ID perps and scientific fraud

[RonO]

What about ID science has not been a fraud? Was there ever any ID
science that could be taught in the public schools? The ID perps are
still claiming that they have a scientific theory that can be taught in
the public schools in their post Dover Teach ID propaganda pamphlet.

How could any IDiot write something about scientific fraud without
including intelligent design?

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/dont-forget-scientific-fraud/

Teach ID scam pamphlet last updated in 2018, but this link claims 2021.

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

Luskin did return since the last update and may have fixed up some things.

The old education policy is still in this pamphlet and contains the
deleted paragraph, and still claims that there is nothing
unconstitutional about teaching the scientific theory of design (Page 15).

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:

They did delete the paragraph from the education policy up on the
Discovery Institute web site back in 2013 after running the bait and
switch on both Texas and Louisiana when those states wanted to put
textbook supplements with "intelligent design science" in them in
biology textbooks. Louisianas effort even had creationism in the
supplement. For some reason they never deleted the paragraph from the
education policy in this propaganda pamphlet.

Ron Okimoto

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

In your view, should it also be illegal to teach about subjectivity?

Specifically that a personal opinion is chosen, and that the opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

As by example, to say someone is "kind". The opinion is formed by feeling what the personal character of someone is, and then expressing that feeling by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing the word "kind". And then that person is said to have made decisions out of the personal characteristic "kindness".

Should that be illegal?



Op dinsdag 20 juli 2021 om 02:26:10 UTC+2 schreef Ron O:

[RonO]

On 7/21/2021 6:34 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> In your view, should it also be illegal to teach about subjectivity?
>
> Specifically that a personal opinion is chosen, and that the opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.
>
> As by example, to say someone is "kind". The opinion is formed by feeling what the personal character of someone is, and then expressing that feeling by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing the word "kind". And then that person is said to have made decisions out of the personal characteristic "kindness".
>
> Should that be illegal?

It is illegal to lie to students about religious beliefs being something
that they should learn in the science class.

We have a notion called separation of church and state, that many
current governments have in practice if not in something like the
constitution.

We have it for a reason. Just look at the Discovery Institute ID scam
creationist operation. There isn't a single islamic creationist on
their payroll. Not a single islamic ID scientist ever got fellowship
funding. There are no Hindu creationists on their payroll. Not a
single fellowship was ever given Hindu IDiot scientist, and yet ID perps
like Dembski used to get fellowship funding every year. It turned out
that they only wanted to teach their creationist beliefs in the public
schools. You should be thankful that things are the way that they are.
Do you think that you would ever get an equal voice in their religious
theocracy that they wanted to produce that they talked about in their
initial mission statement?

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

You may share the same Judeo-Christian God, but you wouldn't be included
in their theocratic nirvana.

You are lucky that they never had any ID science to teach.

Ron Okimoto

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Kids need to be taught about subjectivity. Actually, adults need to be taught about it also.

You are helping to destroy people's lives and society.

You know, you cannot make a functional society with the crazy beliefs of evolutionists to deny free will, discard subjectivity.

People who have no clue about emotions, they are a scared and evil people, who will want to rely on the government. When you don't have a sense of the spirit, choosing in freedom, then it's not going to work out with democratic government.





Op donderdag 22 juli 2021 om 01:31:11 UTC+2 schreef Ron O:

[RonO]

On 7/22/2021 12:05 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kids need to be taught about subjectivity. Actually, adults need to be taught about it also.
>
> You are helping to destroy people's lives and society.
>
> You know, you cannot make a functional society with the crazy beliefs of evolutionists to deny free will, discard subjectivity.
>
> People who have no clue about emotions, they are a scared and evil people, who will want to rely on the government. When you don't have a sense of the spirit, choosing in freedom, then it's not going to work out with democratic government.

You just can't face what reality actually is. What does such denial
ever do for you? Admitting that IDiocy has been a fraud and trying to
claim that we should do something else is really stupid in the face of
what IDiots are and were trying to do.

Ron Okimoto

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Let's consider the statement "you just can't face what reality actually is.", and to whom it would apply.

