How bright is the future of Intelligent design?

59 views
Skip to first unread message

RonO

unread,
Jun 19, 2022, 5:55:14 PMJun 19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Before he dropped out to get a degree so that he would be more
convincing lying to the IDiot rubes, Luskin wrote a series of articles
about what he thought was the future of Intelligent design, but all it
seemed to amount to are lies about the IDiotic past of the ID
creationist scam. It turned out that his future was based on lies, so
it is no wonder that no such future ever emerged for the ID scam.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/how_bright_is_t/

Luskin wrote this on the 6th anniversary of the publication of Judge
Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision.

As sad as it may seem Luskin wrote this around 4 years after coauthoring
the teach ID scam propaganda claiming that it was still legal to teach
intelligent design science in the public schools. He must have known
how sad that was since the bait and switch had kept going down after he
wrote that junk. 2011 wasn't that long after Luskin had been
interviewed on the steps of the Florida Legislature personally running
the bait and switch on the Florida creationist rubes that wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design. 9 county school boards wanted
to teach intelligent design, and a couple of legislators wrote a bill to
teach intelligent design in the public schools and the Discovery
Institute sent a team to Florida to run the bait and switch, and all the
rubes got was the switch scam that the ID perps claim has nothing to do
with IDiocy. This should be remembered when you read Luskin's claims in
this series of articles. No IDiot rubes have ever gotten the ID science
to teach in the public schools. All they get is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam. Luskin knows this because he cites several bait and
switch examples as if ID had ever amounted to anything in later parts of
the series.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/03/Educators-Briefing-Packet-Condensed-Web.pdf

This is the teach ID scam propaganda pamphlet that Luskin cowrote in
2007 (over a year after Dover). The Discovery Institute education
policy claiming that it was still legal to teach IDiocy in the public
schools is on page 15. These lies have been updated around every 3
years since, but the bait and switch has gone down on 100% of the IDiot
rubes that have believed what was written in it.

In the first part of the series Luskin tells this bogus lie, and it
pretty much foretells what is in store for the rest of the series.

QUOTE:
Why did we forget about Dover? Because it hardly matters. Contrary to
the hopes and expectations of the Darwin lobby, the post-Dover years
have seen ID’s scientific and cultural footprint grow only more
prominent and impressive.
END QUOTE:

This never happened. By 2011 the periods between bait and switch
instances were growing longer and longer. There are fewer and fewer
creationist rubes stupid and ignorant enough to try to teach the junk.
IDiot rubes that had bent over and had implemented the switch scam were
mostly dropping the issue. After running the bait and switch on Florida
at the end of 2009 and Louisiana (for the second time) in 2010. There
was a gap where I do not recall the bait and switch going down until
Texas and Louisiana had the bait and switch run on them in 2013. Both
states wanted to add IDiotic supplements into Biology textbooks. They
claimed that they were not requiring the teaching of intelligent design,
but were supplying the teachers with the resources to teach the junk if
they wanted to, but the ID perps ran the bait and switch on them anyway.
The ID perps removed the paragraph from their education policy
claiming that they did not want ID required to be taught. The paragraph
is still in Luskin's Teach ID scam propaganda pamphlet, but no longer
exists in the current Discovery Institute education policy.

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

It should be noted that the ID perps have never provided teachers the
means to teach any ID science. No lesson plan was ever produced, and
their textbook efforts such as Of Pandas and People turned out to be too
bogus to use in the public schools. No one really knows what to teach
about the creationist ID scam.

There are supposed to be 50 peer reviewed pro IDiotic scientific
publications by 2011. Neither Behe, nor Minnich knew of any peer
reviewed scientific papers that supported intelligent design in 2005,
yet Luskin's example is Meyer's paper on the Cambrian explosion that had
a questionable review process, was not what was the usual content of the
Journal, and was retracted by the journal.

QUOTE:
You could trace the current boom back to 2004, when Discovery Institute
senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper explicitly
advocating intelligent design in the journal Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington. Now, in 2011, the ID movement has
reached another landmark with the publication of its 50th peer-reviewed
pro-ID scientific paper. We’ll have more to say on that soon. But this
is a milestone that undeniably speaks to the scientific progress of ID.
END QUOTE:

The ID perps are still paying for this debacle because they have to give
Sternberg a salary, and what has Sternberg done since joining the ID
scam in 2007?

The sad thing is that IDiots like Glenn do not want their intelligent
designer to be responsible for anything that happened over half a
billion years ago that resulted in the evolution of current phyla. The
majority of IDiotic support for the ID scam still comes from the YEC and
they have no interest in anything that happened even a million years ago
let alone half a billion years ago.

