourself,
have admitted their assumption of a supernatural Designer is based on
their belief in God. There may be atheist or agnostic IDiots, but my
impression is they would be exceedingly rare. If they exist at all, I
would love to hear how they rationalize the Design Inference.

> All anyone can do is argue that the
>_motivation_ is religious. But then this is an appeal to a crystal
>ball. Whereas the scientific creationist frequently quote the
>Bible - chapter and verse. You've "known" me for years, do you
>recall me every quoting a religious source in support of my views?
>I'm rather typical of an ID advocate.

I agree your arguments are typical. That you don't usually quote
scripture doesn't mean your arguments are not religious-based.
Instead, your arguments for Design, as contrasted to your arguments
against biological evolution, are indirectly derived from Scripture,
ie Paley's Watchmaker Analogy. Claims which assume "appearance of
design in nature is evidence of a Designer of nature" are by
definition religious-based. Assertions they are not religious-based
smack of a bait-and-switch, a tactic you claim distasteful.

And you *still* don't identify what you think are their relevant
differences in their views of nature. Should I take that as your
tacit admission there are none?

[R. Dean]

On 8/13/2017 6:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>
>>> What is the distinction?
>>>
>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>
> Do you think it is just coincidence that the main proponents of

> Intelligent Design happen to be practicing Christians?
>
It wouldn't matter if they were Buddhist, Shinto or Christian, while
there is _indirect_ evidence of design which implies a designer, there
is nothing that points to the identity of a designer. A Christian
may _believe_ the designer is the god of the Bible, but that's all 'it
can be. There is absolutely nothing which suggest this. A designer is
the wild card in this.

>
Do you think it
> doesn't matter that those proponents have stated that the designer in
> "intelligent design" is the God of Christianity or that Philip Johnson
> explicitly admitted that they were employing secular language to
> create ambiguity?
>

I question that he made this statement. But I know Dr Behe is a
practicing Roman Catholic and may _believe_ the designer is
the God of the Catholic Religion, again that's all it can be - a
belief.

>
> You stated earlier that " I am convinced the YEC people hijacked the
> ID arguments for their own Purposes". It wasn't a case of the
> arguments being hijacked, the ID proponents deliberately created the
> arguments to obfuscate their religious intentions.
>

That, I suspect is just your opinion. With due respect, I don't believe
this is true.

>
> That is why I detest the ID movement on religious grounds as much as
> scientific grounds - pretending not to be going about God's work when
> you actually are going about God's work is the antithesis of Christian
> practice.
>

I agree, it would be deceptive. It goes back to what I said before,
there is nothing pointing to the identity of the designer. I also
disagree with Richard Dawkins who commented: "“Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
>
My question is, how does he _know_ it's apparent design and not
actual design? I am not trying to convince you of anything. Certainly,
you have the same right to your view as I do mine.

[R. Dean]

I've seen the name calling, charges and accusations over the years, but
actual disproof of ID, I've yet to see. For example why is "appearant
design (Dawkins) not actual design. IOW how do you prove that what we
see as design, (crick) is an illusion of design?

[R. Dean]

On 8/14/2017 12:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/14/17 9:20 AM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>>
>>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>>
>>> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
>>> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
>>
>> Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
>> to any religious material?
>
> Many times, though usually when he thinks he's talking only to
> believers. Meyer, Wells, and Dembski have all done that sort of thing.
>

Really, I don't believe they used religious dogma or religious
source as evidence in support of ID.
>
I don't deny that Behe is a practicing Roman Catholic and perhaps
the people you mentioned as well, but I do not believe any of them
appealed or referred to religious dogma or material as evidence.

>
>> All anyone can do is argue that the
>> _motivation_ is religious. But then this is an appeal to a crystal
>> ball. Whereas the scientific creationist frequently quote the
>> Bible - chapter and verse. You've "known" me for years, do you
>> recall me every quoting a religious source in support of my views?
>> I'm rather typical of an ID advocate.
>
> I'd say you're considerably more dim-witted than the typical ID
> advocate, at least if we consider those who have published.
>

Why the insult? It's uncalled for.

