Kitzmiller v. Dover Wiki

[RonO]

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

There is another thread on this, but my take is that anyone interested
should read this wiki before listening to anything that an IDiot like
Nyikos has to comment about it. What you will find is that the wiki has
been edited to be as fair as possible in that the facts of the case are
tempered to favor the ID side of the issue because the ID perps and
IDiots were so badly off that even tempering what they were guilty of
looks bad enough to convince anyone that the judgement was fair and
reflected the actual situation.

I won't comment on what I think should have been emphasized until those
interested have actually read the wiki entry.

I will note that Phillip Johnson the acknowledged architect of the ID
scam's Wedge Strategy, that included teaching ID in the public schools,
sat in the federal courtroom everyday and came to these conclusions:

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

The article starts on page 31.

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:

This article should be read by any IDiots that are left so that they can
see how definite Johnson's reversal was, and how surprised that the
author of the article was by what Johnson was acknowledging. Johnson is
still called the "godfather" of the creationist's ID scam by the other
ID perps, but he died over a decade after making these admissions and
never recanted these conclusions that he came to after witnessing the
what the reality of what the creationist's intelligent design science
actually was.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:16:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
>
>There is another thread on this, but my take is that anyone interested
>should read this wiki before listening to anything that an IDiot like
>Nyikos has to comment about it.

I second that motion.

That cdesign proponentsists like PeeWee Peter are still arguing the
facts shows they aren't interested in the facts. They just want to
hear what they already believe.

That cdesign proponentsists in other countries shows they haven't
given up:

**********************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ...iIncredulity 3
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:53:25 -0400
Message-ID: <s0n8jhlo3v0vanduo...@4ax.com>
References: <fb38jhlnd9qtlhl3v...@4ax.com>

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:24:20 +0200, Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@hoosegow.com> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X34HDTI5IL0
**********************************************

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[IDentity]

ID is a fact, not a theory.

But before you can understand ID, which means understanding that which
is called God, you must first understand your own MIND, and what you
actually are. There is no other way.

https://anthonyprofeta.com/know-thyself-wish-know-god/

[RonO]

You seem to be agreeing that ID creationism has been a scam from the
beginning, and was never any scientific theory worth claiming to be a
scientific theory. You seem to be admitting that the ID perps have been
lying for over a quarter of a century to creationist rubes like yourself.

Your notion of "fact" doesn't seem to be anything like what a scientific
fact is. Does that mean that you understand what a scam ID has been to
be making any claims about any IDiotic science?

You could benefit from reading the wiki and the article with Phillip
Johnson's admission about IDiocy.

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:

>
>
>ID is a fact, not a theory.
>

Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
which demonstrates that.

But you're partly correct; ID is indeed not a theory in the
scientific sense, which requires testing.

--

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

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/8/22 2:45 PM, IDentity wrote:
>
>
> ID is a fact, not a theory.

Yes. There are college courses that teach design. The output of
designers is plain to see. Examples range from this post to the Empire
State Building.

ID in biological origins, of course, has no basis in anything but
wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not make something a theory.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:37:21 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:
>
>>
>>
>>ID is a fact, not a theory.
>>
>Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
>which demonstrates that.
>

I guess you can't. No real surprise.

[Glenn]

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:55:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:37:21 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>ID is a fact, not a theory.
> >>
> >Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
> >which demonstrates that.
> >
> I guess you can't. No real surprise.
> >

What comes as no surprise is your insistence in that regard and in "reality".

Are certain features of the universe and of living things best explained by intelligent causes?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:13:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

>On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:55:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:37:21 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>> >On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
>> >in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>ID is a fact, not a theory.
>> >>
>> >Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
>> >which demonstrates that.
>> >
>> I guess you can't. No real surprise.
>> >
>What comes as no surprise is your insistence in that regard and in "reality".
>

Perhaps you could supply the data which "IDentity" seems to
lack?

>
>Are certain features of the universe and of living things best explained by intelligent causes?
>

Sure. Anything built by humans, and selective breeding of
some living things by humans. Other than that, no. You can,
of course, refute this; simply show the data which refutes
it. That's *objective* data, not opinion, unsupported
testimony or argument from incredulity.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 10:20:34 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
>
A flagrant propaganda piece, full of distortions, especially when
citing claims by Judge Jones in his benighted "Memorandum opinion,"
of which only the last of the 139 pages (and only the second and third
numbered paragraphs) are objective. They are exceptions because they
are rulings rather than (often failed) attempts at factual analysis.

> There is another thread on this,

Actually, there are two threads, or three if you are using a newsreader
which makes a new thread whenever there is a change of thread title,
as in the case of the Subject lines below.
They are, in order of appearance:

Re: Larry and Wikipedia go at it again

Burk and Pete go at it again WAS Re: Larry and Wikipedia go at it again

Flaws in Judge Jones's Role in the 2005 Dover Case

> but my take is that anyone interested
> should read this wiki before listening to anything that an IDiot like
> Nyikos has to comment about it.

That is indeed Ron O's take, because he is a rabid anti-ID fanatic.
His use of "IDiot" for me is a mild symptom of his fanaticism.