No positive case for IDiocy in the first article, it seems to be basic
creationist denial that took over when the scientific creationists
determined that there wasn't any science that they wanted to do to
support creationism.

It is sad that Luskin cites Behe's paper on evolution by breaking
things. Behe describes biological evolution that he claims his
intelligent designer does not have to be involved with, and this is
supposed to be support for the creationist ID scam? Really, Behe
doesn't think that his designer would evolve new species by breaking
existing systems. This is evolution that goes on when the designer
isn't looking. Behe's claim to IDiotic fame are his claims that his
designer is responsible for evolving his IC systems. IC was the only
IDiotic notion that made it into the ID perp Top Six, and it was
basically the old scientific creationist claim that the flagellum was a
designed system. Neither Behe nor the scientific creationists that came
before him have been able to demonstrate that an intelligent designer
was ever responsible for IC systems like the flagellum. Behe hasn't
even been able to demonstrate that his type of IC systems exist in
nature. That is how sad this first article is.

QUOTE:
Another productive researcher is biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh
University. In 2010, he published an article in the prestigious journal
Quarterly Review of Biology arguing that Darwinian evolution tends to
destroy or diminish molecular functions rather than building them.1
END QUOTE:

Really, this article is about evolution that the ID perp's intelligent
designer would not be associated with. It is evolution that does not
require an intelligent designer.

There obviously wasn't any viable future for IDiocy, then, and none now.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/noQI_WN-gRg/m/hKqzPZy0AQAJ

Even Glenn can't stand what Luskin has been putting out since he came
back to the ID scam with a degree that was supposed to give his lies
more credibility.

Ron Okimoto

ID perp Top Six.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

RonO

unread,
Jun 25, 2022, 8:35:20 AMJun 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The first installment was something that no IDiotic creationist would
want to face in an honest manner, and the second part is even worse.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/post-dover_educ/

As tragic as it may seem, Luskin is lying about IDiotic education
vicories post-Dover. Creationists should be scratching their heads and
wondering what he is going to talk about since there have never been any
IDiotic creationist education victories in the entire history of the
creationist ID scam. ID has been a creationist scam that has only been
a bait and switch scam that creationists have been running on themselves
for the last 20 years. Years before Dover there were never going to be
any IDiot education victories because the ID perps started running the
bait and switch, and whenever any rubes believed them about the
nonexistent IDiotic science the ID perps would tell them that they
didn't want to teach the ID scam junk, but they had a super duper switch
scam that was only the old obfuscation and denial junk that the
scientific creationists had resorted to when they failed to come up with
any creation science worth teaching in the public schools.

QUOTE:
That’s a second reason the critics’ narrative is wrong: the actual
educational policy goals of the ID movement have seen many successes in
recent years. In fact, since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least
four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of
scientific criticisms of evolution.

In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to
“Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to
investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that “No local school board,
school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school
classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from
individual students on the origin of life.”

In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana
schools shall “create and foster an environment…that promotes critical
thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of
scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to,
evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to
“analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations … including
examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific
explanations so as to encourage critical thinking,” and also “analyze
and evaluate” core evolutionary claims, such as “common ancestry,”
“natural selection,” and “mutation.”
END QUOTE:

No creationist rubes ever got any ID science to teach, ever. It is sad
that Luskin would lie about what the ID perps were doing in this
fashion. The ID perps would tell the rubes that the switch scam had
nothing to do with intelligent design science, so how could examples
where the creationist rubes bent over and took the switch scam instead
of what they wanted to teach, be any victory for IDiocy? How could
Luskin write something like this article when he had participated
personally in running the bait and switch on the Florida rubes only
around two years before writing this, and Louisiana the previous year
(The Louisiana creationists had to have the bait and switch rerun on
them when they tried to implement the switch scam by trying to force
textbook publishers to put IDiocy into biology textbooks, and the ID
perps had to remind them that the switch scam did not have anything to
do with the ID scam). Really, Luskin knows that the rubes that bent
over for the switch scam are really a total loss for IDiocy. They were
told that the switch scam had nothing to do with the ID creationist
scam, so what kind of IDiotic victory could these examples be (dishonest
and bogus are pretty much what they are). His example of Lousiana and
Texas are examples where the bait and switch had already gone down twice
in Louisiana, and it was heading for a third and second bait and switch
on Lousiana and Texas, respectively, on the dishonest and incompetent
creationist rubes in 2013, less than 2 years in the future. The Florida
creationists rubes didn't make the victory list because they dropped the
issue and didn't take the switch scam when faced with the bait and
switch. Most of the times that the bait and switch went down the rubes
quit, and didn't take the switch scam when they couldn't get the IDiotic
bait. Dover has been the only time that the bait and switch failed to
result in the rubes dropping the issue or bending over for the switch
scam, and the Dover creationist rubes tried to teach the IDiotic science
because they had gotten their "free" legal service to defend the
creationist ploy.