[R. Dean]

I found this book on Amazon entitled Creation, Evolution & Modern
Science: by Raymond G Bohlin? Without buying it I cannot know
who wrote the foreword.
>
You don't seem to understand my argument. Dr. M. Behe is a practicing
Roman Catholic. I've read two of his books, no where does he use
religious dogma, materials as _evidence_ for intelligent design. Whether
or not you agree with his science, there is no religious argument in
either of these two books. I do not argue that there are atheist
who are intelligent design advocates. But I see no reason there
could not be.

>
> "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get
> the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
> God, before the academic world and into the schools."
> [American Family Radio (10 January 2003)]
>

Is this a Creationist which hijacke ID and applied it to their cause?
I suspect it is.

[R. Dean]

On 8/14/2017 1:43 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:20:16 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>>
>>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
>>> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
>>>
>> Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
>> to any religious material?
>
>
> Of course I have. All ID advocates I know of, including yourself,
> have admitted their assumption of a supernatural Designer is based on
> their belief in God.
>

Now wait a second Jill! I have always maintained there is evidence of
design, which in turn implies a designer, but that's a far as I can
go. As I've stated, many time there is absolutely no evidence pointing
to the identity of the designer. If you believe the designer is the god
of the Bible this is strictly a matter of faith, not of evidence. This
has been my position for most of my adult life.

[R. Dean]

> Give it up Dean. You are the one running in denial.
>

Denial of what? Denial that the ID is a scam? Proof of a scam requires
more than just repeating the same.

You have not proven that there is no design in nature. This is the basic
and fundamental basis upon which the ID movement stands. Even world
renown atheist, Richard Dawkins
commented."Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose”,


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/dawkins.html

Francis Crick, the co- discoverer of the structure of DNA
stated that, Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore,
that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding
biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult
enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what
happened in evolution is even more difficult.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

So, design is so obvious that biologist must constantly keep in
mind that what they see is not designed.

Design has been called the "illusion of design". But is really apparent
is design; is it an illusion? How can anyone know? One can hardly argue
that it's not spoken from an a priori position. Perhaps, that which
appears to be design is actually design and not just an illusion.
>
Again design is the heart of the intelligent design movement.

>
> given enough information to meet your challenge and you have run from it
> in denial. Do you want me to repost it? Why not go to the post that
> you are running from and deal with it? You ask for it. I gave it to
> you, and you are running.
>

Whether or not intelligent design is taught in public schools, I think
depends upon whether it's evidence of based upon the findings of
science. Again I stand convinced that design is scientific rather than
religious. No religious dogma, doctrine, bibical quotes or religious
materials can ever be presented as evidence of design. But design
in nature and the universe based upon scientific discoveries makes up
the whole of the argument for real design.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you put up anything positive about the Discovery Institute ID
>>>>>>> perps running the bait and switch on both Texas and Lousiana back

>>>>>>> in 2013 and finally removing the claim that they had a scientific biologist must constantly keep in mind

>>>>>>> theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education
>>>>>>> policy. Why do you think that there haven't been any IDiot rubes
>>>>>>> stupid enough to try to teach ID since? If the creationists try
>>>>>>> to do anything they have already bent over for the switch scam.
>>>>>>> That is all that they have left.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> You have yet to show where the ID people are perpetrating a scam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why lie to yourself like this? What does it mean to you that you
>>>>> can't defend the ID perps with any evidence that they ever did what
>>>>> they claimed to be able to do.
>>>> >
>>>> I don't have to. You are the one who repediatedly charges Iders with
>>>> the "scam" dishonesty "bate and switch".
>>>
>>> Since you have obviously read some of the relevant material and you
>>> know what a scam ID has been, what else am I supposed to do?
>> >
>> Make your _own_ case against ID.
>
> I did and you ran. Why not face reality?
>