On the other hand, the pack of lies in the next three statements
is a true gauge of his fanaticism.

> What you will find is that the wiki has
> been edited to be as fair as possible

A bare faced lie, except that Ron O is so far gone
that he may have persuaded himself of its truth.

> in that the facts of the case are
> tempered to favor the ID side of the issue

An even more shameless lie, and Garbage Out to go with the following Garbage In.

> because the ID perps and
> IDiots were so badly off that even tempering what they were guilty of
> looks bad enough to convince anyone that the judgement was fair and
> reflected the actual situation.

The "IDiots" Behe and Minnich were not badly off at all, until the
torrents of misrepresentations about their testimony began.
They began with the 139 page opinion of Judge Jones
and have spread like wildfire through the mainstream media,
the scientific establishment, and the blogosphere, of which talk.origins
is representative.


The "ID perps," OTOH, were the members of the Dover school board, no one else.
The DI tried to get them not to contest the charges, but they failed.

What the Board was REALLY guilty of was the flagrant violation of freedom of speech entailed
in the mandated speech. Burkhard, who should know more about the status of that
freedom in US jurisprudence than he does, needed to be corrected on that score
by me today:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XbEsTouIR3g/m/O_WWlQsFAQAJ
Re: Larry and Wikipedia go at it again

_______________________ excerpt, names added in brackets______________________

> >> [Burkhard] There was no way that
> >> case was winnable, given how the law was (interpreted) then, and given
> >> the constraints the defendants probably imposed on their defense team.

> > [Peter] The case boiled down to the constitutionality of compelling teachers to
> > read a statement with which some of them disagreed. This was a clear
> > violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, because
> > the school[s] involved were public rather than private, and thus had the
> > force of the state government behind them.

[Burkhard]
> No, that's simply wrong.

[Peter]
It is absolutely correct. Unlike in Germany, in which there are a
number of holdovers from the Nazi era, including a draconian
prohibition on home schooling, freedom of speech from
government sanctions is almost sacrosanct in the USA.

That Judge Jones (and counsel for the plaintiffs?) chose to
cast it as a violation of the establishment clause is irrelevant
to what I said. Basing it on freedom of speech would have
resulted in a speedy trial, if the case had not already been
settled out of court for the plaintiffs.


> And you'be been explained this before. This is
> one of your multiple misreadings of the case, really remarkable after
> all these years.

What I said this time around has nothing to do with the case as it was treated by
the plaintiffs and the courts. It was the REAL, indisputable
case that was cynically turned into an attempted sequel to
the notorious early 20th century Tennessee case fictionalized in the film, "Inherit the Wind."
Judge Jones may have fancied himself another Clarence Darrow
(fictionalized under the name Henry Drummond),
but he failed miserably to emulate Darrow in his "memorandum opinion".

But his cynicism was fully justified, given how the cards were
stacked against a fair public understanding of the Dover trial
by the mainstream media and the scientific establishment.

[Burkhard]
>This was not about the rights of the teachers, it was
> about the right of the pupils, and it was not a freedom of speech case
> by an establishment clause case. The teachers are not party to the
> proceedings, at all.

But the memo of the teachers to the Board was quoted extensively
on pp. 127-128, and the quoted part makes no reference to
any violation of student rights, nor to religion at all. It begins with:

"You have indicated that students may ‘opt-out’ of this portion [the statement read to students at the beginning of the biology evolution unit] of the class and that they will be excused and monitored by an administrator. We respectfully exercise our right to ‘opt-out’ of the statement portion of the class. We will relinquish the classroom to an administrator and we will monitor our own students."

Note the clause, "our right to ‘opt-out’ of the statement portion of the class."

[Burkhard]
> and also no, teacher (or professors, for that matter) do not have have
> the right to refuse teaching whatever their employer wants them to
> say/teach. So if this had been teachers complaining about the compelled
> statement, they'd probably lost.

Here is where you show your ignorance of the fact that freedom of speech
is taken more seriously by the public in general and the courts in particular
throughout the USA than in almost every country in the world.

For example, in stark contrast to the other "progressive" countries, including Canada,
"hate speech" laws have consistently been struck down by the US Supreme Court
as violations of the rulings that extend the First Amendment right to
all the states. And the State Board of Education was part of the purview of the
Pennsylvania state government.

In stunning contrast, one of the Le Pens [Marine's father, if memory serves]
was fined 40,000 Euros by a French court for "Holocaust denial."

========================= end of excerpt =====================


Remainder deleted, because it is on a different issue; it will be replied to later,
probably tomorrow. I have bigger fish to fry this evening than Ron O's delusions.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:13:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

>On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:55:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:37:21 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>> >On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
>> >in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>ID is a fact, not a theory.
>> >>
>> >Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
>> >which demonstrates that.
>> >
>> I guess you can't. No real surprise.
>> >
>What comes as no surprise is your insistence in that regard and in "reality".
>

Perhaps you could supply the data which "IDentity" seems to
lack?
>

>Are certain features of the universe and of living things best explained by intelligent causes?
>

Sure. Anything built by humans, and selective breeding of
some living things by humans. Other than that, no. You can,
of course, refute this; simply show the data which refutes
it. That's *objective* data, not opinion, unsupported
testimony or argument from incredulity.
>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Bob, you posted this twice, four hours after the first posting;
didn't it show up on your end in all that time?

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 11:55:36 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:13:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:55:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:37:21 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >> >On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
> >> >in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>ID is a fact, not a theory.
> >> >>
> >> >Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
> >> >which demonstrates that.
> >> >
> >> I guess you can't. No real surprise.
> >> >
> >What comes as no surprise is your insistence in that regard and in "reality".
> >
> Perhaps you could supply the data which "IDentity" seems to
> lack?
> >
> >Are certain features of the universe and of living things best explained by intelligent causes?
> >
> Sure. Anything built by humans, and selective breeding of
> some living things by humans. Other than that, no. You can,
> of course, refute this; simply show the data which refutes
> it. That's *objective* data, not opinion, unsupported
> testimony or argument from incredulity.

Nor reasoning, I take it, like Darwin's reasoning of natural selection
based on a bunch of data that did not automatically speak for themselves?


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:11:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com>:

>Bob, you posted this twice, four hours after the first posting;
>didn't it show up on your end in all that time?
>

Nope. Far from the first time; I'm used to it.

Not sure how this constitutes data which shows that ID (in
the religious or DP sense) is a fact, not a theory*, which,
if you'll check, was the original question I asked
"IDentity". But maybe Glenn can eventually provide it; it
seems "IDentity" is MIA.

*Actually, of course, it's neither; it's a conjecture
unsupported by evidence.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:16:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
> >
> >There is another thread on this, but my take is that anyone interested
> >should read this wiki before listening to anything that an IDiot like
> >Nyikos has to comment about it.

> I second that motion.

Naturally: you and Ron O both know that your best bet is to make use
of the principle that there is no need to refute anything a person
says if you can persuade people not to listen to what he says.

For instance, the following pack of lies is NOT what they will find,
but instead they will find claims that don't hold up under scrutiny.

> >What you will find is that the wiki has
> >been edited to be as fair as possible in that the facts of the case are
> >tempered to favor the ID side of the issue because the ID perps and
> >IDiots were so badly off that even tempering what they were guilty of
> >looks bad enough to convince anyone that the judgement was fair and
> >reflected the actual situation.

I've dissected the above pack of lies in my own reply to Ron O,
to which no one has replied yet:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/c5F1_Zm_gQ0/m/_NRI6t8dAQAJ
Re: Kitzmiller v. Dover Wiki
Oct 10, 2022, 6:00:36 PM

And if y'all's best bet (described above) is working, nobody but myself has read it yet.

But that suits me just fine, because the lack of response to it means that
I can devote myself to all the other disputes I am involved in,
like the ones below.

> >I won't comment on what I think should have been emphasized until those
> >interested have actually read the wiki entry.
> >
> >I will note that Phillip Johnson the acknowledged architect of the ID
> >scam's Wedge Strategy,

But Johnson is NOT the architect of ID, which is NOT a scam but a serious attempt at explaining
certain data that evolutionary biologists so far have made no serious
attempts to explain. And, despite the lie that ID is a religious theory,
promulgated by the wikipedia webpage that Ron O is peddling,
it is science in the usually accepted sense of the term as practiced
by its two star witnesses at Dover, Behe and Minnich.

> > that included teaching ID in the public schools,
> >sat in the federal courtroom everyday and came to these conclusions:

That last line is flatly contradicted by something in the
very link that Ron O gives:

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

QUOTE FROM LINKED ARTICLE:
"Arrayed on the other side were an emeritus Professor of Law and a former Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory post-doctoral researcher. Though not physically present in Dover or formally involved in the trial,"
END OF QUOTE

The "emeritus Professor of Law" was the selfsame Phillip Johson
who, Ron O claimed above to have noted, "sat in the federal courtroom everyday"

However, I expect jillery and Ron O to bond even more with each other
over this revelation than they already have been since jillery
prostituted her integrity for Ron O something like a decade ago.
[Details about that prostitution on request.]


CONCLUDED in second reply to this post, to be done soon after I see that this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

This is the second and concluding reply to this post.

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:16:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

The debate below is based on the following url, posted by Ron O:

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

> >The article starts on page 31.

I there are no page numbers in the linked webpage, but let that pass.

> >
> >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.

Phillip Johnson was showing his ignorance of evolutionary theory here:
Darwinian theory is a theory of microevolution and NOT
of macroevolution, much less a theory of mega-evolution
that spans whole classes and hundreds of millions of years.

Nor is it capable of explaining mega-evolutionary progress
like the origin of meiosis, which is the key to the sexual
reproduction of animals, plants, fungi, and almost all protists.


However, he is correct in stating that ID experts
[Johnson should have recused himself here]
are not ready to propose a comparable alternative.
But what can you expect: the science of ID only began
with Behe's DBB in 1996, while scientific evolutionary
theory began over two centuries ago with Lamarck.

> > 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:

Rabid anti-Id fanatic that he is, RonO frequently leaves off all hint
of that last sentence in his monumental *non* *sequitur* that ID is a scam.
But I'm sure that has long endeared him to jillery.

> >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:
> >
> >This article should be read by any IDiots that are left so that they can
> >see how definite Johnson's reversal was

...from the Wedge strategy, but NOT from ID itself, to which Johnson
never contributed anything to my knowledge.

> >and how surprised that the
> >author of the article was by what Johnson was acknowledging. Johnson is
> >still called the "godfather" of the creationist's ID scam by the other
> >ID perps,

...whom Ron O conveniently neglects to name, since the "godfather"
designation is probably more due to anti-ID sources than to ID ones.

I suspect they are deliberately setting up Johnson as a straw man,
paralleling Judge Jones, whom I suspect of deliberately setting
up the authors of P&P as "leading ID proponents."

This was embellished by Burkhard as "the [*sic*] experts of the losing side,"
whereas Jones was cagey enough not to use the definite article "the".
IOW, Burkhard was setting up an even bigger strawman for the purpose
of knocking him down.

The rest of what Ron O and jillery wrote below is just "Garbage Out"
based on the foregoing "Garbage In" by them [mostly Ron O,
but jillery is shackling herself to him both above and below].

>> but he died over a decade after making these admissions and
> >never recanted these conclusions that he came to after witnessing the
> >what the reality of what the creationist's intelligent design science
> >actually was.
> >
> >Ron Okimoto

> That cdesign proponentsists like PeeWee Peter are still arguing

> [jillery's own] facts shows they aren't interested in the facts [to which jillery entitles herself].

The parts in brackets were added by myself because jillery is exempting herself
from the last line in almost every post of hers, viz.,

You're not entitled to your own facts.

> They just want to hear what they already believe.

Were they not such staunch allies, and Ron O not an anti-ID fanatic,
he could say to jillery, "Projection is a way of life for you."
Then, for once, after hundreds of false uses of this taunt
by Ron O, there would be one which would be CORRECT.

> That cdesign proponentsists in other countries shows they haven't
> given up:
>
> **********************************************
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> Subject: Re: ...iIncredulity 3
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:53:25 -0400
> Message-ID: <s0n8jhlo3v0vanduo...@4ax.com>
> References: <fb38jhlnd9qtlhl3v...@4ax.com>
>
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:24:20 +0200, Joe Cummings
> <joecumm...@hoosegow.com> wrote:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X34HDTI5IL0
> **********************************************

I'm glad I looked this up. I found out for the first time
that jillery is a propagandist for abortion, and will be shortly
posting a rebuttal to the statement that tipped me off.

> --
> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> You're not entitled to your own facts.

There it is, the last line from which jillery habitually exempts herself.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[RonO]

On 10/10/2022 4:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 10:20:34 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
>>
> A flagrant propaganda piece, full of distortions, especially when
> citing claims by Judge Jones in his benighted "Memorandum opinion,"
> of which only the last of the 139 pages (and only the second and third
> numbered paragraphs) are objective. They are exceptions because they
> are rulings rather than (often failed) attempts at factual analysis.

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

I see that Nyikos snipped and ran from the same thing that he snipped
and ran from over a decade ago. Nyikos really can't deal with Phillip
Johnson's admissions about the ID scam after Johnson sat in the
courtroom everyday and watched IDiocy crumble into what it had always
been. Anyone interested in this subject should just read the wiki
linked to above, and then read what Phillip Johnson had to say after his
personal experience with the courtroom fiasco that was IDiocy.

Phillip Johnson was not an unbiased observer. He is the one credited
with creating the IDiotic Wedge strategy that included teaching the
nonexistent science of ID in the public schools. He continued to be
called the "godfather" of the creationist ID scam by the other ID perps
after his death over a decade after making his admissions about the ID scam.

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

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 did a complete turn around. He went to the federal court case
and was interviewed there claiming that IDiocy should be taught in the
public schools, but after witnessing the courtroom antics of the IDiots
he had a complete reversal. Anyone interested should read the Berkeley
review article and note how surprised the author was at Johnson's
reversal on the topic of IDiocy. Johnson never denied making these
admissions and I do not recall him ever again supporting teaching the ID
scam junk in the public schools again.

Nyikos did snip and run from this material when he was first exposed to
it over a decade ago, and he still can't deal with reality in an honest
and straightforward manner. Johnson's reversal is about the best
evidence that anyone can put up that Nyikos and the other IDiots in
denial of the Dover decision are just blowing smoke and lying to
themselves about it.

Both sides requested that the judge decide if IDiocy was science or not.
The creationists wanted the judgement because if IDiocy was science
then the plaintiffs wouldn't have a case, and the plaintiffs wanted the
decision because they knew that IDiocy was not science and that if it
was not science then the religious efforts of the creationists would not
pass the Lemon test.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 14:40:45 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>This is the second and concluding reply to this post.

The above is just more of your transparent obfuscating tactics.

>On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

<snip what jillery did not "wrote">


>>That cdesign proponentsists like PeeWee Peter are still arguing the
>>facts shows they aren't interested in the facts. They just want to

>>hear what they already believe.
>

>The parts in brackets


[are removed]

>> That cdesign proponentsists in other countries shows they haven't
>> given up:
>>
>> **********************************************
>> Newsgroups: talk.origins
>> Subject: Re: ...iIncredulity 3
>> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:53:25 -0400
>> Message-ID: <s0n8jhlo3v0vanduo...@4ax.com>
>> References: <fb38jhlnd9qtlhl3v...@4ax.com>
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:24:20 +0200, Joe Cummings
>> <joecumm...@hoosegow.com> wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X34HDTI5IL0
>> **********************************************
>
>I'm glad I looked this up. I found out for the first time
>that jillery is a propagandist for abortion, and will be shortly
>posting a rebuttal to the statement that tipped me off.

Only a willfully stupid lying troll would suggest the above has
anything even remotely to do with abortion.

>> --
>> You're entitled to your own opinions.
>> You're not entitled to your own facts.
>
>There it is, the last line from which jillery habitually exempts herself.

You don't even try to prove your lies. That's what makes you
willfully stupid.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/11/22 2:17 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:16:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I will note that Phillip Johnson the acknowledged architect of the ID
>>> scam's Wedge Strategy,
>
> But Johnson is NOT the architect of ID,

Nor did Ron say he was. Phillip Johnson was the architect of the ID
scam's Wedge Strategy.

> which is NOT a scam but a serious attempt at explaining
> certain data that evolutionary biologists so far have made no serious
> attempts to explain.

This might carry some weight if ID proponents, even once, made any
serious attempt at explaining data that evolutionary biologists so far
have made no serious attempt to explain.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/11/22 2:17 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:16:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I will note that Phillip Johnson the acknowledged architect of the ID
> >>> scam's Wedge Strategy,
> >
> > But Johnson is NOT the architect of ID,

> Nor did Ron say he was. Phillip Johnson was the architect of the ID
> scam's Wedge Strategy.

Where's the scam? Ron O has referred to it perhaps hundreds of times
as a "bait and switch scam" and perhaps thousands of times as a "switch scam,"
as though it were possible to have a scam involving a switch
without there having been any bait.

He adopted the latter designation after I did the "Scottish verdict" thread
whose verdict of "Not Proven" he could not logically counter, but that
hasn't stopped him from lying that I had lost big on that thread.

His illogical reasoning, which I do believe you admire, was that
Robert Camp, who admitted that there is not much evidence for
any bait, was nevertheless anti-ID.

A rational adult would recognize that Robert Camp's anti-ID
sentiments would lend weight to his statement, rather than
negating it, but rational thinking is something in which even you,
who are more sane than Ron O, are deficient.

> > which is NOT a scam but a serious attempt at explaining
> > certain data that evolutionary biologists so far have made no serious
> > attempts to explain.

> This might carry some weight if ID proponents, even once, made any
> serious attempt at explaining data that evolutionary biologists so far
> have made no serious attempt to explain.

As usual, you have been asleep longer than Rip van Winkle.
Michael Behe made a serious attempt in _Darwin's Black Box_ [DBB] at explaining why
the bacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic cilium, the protein transport
mechanism and a few other "molecular machines" are attributed by him to intelligent
design. No evolutionary biologists have tried to explain how these could
have arisen, without many maladaptive steps along the way, during "the time frame"
[paraphrasing your buddy jillery] of the universe.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/12/22 1:20 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/11/22 2:17 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:16:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will note that Phillip Johnson the acknowledged architect of the ID
>>>>> scam's Wedge Strategy,
>>>
>>> But Johnson is NOT the architect of ID,
>
>> Nor did Ron say he was. Phillip Johnson was the architect of the ID
>> scam's Wedge Strategy.
>
> Where's the scam?

The Wedge Strategy is the scam. It was designed to provide the
appearance of science without content, in order to get ID taught
(falsely) as science.

>>> which is NOT a scam but a serious attempt at explaining
>>> certain data that evolutionary biologists so far have made no serious
>>> attempts to explain.
>
>> This might carry some weight if ID proponents, even once, made any
>> serious attempt at explaining data that evolutionary biologists so far
>> have made no serious attempt to explain.
>
> As usual, you have been asleep longer than Rip van Winkle.
> Michael Behe made a serious attempt in _Darwin's Black Box_ [DBB] at explaining why
> the bacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic cilium, the protein transport
> mechanism and a few other "molecular machines" are attributed by him to intelligent
> design. No evolutionary biologists have tried to explain how these could
> have arisen, without many maladaptive steps along the way, during "the time frame"
> [paraphrasing your buddy jillery] of the universe.

Saying "it wasn't evolution as we know it" is not an explanation.
Saying "intelligence did it", without any evidence pointing *to*
intelligence (rather than away from natural evolution), and especially
with deliberate *avoidance* of saying how intelligence did it, is not an
explanation.

So there is another scam: Claiming to have an explanation, when all they
really have is a (false) claim of evolution's inadequacy and an allusion
to an origins myth.

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 05:02:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

jillery wonders how long PeeWee Peter will pretend to not have the
time to acknowledge the above.

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:52:06 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Apparently PeeWee Peter is too busy spamming his off-topic topics.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:57:18 -0700, the following appeared

I guess none of you can answer that. But thanks anyway.

[Pro Plyd]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 23:45:21 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>:
>
>>
>>
>> ID is a fact, not a theory.
>>
> Really? Perhaps you could provide a cite to the raw data
> which demonstrates that.

Here ya go:

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:59:44 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:

About as I thought; you provided more than anyone else did.

[Glenn]

But then you're an outlier.

[RonO]

What this Dover Wiki doesn't go into very well is the situation with the
ID creationist scam at the time that Dover happened. The current
creationist ID effort started with the publication of, "Of Pandas and
People" in the late 1980's. When the Pandas' effort was announced in
the early 1980's it was supposed to be a textbook that would aid the
then current Scientific Creationism political efforts. To the
embarassment of the scientific creationists when their first efforts to
get their "creation science" taught in the public schools ended badly in
federal court and one of the main issues was that there was no
acceptable reliable source for what they wanted to teach. All the then
current scientific creationist babble included Bible verses and biblical
mythology, and could not be used in a public school science class. "Of
Pandas and People" was initiated to remedy this situation. It was going
to be a creationist textbook without the religious accoutrements, but
then the Supreme court decision ended any hope of getting the bogus
creation science taught in the public schools in 1987. Pandas was
reworked and edited into what they started calling intelligent design by
basically just changing the name of what they wanted to teach.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Section IV(D):
"Ms. Wilson found all available creationists' materials unacceptable
because they were permeated with religious references and reliance upon
religious beliefs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
QUOTE:
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one
case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were
accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign
proponentsists".[25][28]

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms
are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or
because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life?
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept
the latter view.
END QUOTE:

Thaxton edited Pandas and Kenyon was one of the primary authors, and
both became fellows of the ID scam unit of the Discovery Institute when
the center for renewal of science and culture was created. Of note is
that Behe admitted to writing portions of the book, but was not credited
and Meyer (who has always been director of the ID scam unit at the
Discovery Institute) wrote the teachers notes for the textbook.

What might be considered to be strange is that Behe started claiming
that he did not support teaching ID (at least his IC junk in his
responses to his critics) in the public schools, but he participated in
writing a book to get the creationist material into the public schools.

Teaching intelligent design in the public schools became part of the
Wedge strategy developed by Phillip Johnson, and promoting the teaching
of ID in the public schools kept up with other Wedge goals of the 1990's
The ID perps produced their booklet on teaching ID in the public
schools in 1999, and they would give out that booklet with their Wedge
intelligent design video that they had created. They also published
their Utah law review article on teaching ID in the public schools in 2000.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

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

Of note is the ID perp's claim that Of Pandas and People could be used
to teach ID in the public schools.

Then Senator Santorum allowed Phillip Johnson to draft an addition to
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, that eventually ended up in the
Appendix. The ID perps made a big deal about the addition claiming that
the Act supported teaching intelligent design in the public schools.

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

The Act and the ID perp's use of it got IDiocy a wider audience among
the public, and teaching IDiocy started to replace scientific
creationist efforts. The original Kansas state school board fiasco in
1999 where the creationists were able to drop biological evolution along
with the Big Bang, radiometric dating, and understanding isotopes in the
chemistry class out of the science standards were still using scientific
creationists as their science advisors, and John Calvert, who supported
the Kansas effort, had not yet changed over to creating the ID Network
that would support teaching intelligent design in the public schools.

https://www.creationwiki.org/Intelligent_Design_Network

The ID scam started to be taken seriously by creationists that had
supported the scientific creationist's political efforts, and with the
assistance of the recently established ID Network the Ohio State School
board became the first public School board or legislature to try to get
ID taught in the public schools in 2002. The Ohio effort ended badly for
both the ID Network and the ID perps at the Discovery Institute. The
Ohio State board invited two IDiotic scientists and two normal
scientists to present the case for teaching intelligent design in their
public schools. Wells and Meyer represented the IDiots and Miller and
Krauss represented the science side.

By the time the session was over the IDiots had been convincing enough
that IDiocy was not science that one board member put up the issue on
the State Board's agenda that they discuss changing the state science
standard's definition of science in order to teach ID in the Ohio public
schools as science. It was worse than that for the IDiot creationists.
It turned out that Wells and Meyer had decided before their presentation
to run the bait and switch on the Ohio creationist rubes. They had
decided not to give the rubes any IDiotic science and instead put up
their switch scam that they would later claim had nothing to do with
intelligent design.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html

Wells wrote this in his report to other ID perps on the Ohio fiasco:

QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:

Wells does not say who was involved in making that decision, but news
accounts claim that the president of the Discovery Institute attended
the Ohio fiasco with half a dozen staff members. Minnich, Meyer, and
DeWolf are mentioned in the report as attending along with Wells.

I advise any IDiot supporters that are still left to read Wells' report.
Wells thinks that it is funny to mention that Meyer acted like a Nazi
in order to make fun of Miller. The ID perps had just run the bait and
switch scam on the Ohio creationist rubes and that is their sense of
humor. It should be noted that the ID perps are not running the bait
and switch on the science side, but on the creationist rubes that
believe them. That is how it has been ever since. Not a single
creationist rube legislator, nor school board has ever gotten any ID
science to teach from the ID perps. All they ever get is an obfuscation
and denial switch scam that the ID perp's claim has nothing to do with
IDiocy. Dover has been the only instance that the bait and switch
failed the ID perps. In all other cases the IDiot creationists, mostly,
dropped the issue or a few bent over for the switch scam. Before Dover
the ID perps used to have a list of creationist rubes that they claimed
were still considering the switch scam option. There were over 20 cases
on the list that I recall, but as far as I know only Ohio, Louisiana,
and Texas ever did anything to support the switch scam.

I recall that in the next few months after Ohio there were multiple
instances of legislators or school boards wanting to teach the
nonexistent science of ID, but the bait and switch went down on all of
them. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico are early instances
that I recall. The bait and switch continued to go down and still kept
going down after the failure that was Dover. No creationist rubes have
ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID perps. The last
instance of the bait and switch was on the Utah creationist rubes in
2017, but there hasn't been any creationists incompetent and ignorant
enough to try to teach the IDiotic junk since, that I have noticed.

The Kitzmiller wiki indicates that it was Seth Cooper's job at the ID
scam unit to run in the bait and switch scam on any creationist rubes
that popped up on the radar wanting to teach the science of ID in the
public schools, but he failed. The failure wasn't all his fault. The
Discovery Institute had just come up against creationists as corrupt as
they were, and they couldn't get them to change their minds and bend
over for the switch scam. Seth Cooper no longer works for the ID scam
unit, and I don't know when he was fired or quit, but it was after
Dover. Someone else has that sorry job today.

The Dover creationists had already been in contact with the Thomas More
group and they already knew that they would have "free" legal service if
they wanted to continue to try to teach ID in their public schools.
They were advised by the More group to follow the ID perp's
recommendations in teaching the junk, and they followed the Discovery
Institute's teach ID scam booklet in obtaining Of Pandas and People as a
textbook to teach the junk.

At this point it should be noted that the Thomas More lawyers were not
just incompetent, but they were credulous when it came to the ID scam.
They obviously believed what the ID perps had written in their teach ID
scam booklet, but they couldn't get past that and understand that the
bait and switch was going down, and that no one was ever getting any ID
science to teach. The lead More lawyer even understood that the bait
and switch had been going down, but he called it a Discovery Institute
"strategy", and it was that strategy that bit the defense in the butt.

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

The Discovery Institute rep had just lied about the Discovery Institute
and teaching ID, and the More lead lawyer had to object:

QUOTE:
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
END QUOTE:

The last paragraph indicates that the More lawyer understood that the
bait and switch had been going down since Ohio, but he called it a
"strategy". It was a strategy that doomed their case.

>
> There is another thread on this, but my take is that anyone interested

> should read this wiki before listening to anything that an IDiot like

> Nyikos has to comment about it.  What you will find is that the wiki has
> been edited to be as fair as possible in that the facts of the case are
> tempered to favor the ID side of the issue because the ID perps and

> IDiots were so badly off that even tempering what they were guilty of
> looks bad enough to convince anyone that the judgement was fair and
> reflected the actual situation.
>

> I won't comment on what I think should have been emphasized until those
> interested have actually read the wiki entry.
>

> I will note that Phillip Johnson the acknowledged architect of the ID

> scam's Wedge Strategy, that included teaching ID in the public schools,

> sat in the federal courtroom everyday and came to these conclusions:
>

> http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
>
> The article starts on page 31.
>

> 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:
>

> This article should be read by any IDiots that are left so that they can

> see how definite Johnson's reversal was, and how surprised that the

> author of the article was by what Johnson was acknowledging.  Johnson is

> still called the "godfather" of the creationist's ID scam by the other
> ID perps, but he died over a decade after making these admissions and

[RonO]

So from the previous posts it is evident that the ID perps at the
Discovery Institute had been pushing teaching IDiocy in the public
schools as part of the Wedge strategy, but they had started running the
bait and switch scam on IDiot creationist rubes that bought into the
scam since 2002. The More defense law team knew that the bait and
switch had been going down for years, but they were credulous enough to
keep believing the teach ID scam propaganda that the ID perps had
produced instead of figuring out what was really going on.

The More lawyers and the Dover IDiots were not the only ones that were
apparently willfully ignorant of what the ID scam actually was at that
time. Even though both Phillip Johnson and then Senator Santorum had
had the bait and switch run on them when they had supported teaching
IDiocy in Ohio back in 2002, both continued to supported teaching ID in
the Dover public schools. My first entry in this thread demonstrated
that Phillip Johnson made a complete turn around after the court case
and stopped supporting the teach ID scam as part of the Wedge strategy.
Even though Santorum had written an editorial in the Washington Times
before the Ohio bait and switch went down, and in that editorial he
claimed that ID should be taught in the public schools, he had somehow
been convinced by the IDiots that running the bait and switch for
several years did not mean that ID could not be taught in the public
schools, and he initially supported the Dover IDiots in his home state.

http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

QUOTE:
Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that
should be taught in science classes.
END QUOTE:

Anyone interested should read the editorial in order to understand how
fully Santorum was committed to the Wedge strategy of that time.

As noted the ID perps decided to run the bait and switch on the Ohio
rubes instead of giving them any of the nonexistent ID science.

I don't have links to the old news reports, but when Dover first broke
into the news Santorum initially came out and supported the effort to
teach ID in Penn. public schools. Santorum was running for reelection
at that time. The ID perps obviously got to him and ran the bait and
switch again on the Senator because he flip-flopped during his
reelection campaign and started claiming that the Dover IDiots should
not try to teach the junk in their public schools. Santorum's flip-flop
became a negative campaign issue for him, and he eventually lost
reelection because of quite a few missteps. When he ran for president,
after the Dover fiasco, he had dropped the ID scam and had gone back to
calling what he supported "creationism" and not intelligent design.
Santorum remained a plain vanilla creationist for his second
presidential campaign effort.

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

QUOTE:
Later that year, Santorum resigned from the advisory board of the
Christian-rights Thomas More Law Center after the Center's lawyers lost
a case representing a school board that had required the teaching of
intelligent design.[56] Santorum, who had previously supported the
school board's policy, indicated he had not realized that certain
members of the board had been motivated by religious beliefs.[56]
Santorum critics said he was backtracking from his earlier position
because he was facing a tough reelection fight in 2006.
END QUOTE:

Both Behe and Minnich understood that the bait and switch had been going
down for years, and that no IDiot creationist rubes had ever gotten any
ID science to teach from the ID perps, ever. All their prevarications
during their testimony was just trying to claim that ID wasn't the bogus
scam that it, apparently, had always been. They both tried to claim
that there was some ID scientific theory somewhere, but they failed. The
prevarications made by Behe on the subject were covered in the Dover
Wiki in the Perjury and deceit section. Behe and Minnich couldn't even
demonstrate that ID was a testable hypothesis. Both proposed the same
test for IC, and both had to admit that they had never tried it. The
main reason for not doing the test was because it wasn't much of any
test worth doing, and likely wouldn't tell anyone anything about whether
IC existed or not. If IDiocy was anything it was just the bait used to
attract creationist rubes in order to run in the switch scam. That is
still how ID is used today.

The ID perps have continued claiming to be able to teach the scientific
theory of IDiocy, but the bait and switch goes down every single time a
group of rubes pops up and wants to teach the junk.

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

In this teach ID scam propaganda the ID perps are still claiming to
teach the scientific theory of IDiocy. They first wrote this junk in
2007, and have updated it every few years. There was a 2021 update, but
when they modified their web page design this year they reverted to the
2018 version.

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:

Most of the propaganda is about how wrong the Judge's decision was in
the Dover fiasco.

They still retain their old education policy claiming that ID can be
taught in the public schools on page 15.

The bait and switch keeps going down every time, and all any IDiot rubes
ever get to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID
perps claim has nothing to do with IDiocy. This seems to be due to the
fact that the ID perps do not want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps may
be claiming to be able to teach the junk, but there hasn't been any
IDiotic science ever produced by the ID perps, and none of them seem to
be interested in accomplishing any ID science. The ID perps finally put
up their Top Six evidences for IDiocy back in 2017 and they bent over
backwards to not call the Top Six scientific evidence. Sewell was even
corrected when he lied about them being scientific evidence for ID, and
he stopped calling them scientific evidence. These were just the best
evidence that they had that happened to be real scientific topics, and
it pretty much killed IDiocy on TO. There don't seem to be any ID perps
nor IDiots that want to do very much with the best evidence that the ID
perps have ever had. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID
scam. Kalk and Glenn just ran and started putting up second rate junk
from the ID perps. Kalk quit that after a few months because it was
obviously a senseless thing to do, but Glenn keeps up the effort. So
there isn't any ID science worth discussing, and no one seems to be
interested in doing any.

Just imagine what would happen if Behe came out with his three neutral
mutations that were needed to evolve one part of the flagellum over a
billion years ago, and confirmed that the flagellum might be his type of
IC. Most of the IDiot creationist rubes that support IDiocy are YEC and
do not want to understand anything that happened over a billion years
ago. There is a simple reason why no IDiotic science ever gets done.
It wouldn't sell books to the rubes, and definitely isn't anything that
the rubes want to teach in the public schools. #1 of the Top Six is the
Big Bang, and IDiot creationists have already claimed to want to drop
that out of their public school science standards in Texas after the
Dover fiasco, and succeeded in doing it in Kansas back in 1999. The Top
Six were put up in their order of occurrence and there are very few
IDiot creationists that want to understand anything about them and how
they relate to nature and their religious beliefs. IDiots aren't
interested in any IDiotic science that IDiotic creationists can work on.
The Scientific Creationists found out that there wasn't any science
that they were interested in doing and resorted to the same
god-of-the-gaps denial as the ID perps are stuck with. The ID perps are
using the Top Six in the same way. They aren't interested in better
understanding nature, and they definitely are not interested in how the
Top Six relate to each other nor to their religious beliefs.

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

Ron Okimoto