With victories like these there is no wonder why IDiocy had no future
back then or in Luskin's recent ramblings of what IDiocy is supposed to be.

I put up a recent thread on why rubes take the switch scam (why the bait
and switch is such a successful scam). Most of them do it because they
don't want to be disappointed because they couldn't get what they really
wanted. That has to be sad for the ID bait and switch scam that the ID
perps have been running for the last 20 years. These are the only
examples Luskin could come up with where the rubes ended up trying to
implement the obfuscation and denial switch scam. There were other
examples, like Ohio, where the creationist rubes had initially bent over
and taken the switch scam from the ID perps, but after Dover they
dropped the issue and retracted the switch scam junk. Luskin should
know this because he was likely one of the authors of the Discovery
Institute evolution news article claiming that the Ohio decision was
wrong, and one of the reasons was that the switch scam had nothing to do
with the ID scam, and should not be affected by the total failure of
IDiocy in Dover.

So Luskin knows that these are not IDiotic victories. These are just
evidence of how stupid and dishonest creationist rubes can be, and how
bogus the ID scam had been since the bait and switch started to go down
in 2002.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/noQI_WN-gRg/m/hKqzPZy0AQAJ

Ron Okimoto

Gary Hurd

unread,
Jun 26, 2022, 11:25:21 AMJun 26
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I am looking forward to Part 3.

RonO

unread,
Jun 26, 2022, 11:30:21 AMJun 26
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so/

Luskin can't be expected to stop lying about the past. You have to
wonder if he had second thoughts about posting this junk once he
started. It forced him to keep lying about the creationist ID scam, so
he must have realized that there was no future for the creationist ID
scam, and that the bait and switch was just going to continue. No one
was ever going to get any ID science to teach no matter how many times
Luskin updated his teach ID scam propaganda.

Intelligent Design Briefing Packet for Educators:
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

Glenn used to regularly put up this briefing packet as evidence that the
ID science existed, but he never could state what the ID science was
supposed to be.

Part 3: It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover.

As the briefing packet indicates it is the ID perps that need to get
over Dover. They have updated this packet around every 3 years since
it's 2007 publication. Luskin had updated it in 2009 and it was
probably about to be updated when Luskin was writing this (Dec 2011).
The Briefing Packet is currently on it's 2021 edition. In it they
continue to lie about there being any ID science to teach in the public
schools. Luskin understands that they are lies because the ID perps
have never added a lesson plan to this packet. Educators have no idea
of what they can teach, and when the creationist rubes decide to teach
it anyways, the bait and switch has gone down on the rubes 100% of the
time. No IDiot creationist rubes ever have gotten any ID science to
teach from the ID perps.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

For some reason the ID perps keep lying to the rubes about being able to
teach the junk when they won't tell them what can be taught and how to
teach it. Really, Luskin got a PhD in order to lie to the rubes more
effectively, and he updated this pamphlet in 2021 and still did not
include some type of lesson plan that would tell the rubes how IDiocy
should be taught, and what to teach about it. A lesson plan should also
have a materials list on what the teacher will use as teaching material
(textbook, study guides, etc). The ID perps used to claim that Of
Pandas and People could be used to teach the IDiotic junk, but that
ended with Dover, and no replacement ever emerged. The ID perps have
always just run the bait and switch on the rubes, and have never told
them what to teach and how to teach it in this propaganda pamphlet.

The bait and switch had been going down since March 2002, so Luskin
knows that it is the ID perps that need to get over Dover and accept the
reality that they knew existed before the ID scam was exposed as just
what it was and still is. The ID perps were the ones that had decided
that no ID science was ever going to be taught in the public schools
before Dover became an issue. They have known for over 20 years that
there is no ID science worth teaching. Dover only confirmed that for them.

What is the saddest thing about Part 3 is that Luskin Lies about there
being a media "black out" for IDiocy. The reality is that the
creationist ID scam that the creationists came up with when scientific
creationism became known as the failure that it is. It was the ID perps
that started to suppress their own junk. When the ID scam had became
noticed by the public and the rubes started to try to implement the ID
perp's Wedge strategy, the ID perps started the bait and switch scam
that effectively flushed the creationist political efforts, to influence
science education, down the toilet. When it came time to put up or shut
up they started to run the bait and switch instead.