Now would it apply to the people who deny choice is real, and consequently also reject the subjective spirit making choices?

Or does it apply to the people who deny evolution, and instead favor intelligent design?

The people who deny evolution, they still accept the ordinary fact of reproduction, which is central to evolution. The intelligent design theorists just theorize that having many possible DNA configurations available in respect to a decision on them, is required to surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable and efficient DNA configuration.

Intelligent design is a valid theory that fits the evidence. There is no obvious rejection of reality in it.

The people who deny choice is real on the other hand. They still talk in terms of making choices in daily life, using creationist logic. They also use subjective words in daily life, using creationist logic.

Then intellectually they deny choice is real.

Obviously the judgement is then, that the evolutionists are the one's who are denying reality in a fundamental way.

And you know, in China, they have lived under communist rule for what, 70+ years now? Obviously moron, you are siding with total evil, when you side with those who deny choice is real, and who reject the subjective human spirit, as a fairytale.

You are just another fucking retard.


Op donderdag 22 juli 2021 om 12:51:10 UTC+2 schreef Ron O:

[RonO]

On 7/22/2021 6:10 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let's consider the statement "you just can't face what reality actually is.", and to whom it would apply.
>
> Now would it apply to the people who deny choice is real, and consequently also reject the subjective spirit making choices?
>
> Or does it apply to the people who deny evolution, and instead favor intelligent design?

It applied to your post. Anyone can read your response to what you
obviously could not deal with. It doesn't matter if you are anti
evolution or not, it is what you did.

Ron Okimoto

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Irrellevant bullshit what you wrote.

And I note that the christian creationists went out of their way to promote creationism among muslims, with much success, in for example Turkey. So You are just a stupid liar that there is no agreement between muslim and christian intelligent design theorists.

What a dumb lie.

Obviously, you fucking moron, it is evolutionists who are now promoting critical race theory in school, which is to say, indoctrinating kids into marxism. It has always been evolutionists who have tried to mix up science with ideology, you fucking liar. They did it was nazism, with communsim, with socialism, eugenics.

Solely creationism separates opinion from fact, in 2 separate categories.

Everything you say is lies, and evolution theory continues to be a catalyst for the total destruction of free society.

That you have learned absolutely nothing from the history of the holocaust, all that death, and that now you are going to try it all over again, with marxism, critical race theory, means you are sick in the head.





Op donderdag 22 juli 2021 om 13:21:11 UTC+2 schreef Ron O:

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/21/21 10:05 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kids need to be taught about subjectivity. Actually, adults need to be taught about it also.

What specifically do you want taught? What would a course syllabus in
Subjectivity look like? What are the recommended readings?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[RonO]

On 7/22/2021 6:35 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Irrellevant bullshit what you wrote.

Knock, Knock, Nando is anyone home? look at the thread title and the
content of my initial post.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

On 7/19/2021 8:24 PM, RonO wrote:
> What about ID science has not been a fraud?

written history before a claim of a monopoly on science?

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[RonO]

On 7/25/2021 6:40 PM, Dale wrote:
> On 7/19/2021 8:24 PM, RonO wrote:
>> What about ID science has not been a fraud?
>
> written history before a claim of a monopoly on science?
>

You shouldn't need a written history because you should have lived it.
The fact that you have stayed willfully ignorant of reality is all your
problem at this point in time.

You could try to find any ID science ever produced by the ID perps that
have run the ID creationist scam for the last 25 years.

Here is a written history that you can check out for yourself. You can
see where they used to claim to have the ID science to teach in the
public schools since the 1990's.

This is the Teach ID propaganda pamphlet that they used to give out to
school boards and legislators before they started running the bait and
switch in 2002.