In the article you referenced, you wrote something 4 years ago.
Until this past few days I never read anything you wrote.
And I agree the Dover trial was a fiasco. The judge, obviously
did not understand the subject he ruled on. For his understanding of the
science, he relied almost entirely upon the ACLU's "Finding_of_fact_ and
the Conclusions of Law" which was submitted by ACLU lawyers about a
month prior to the publication of Judge Jones' decision. He copied
the ACLU laywer's words verbatium and almost word for word where he
made minor changes in wording.

www.conservapedia.com/John_E._Jones_III
>
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-jones-dover-trial.html
>
www.teleological.org/blog/2006/12/18/judge-jones-federal-ruling-on-intelligent-design-was-copied-from-aclu/
>
I suspect in law school such plagiarizing would have cost him dearly.
>
But apparently is OK for a Judge to plagiarize since he has the
authority to do whatever necessary to arrive at the decision he
wants.

[John Harshman]

On 8/14/17 3:29 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/14/2017 12:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/14/17 9:20 AM, R. Dean wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2017 1:58 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>>>
>>>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>>>
>>>> In all honesty, I can't tell which one you think is based on Genesis,
>>>> and what their different views of nature are. Please elaborate.
>>>
>>> Think about it Jill, have you read or heard an advocate of ID appeal
>>> to any religious material?
>>
>> Many times, though usually when he thinks he's talking only to
>> believers. Meyer, Wells, and Dembski have all done that sort of thing.
> >
> Really, I don't believe they used religious dogma or religious
> source as evidence in support of ID.

Feel free not to believe whatever makes you feel better. I'll agree that
we probably shouldn't call it "evidence". "Motivation" is probably the
better word. Have you ever tried to find such statements?

> I don't deny that Behe is a practicing Roman Catholic and perhaps
> the people you mentioned as well, but I do not believe any of them
> appealed or referred to religious dogma or material as evidence.

Wells, actually, is a Moonie. Reverend Moon assigned him to go to grad
school specifically to give himself credentials to attack evolution.

Dembski taught at a school at which he was specifically required to
accept the reality of a recent, worldwide flood in which all that were
not on the ark perished.

Meyer has written a paper attempting to attack any relationship between
humans and other species.

Just off the top of my head. Now, could any of these actions have any
other than a religious motivation?

>>> All anyone can do is argue that the
>>> _motivation_ is religious. But then this is an appeal to a crystal
>>> ball. Whereas the scientific creationist frequently quote the
>>> Bible - chapter and verse. You've "known" me for years, do you
>>> recall me every quoting a religious source in support of my views?
>>> I'm rather typical of an ID advocate.
>>
>> I'd say you're considerably more dim-witted than the typical ID
>> advocate, at least if we consider those who have published.
>>
> Why the insult? It's uncalled for.

It was intended only as an observation.

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:58:55 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/13/2017 6:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:03:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2017 9:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:00:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> There is a distinction between scientific
>>>>> creationism and intelligent design
>>>>
>>>> What is the distinction?
>>>>
>>> One appeals to and is based on genesis and one is not. The two were
>>> founded by different people with different views of nature.
>>
>> Do you think it is just coincidence that the main proponents of
>> Intelligent Design happen to be practicing Christians?
> >
>It wouldn't matter if they were Buddhist, Shinto or Christian, while
>there is _indirect_ evidence of design which implies a designer, there
>is nothing that points to the identity of a designer. A Christian
>may _believe_ the designer is the god of the Bible, but that's all 'it
>can be. There is absolutely nothing which suggest this. A designer is
>the wild card in this.

You're right that it doesn't matter who the Designer is. What does
matter is the nature of said Designer. You have admitted in the past
that you know your presumptive Designer must be a supernatural entity.
Do you now deny it?

Your distinction above is meaningless. A sufficiently omni Designer
could have purposefully made nature look exactly the way it does, or
any other way, and so ID isn't falsifiable.

Instead, a relevant question is whether ID makes useful predictions.
And once again, a sufficiently omni Designer could have done anything,
and so any prediction would be equally "consistent with" ID. It's a
scientifically meaningless hypothesis.

>>>>> , however critics choose to merge
>>>>> the two; by doing so, they hope to "kill two birds with one stone". But
>>>>> since these are different views, by ignoring this distinction, those
>>>>> who attack misses the mark. I personally fault "scientific creationism".
>>>>> I am convinced the YEC people hijacked the ID arguments for their own
>>>>> purposes. This I think, is reprehensible and dishonest.
>>>>
>>

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:05:25 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

As I pointed out before, your distinction above isn't relevant. Behe's
assumption of a supernatural Designer is a religious argument.

>I do not argue that there are atheist
>who are intelligent design advocates. But I see no reason there
>could not be.
>
>>
>> "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get
>> the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
>> God, before the academic world and into the schools."
>> [American Family Radio (10 January 2003)]
>>
>Is this a Creationist which hijacke ID and applied it to their cause?
>I suspect it is.

Why do you think that matters here?

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:20:52 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

And that's the essence of Paley's Watchmaker analogy. You see design
in nature by its resemblance to human-manufactured items, like a
watch. As with Paley and other IDists, you assume that design must be
the result of a purposeful Designer. That is the religious part, and
to the best of my knowledge, a part no IDist denies.

>As I've stated, many time there is absolutely no evidence pointing
>to the identity of the designer.

As I've stated every time I noticed you make your statement above,
it's a meaningless distinction.

differences in their views of nature. That's three strikes in a row.
How many swings do you need before you admit you're out?

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:09:37 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Your claim in your first post to this thread made no mention of past
name calling, Since you only now dredge up history, will you
apologize for *your* past contributions of same? If your conveniently
selective amnesia needs refreshing, you know I can document what I'm
talking about.

> but
>actual disproof of ID, I've yet to see. For example why is "appearant
>design (Dawkins) not actual design. IOW how do you prove that what we
>see as design, (crick) is an illusion of design?

ID isn't falsifiable. A sufficiently omni Designer could have

purposefully made nature look exactly the way it does, or any other

way. Your question makes a meaningless distinction.

Worse, your original post didn't ask for evidence disproving ID.
Instead, you asked for evidence about DI's scam. Whether you
intentionally switched what you're talking about, or whether you
simply don't remember what you're talking about, both cast you in a
bad light.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:05:25 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

I told you that Phillip Johnson wrote it; are you suggesting that I
might have been telling lies?

If you really don't believe me, then you should acquaint yourself with
Amazon's *Preview * facility. If you go to the page for that book,
above the book image you will see "look inside". If you click on that
and then on Table of Contents, you will see that the forward is indeed
written by Johnson.

> >
>You don't seem to understand my argument.

I do understand your argument; I just don't think it stands up to
scrutiny. I don't have any problem with people trying to bring God
into science provided they make a logical argument - I do it myself
all the time. What I detest is people trying to promote their beliefs
through subterfuge; as I already stated, I regard that as the
antithesis of Christianity.

>Dr. M. Behe is a practicing
>Roman Catholic. I've read two of his books, no where does he use
>religious dogma, materials as _evidence_ for intelligent design. Whether
>or not you agree with his science, there is no religious argument in
>either of these two books. I do not argue that there are atheist
>who are intelligent design advocates. But I see no reason there
>could not be.
>
>>
>> "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get
>> the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
>> God, before the academic world and into the schools."
>> [American Family Radio (10 January 2003)]
>>
>Is this a Creationist which hijacke ID and applied it to their cause?
>I suspect it is.

I told you it was stated by Johnson and gave a cite for where he said
it. You claim that there is a difference between ID and Creationism
yet you mistake the words of the "Father of ID" for the words of a
Creationist; does that not tell you something?

[...]

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:09:37 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>I've seen the name calling, charges and accusations over the years, but
>actual disproof of ID, I've yet to see. For example why is "appearant
>design (Dawkins) not actual design. IOW how do you prove that what we
>see as design, (crick) is an illusion of design?

There is a general principle - in many walks of life, not just science
- that the person making a claim has the responsibility for providing
the evidence to support it.

I am a religious believer and not a scientist but I have looked
closely at the evidence that scientists have produced in support of
the Theory of Evolution and I find that evidence totally convincing. I
also find, however, that that evidence and the conclusions drawn from
it do not anyway undermine my religious belief - on the contrary they
reinforce it.

You claim that the scientists are wrong and an intelligent designer is
involved in detailed development of humans and a multitude of other
species that exist. If your claim were true, that would clearly also
support my religious beliefs so I would have no trouble accepting it
if you could provide a persuasive case based on evidence. You admit,
however, that that is no such evidence so why should I accept your
claim rather than the evidence backed claims of science? Especially
when, as I already said, the scientific claims do not conflict in any
way with my religious beliefs.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:33:10 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you click on that
>and then on Table of Contents, you will see that the forward is indeed
>written by Johnson.

Should be " the *foreword* is indeed written by Johnson".

[RonO]

Why are you still in denial of being in denial? Did you ever go to the
post and determine for yourself why you are avoiding it and running.
That is denial. You can't deal with the evidence. What a bonehead.
Why can't you face reality. Just running from the evidence presented
gets you nowhere.

>
> You have not proven that there is no design in nature. This is the basic
> and fundamental basis upon which the ID movement stands. Even world
> renown atheist, Richard Dawkins
> commented."Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> appearance of having been designed for a purpose”,

Why would I have to do that in order to demonstrate that ID has been a
scam for years?

ID is a scam for the bait and switch that the ID perps are running on
creationist rubes like you. There never was any ID science worth
putting forward or you would have put it forward to demonstrate that ID
isn't a scam.

What have you done instead. Science doesn't have an explanation for
everything. What explanation have the ID perps ever put up that they
can verify scientifically? They are the ones that claimed that they had
the ID science to teach in the public schools, but they lied, and they
are running the bait and switch on any creationist rube that has ever
believed them. You know that for a fact because you have no counter
examples. The bait and swtich has gone down 100% of the time and not a
single IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science.

It doesn't matter what has not been proven because reality is that the
bait and switch will go down on the next set of IDiot rubes stupid
enough to try to teach the ID science that does not exist.

>
>
> hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/dawkins.html
>
> Francis Crick, the co- discoverer of the structure of DNA
> stated that, Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
> was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore,
> that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding
> biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult
> enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what
> happened in evolution is even more difficult.
> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
>
> So, design is so obvious that biologist must constantly keep in
> mind that what they see is not designed.
>
> Design has been called the "illusion of design". But is really apparent
> is design; is it an illusion? How can anyone know? One can hardly argue
> that it's not spoken from an a priori position. Perhaps, that which
> appears to be design is actually design and not just an illusion.
> >
> Again design is the heart of the intelligent design movement.

The heart of the intelligent design movement has been the bait and
switch since 2002 when the ID perps got together and decided to run the
bait and switch instead of put their "design science" forward for
evaluation. What a bonehead. A scam is a scam. Has anyone ever gotten
the promised ID science? Why not?

> >
>> given enough information to meet your challenge and you have run from
>> it in denial. Do you want me to repost it? Why not go to the post
>> that you are running from and deal with it? You ask for it. I gave
>> it to you, and you are running.
>>
> Whether or not intelligent design is taught in public schools, I think
> depends upon whether it's evidence of based upon the findings of
> science. Again I stand convinced that design is scientific rather than
> religious. No religious dogma, doctrine, bibical quotes or religious
> materials can ever be presented as evidence of design. But design
> in nature and the universe based upon scientific discoveries makes up
> the whole of the argument for real design.