The ID perps became the most effective suppressor of the bogus
creationist political ploys. The creationist rubes would not listen to
the science side of the issue, but when the creationist scam artists
that were selling the stupidity told them not to do it, they usually got
the message (Dover has been the only failure of the bait and switch to
suppress teaching intelligent design science). Most dropped the issue,
but a few like Louisiana bent over for the switch scam, but never liked
it. Louisiana has probably had the bait and switch run on them the most
times (2 additional times after adopting the obfuscation and denial
switch scam). Even though the ID perps tell the rubes that the switch
scam has nothing to do with the creationist ID scam, the rubes can't
help themselves and instead of stick to the switch scam obfuscation and
denial, they have always tried to get creationism taught in the public
schools.

It is the ID perps that quickly smash these efforts. The NCSE (National
Center for Science Education) has had so little to do since the bait and
switch started that they have had to broaden their efforts to include
things like global warming denial in order to have something to do.

Really, the ID perps have perpetrated their own media black out by
quickly suppressing any effort to teach creation science in the public
schools. They have produced nothing positive worth any media attention,
and their bait and switch efforts are hardly noticed by the media. The
media might note when some rubes want to teach IDiocy in the public
schools, but that is quickly suppressed by the ID perps, and those
efforts die quickly and do not usually gain more media attention. When
the scam artists that sell you the junk tell you not to teach it, most
rubes get the message and drop the issue. That is how it has been for
the last 20 years.

The ID perps managed to kill off most of the last vestiges of scientific
creationism, and after Dover, managed to shoot themselves in the head,
so there isn't a media black out, just the black out caused by the ID
perps running the bait and switch scam. They keep selling the
nonexistent ID science, and then only give the rubes the obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the scientific creationists had resorted to when
they figured out that there was no creation science that they wanted to
teach. The only goal of the switch scam is to keep the students as
stupidly ignorant as possible. The last thing that the creationist
rubes want their kids to do is learn enough about the issue to be lied
to about what we don't know, yet. This makes the switch scam as
undesirable as it is.

Why should the media cover an effort when the ID perps claim that the
switch scam that they feed the rubes has nothing to do with intelligent
design science?

There is no media black out, just no IDiotic science worth reporting.

Phillip Johnson is called the godfather of the creationist ID scam by
the other ID perps. Johnson is credited with developing the Wedge
strategy to get IDiocy taught in the public schools, and Santorum
allowed Johnson to draft the creationist addition to the No Child Left
Behind legislation that the ID perps used to support their efforts to
teach the IDiotic junk. Johnson accepted Dover as the end of the ID
creationist political ploy. He sat in the Dover Court room every day
and watched IDiocy be exposed for what it always had been, and he quit
supporting the teach ID scam. That should tell any competent IDiot just
how much the Teach ID Propaganda pamphlet is worth. It should have
never been written, and obviously should never have kept getting updated.

QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are
just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at
all.” “In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:

Johnson never retracted these views and died (2019) with this as his
final opinion of the creationist ID scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http:/sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

Since the bait and switch started to go down, all the IDiotic science
has been is the bait to attract the creationist rubes and try to get
them to accept the obfuscation and denial switch scam. A switch scam
that the ID perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID. That has
been intelligent design's reality for over 20 years. That is the only
future that IDiocy has at this time.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
Jun 26, 2022, 2:20:21 PMJun 26
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 6/26/2022 10:28 AM, RonO wrote:

This is a combination of Parts 3 and 4.

Media blackout was Part 3, but when I wrote this I had the window open
to the "It's time for some folks to get over Dover" article that was
Part 4, so this post addresses both parts.

Ron Okimoto

Gary Hurd

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 2:30:06 PMJul 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Thanks.

The recent spew from Disco'tutes has gone hard Christian creationist. This was not a 'hidden' attribute since in their rare honest moments this was long admitted;

Phillip Johnson "My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." 1996, "Starting a Conversation about Evolution" ARN.

In a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone “Signs of Intelligence,” William Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).

Phillip Johnson, "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).

Phillip Johnson, "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).

Steve Meyer's 2021 "Return of the God Hypothesis"

Part 5?

RonO

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 4:10:06 PMJul 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There were only 4 parts. I put this up because it is a comparison that
should be made with Luskin's more recent junk on what the ID scam is and
how it should be defended. In this past series Luskin had to lie about
what ID was in order to claim that it had a future. In the current
series Luskin has to continue to lie about what ID was in order to still
claim that there was something to defend.