This is a web document of the booklet that was published. It used to be
free, but you currently have to pay to get a copy on the Discovery
Institute web site. It is still free if you access it from this
archived Discovery Institute web page.

https://web.archive.org/web/20021230161955/http:/www.discovery.org:80/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=58

De Wolfe was head of legal at the Discovery Institute, Meyer was the
director of the ID scam unit, and De Forrest claims that he was a fellow
of the Discovery Institute, but he was never listed. They do not list
all the fellows. They never listed REMINE when he was a fellow. REMINE
used to post here on TO at the time and claimed that he was a fellow,
and that was confirmed.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution--and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies--by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

They claimed that they had the ID science to teach and they also claimed
that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach it. You should know
that IDiocy came up short in the Federal court case in 2005 that ruled
that ID was not science, and that ID/creationism did not pass the Lemon
Test. It should be noted that the ID perps no longer tell the rubes to
use Of Pandas and People to teach ID because it was found to be
creationism warmed over with a literal name change from creationism to ID.

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

After this loss the ID perps put up this propaganda pamphlet claiming
that there was a scientific theory of ID and that it could be taught in
the public schools. They claimed that the judge was wrong, but the bait
and switch scam that they had been running since 2002 continued to go
down. No IDiot ever gets any ID science to teach, all they get from the
ID perps is a switch scam that the ID perps claim has nothing to do with
intelligent design. It is just an obfuscation scam to keep the kids as
ignorant as possible.

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

Phillip Johnson was one of the ringleaders of the ID scam and the other
ID perps refer to him as the godfather of the ID scam. He was supposed
to have helped organized the original funding for the ID scam unit.
Phillip Johnson sat in the court room every day and watched IDiocy fail.
He quit the ID scam and admitted that the ID science did not exist and
he predicted that no ID science would be taught in the public schools in
his life time. That prediction came true because Johnson died after the
ID perps ran the last bait and switch on the Utah rubes in 2017. The
Utah rubes wanted to teach intelligent design, but the ID perps fed them
the switch scam, and then complained when the Utah rubes dropped the
issue instead of bending over for the switch scam.

Things are that sad.

http://berkeleysciencereview.com/read/spring-2006/

Phillip Johnson qoute from 2006:
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:

I do not recall Johnson ever supporting the ID scam after giving this
interview after the Dover fiasco.

The ID perps tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover IDiot rubes,
but it failed because the Dover IDiots had obtained their "free" legal
assistance and decided to try to teach IDiocy anyway. The rest is history.

The head of the Dover defense team had this to say about the Discovery
Institute bait and switch. He called what the ID perps do a "strategy",
but it is just the old bait and switch scam. The ID perps keep selling
ID, but all the rubes get is a switch scam that does not mention that ID
ever existed.

http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704

QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...

Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?

MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of
intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once
decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert
witnesses, which we could have done.

Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present

MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.

KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.

Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.

Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:

The More lawyer had the booklet that I linked to earlier in the post.
It is how the Dover rubes knew to try to use Of Pandas and People to
teach ID, and yes half of the ID perps associated with the Discovery
Institute ran after Forrest's deposition on Of Pandas and People. They
did not fulfill the obligation that they had signed up for to defend
IDiocy. They ran when it was too late to put in replacements. The ID
perps at the Discovery Institute have been running the bait and switch
for over 19 years. The ID science has never made an appearance since
the ID scam unit was founded in 1995.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I forgot to note that the More Lawyer's (Richard Thompson) rebuttal was
to the ID perp (Mark Ryland) lying, claiming that the Discovery
Institute had not supported teaching ID in the public schools. The More
lawyer produced the ID perp's booklet on teaching ID in the public
schools that the Discovery Institute used to give out with their IDiot
video. My guess is that the More Lawyer got his copy from the ID perps.
The Booklet was also for sale at the ID perp's marketing web site,
ARN, where they sell their junk.

QUOTE:
MARK RYLAND (DI): Sure, I'd be happy to respond. Let me back up first
and say: The Discovery Institute never set out to have a school board,
schools, get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to do it,
we've never promoted it. We have, unfortunately, gotten sucked into it,
because we have a lot of expertise in the issue, that people are
interested in.
END QUOTE:

What is sad is that the ID perps kept promoting teaching the nonexistant
ID science in the public schools after the loss in Dover. The
propaganda pamphlet that I linked to earlier in the post seems to have
been recently updated this year. It has been updated around every 3
years since it was first put out after the loss in Dover. They have
changed the graphics and added some references now and then, but they
still claim to have a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public
schools.

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


Ron Okimoto