The bait and switch has gone down every single time. The ID perps have
only had one failure of the bait and switch (Dover) and you know what
happened there. You know why the bait and switch is necessary. In
every other instance the creationist rubes have either dropped the issue
(the honest ones) or bent over for the switch scam that the ID perps
give them instead. There is no ID science in the switch scam. The
switch scam doesn't even mention that the ID science ever existed. You
can't deny that the same guys that sold the rubes the ID science are
giving them the switch scam, so why lie to yourself like this?

Why lie to yourself like this? What an utter idiot IDiot. What does
the bait and switch tell you about your IDiocy? Why do you make up junk
about a judge instead of face the obvious fact of the bait and switch.
It is a scam not because the ID perps never had the ID science. The
bait and switch is a scam that the creationists are running on
themselves. Judge Jones has nothing to do with that and the ID perps
had been running the bait and switch years before it failed in Dover.

>
> www.conservapedia.com/John_E._Jones_III
> >
> sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-jones-dover-trial.html
> >
> www.teleological.org/blog/2006/12/18/judge-jones-federal-ruling-on-intelligent-design-was-copied-from-aclu/

The stupid thing is that the IDiots had a very different take on Judge
Jones before his ruling. He was Bush appointee. He was a Scout master.
He was a conservative judge. They considered Jones the perfect guy to
hear the case, and what happened?

This is from the ID perp blog (Dembski started the blog).
QUOTE:
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up
through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an
Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national
Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in
turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was
appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the
same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools
to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush
hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless
Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to
rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will
appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now
we own that too.
END QUOTE:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/

There never was any ID science worth calling science. What they had was
so bad that most scientists don't even consider it to be science. That
is why the bait and switch went down on the Dover rubes, but it failed
because the Dover rubes had already obtained their "free" creationist
legal service. Half of the ID perps ran away and did not fulfill their
obligations to the case. They ran after the point where the
creationists could add more expert witnesses and the More lawyer was not
very happy about that. These are the ID perps and their scam that you
are supporting. Denial is stupid.

>
> >
> I suspect in law school such plagiarizing would have cost him dearly.
> >
> But apparently is OK for a Judge to plagiarize since he has the
> authority to do whatever necessary to arrive at the decision he
> wants.

What Judge Jones may have done is not relevant to the ID scam because it
was a scam before Judge Jones was ever involved. You are still avoiding
the evidence of that because you can't understand it and remain in denial.

So why not use the link. Stop avoiding the evidence. It doesn't matter
that I wrote it years ago. The scam has not changed. The evidence has
not changed. It is the evidence that you need to understand what a scam
ID has been all these years. You know that the bait and switch will
still go down on the next set of IDiots too stupid to know the score.
Why keep lying to yourself?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:03:25 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:


[...]

>Whether or not intelligent design is taught in public schools, I think
>depends upon whether it's evidence of based upon the findings of
>science. Again I stand convinced that design is scientific rather than
>religious. No religious dogma, doctrine, bibical quotes or religious
>materials can ever be presented as evidence of design. But design
>in nature and the universe based upon scientific discoveries makes up
>the whole of the argument for real design.

So what exactly do you think should be taught about ID in public
schools?


[...]

>And I agree the Dover trial was a fiasco. The judge, obviously
>did not understand the subject he ruled on.

The judge had heard in detail the best arguments that the ID
proponents had to put forward. Why do you think he didn't understand
the subject?

With respect, it seems to me that he understood the subject much
better than you do.

[...]

>But apparently is OK for a Judge to plagiarize since he has the
>authority to do whatever necessary to arrive at the decision he
>wants.

Ron has already pointed out that before the case, the ID proponents
thought he was a great judge for them, in the words of Dembski, Jones
was " a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was

state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively
involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political
buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush's
circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself."

With that background, why do you think that he had a decision that he
"wanted to reach" that would run contrary to the ID movement?

[...]