The ID perps started their religious web sites after Dover, but my guess
is that they were just wrapping themselves in religion as some excuse
for running the ID scam and getting caught. They obviously have been
running the bait and switch on the creationist rubes for their god. In
this series Luskin seems to admit that the ID perps were really
interested in the restoration of a theocracy that likely never existed.
It was their mission statement. They were never interested in the
science. All they wanted was to promote enough denial to make their
religious political beliefs viable. They never really wanted to do any
science that would support their creationist beliefs. It was all just
to promote enough obfuscation and denial to promote their religious
political agenda.

Mission Statement of the ID perps.

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

QUOTE:
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
END QUOTE:

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

They really wanted to restore some type of theocracy that likely never
existed. Science was only in their way.

This is from Part 2 of this thread where Luskin writes:

QUOTE:
Instead, Discovery Institute believes that public schools should teach
both the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. That’s
a second reason the critics’ narrative is wrong: the actual educational
policy goals of the ID movement have seen many successes in recent
years. In fact, since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four
states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of
scientific criticisms of evolution.
END QUOTE:

"the actual educational policy goals of the ID movement" Read that in
context and it means that the ID perps wanted to run the bait and switch
on the creationists rubes from the beginning. They never wanted to
teach any ID science, their goal was obfudscation and denial in order to
keep the students ad ignorant as possible, and keep the rubes supporting
their political agenda.

The previous paragraph was claiming that the ID perps still thought that
ID was constitutional, and some lies about why they didn't want to teach
the non existant IDiotic science. Luskin is really claiming that the
bait and switch is what the ID perps wanted to do all along. The ID
perps claim that the switch scam has nothing to do with IDiocy, but it
obviously has something to do with their battle against what they claim
is "materialism", and promotion of their religious theocracy. Luskin
knows that the rubes that bent over for the switch scam are no victory
for IDiocy, but it is all that they can do to promote their political
objectives.

ID perps like Phillip Johnson had believed that teaching the IDiotic
creation science could be the wedge to force their religious beliefs
into our scientific understanding of nature, so that their religious
political objectives might be viable, but there turned out to be no ID
science to teach, and Luskin is admitting that the obfuscation and
denial were all that they expected to do. The sad thing is that the
Scientific creationists resorted to the obfuscation and denial routine
in their federal court cases, but it was always found to be as stupid as
it still is. Throwing dirt onto the alternative that you don't like
does nothing to support the alternative that has no scientific support.

Meyer supported Luskin's musings in his discussion with Shermer.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/PJsqZMUiYCo/m/CHP6mmE9BQAJ

The Top Six evidences for IDiocy were only used as disembodied bits of
denial. Meyer even admitted that he did not want to apply the Top Six
to his religious beliefs. He knew that they did not support his
religious beliefs, and all he was interested in was the denial. He knew
that those bits of denial couldn't support his religious beliefs, but
denial was all that he had left as a defense. He kept claiming that his
intelligent designer could fit into the gaps as his religious
explanation for what happened, but he didn't want to believe in the
designer that would be responsible for filling those gaps. The
Scientific creationists resorted to the same Top Six, and they
definitely did not want to believe in the designer that filled those
gaps. Meyer made a big deal about how we hadn't yet explained the
Cambrian explosion (#5 of the Top Six) but most IDiots are still YEC and
they do not want to understand anything about the god that would be
responsible for the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago,
and neither does Meyer.

The ID perps were only interested in the denial. The last thing that
they wanted to do was teach the IDiocy. The Big Bang (#1 of the Top
Six) had already been documented as something that creationists did not
want to teach to their kids. The Kansas creationists had already
dropped it out of the state's science standards back in 1999 so that
teachers would not have to teach it to kids. The ID perps have never
stated what ID science that they would teach in the science class, but
if you aren't going to teach the best that you have, why teach anything
at all?

It is just lame reading what Luskin wrote back then and what he is
writing today.

How bright can the future of intelligent design be? This is what Luskin
is currently claiming about IDiocy.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/noQI_WN-gRg/m/hKqzPZy0AQAJ

Ron Okimoto

Note:
ID Perp Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

No IDiot/creationist has ever dealt with the Top Six in an honest and
straightforward manner. Denton obviously accepts them in his
creationist scenario where his intelligent designer got the ball rolling
with the Big Bang and everything unfolded as we have it today. Behe
accepts them, and acknowledges that life has evolved on this planet for
billions of years, and his designer may have tweeked things every once
in a while. Neither of them explain how their designer fits in with the
Top Six even though they have made up their minds about it because most
creationist rubes that buy their books do not want to believe in that
intelligent designer.

MarkE found out that he didn't want to believe in the god that fit into
his origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six) that he worked so hard to
create. The same obviously goes for most of the ID perps and the
creationist rubes that they lie to.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages