Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Anniversary: Intelligent design and the bait and switch
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Ron O
Mar 15, 2012, 9:42:06 PM3/15/12
to
This thread marks a significant anniversary in the history of anti-
evolution creationism. It was 10 years ago (March 11th 2002) that the
current generation of creationist anti-evolution leaders of the
intelligent design (ID) movement stopped pretending and began running
an unscrupulous bait and switch scam on their own creationist support
base. If you count the publication of Of Pandas and People (1989) as
the beginning of the current ID/creationist political ploy, the ID
movement had advocated teaching intelligent design in the public
schools for over a decade by 2002. When it came time to put up or
shut up the ID movement leaders decided to, instead, run a bait and
switch scam on the creationists that had bought into intelligent
design and only gave the Ohio pro ID supporters on the Ohio State
Board of Education a switch scam that did not even mention that ID had
ever existed. No one can deny that this happened because it continues
to happen to any legislator or school board that pops up and wants to
teach the nonexistent science of intelligent design. No one can deny
that it is the ID movement’s leaders that are running in the switch
scam. Among other things the ID movement calls the switch scam Teach
the Controversy, but any creationist supporter that gets the switch
scam soon finds out that intelligent design creationism is not part of
any controversy that is permitted to be publically acknowledged in the
switch scam. A recent bait and switch victim was Michele Bachman who
was running for the Republican presidential nomination when she made
the mistake of claiming to support teaching the science of intelligent
design in the public schools.
What should be noted is that not a single ID proponent that wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design has ever gotten anything from
the perpetrators of the ID scam except the switch scam to teach in the
public schools. 10 years without a single exception. The Discovery
Institute even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover School
Board, but failed because the Dover board obtained their “free” legal
backing to test ID in the courts and Kitzmiller v. Dover was the
result. The bait and switch is a scam where the perpetrators claim to
be selling one thing as a dishonest enticement and then only give the
rubes something that they really didn’t want. It has happened to 100%
of the ID proponent school boards or legislators that have stepped
forward and claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent design
in the public schools. The ID proponents never get the science of
intelligent design and all they ever get is an obfuscation switch scam
that doesn’t even mention that intelligent design ever existed.
I decided to write this post because several posters have asked for
the history and I find it increasingly difficult to get the
information because so many links are broken and most old news
articles are behind subscriptions to access. Looking around I did
find enough material to make writing this post worth while.
There is no doubt that the ID movement sold teaching ID in the public
schools from the start with the book Of Pandas and People. You just
have to read the Wiki pages on intelligent design, Stephen Meyer,
Philip Johnson etc. Intelligent design had festered for a decade and
had built up enough steam so that multiple public school groups were
making noises about teaching intelligent design by 2002. The problem
for the ID movement was the simple fact that they had oversold their
ploy and didn’t have the ID science to teach. It was the scientific
creationist fiasco all over again. Instead of doing the right thing
such as admitting that they didn’t have any ID science worth teaching
or putting what they did have forward, the movement leaders decided to
run the bait and switch on their loyal creationist support base, and
they have continued to run the bait and switch on anyone stupid enough
to continue to believe the ID claptrap. It is ironic that the ID scam
artists have become the major force in keeping intelligent design/
creationism out of the public schools for the last 10 years. You just
have to investigate any such instance that has made the news and you
will find the Discovery Institute ID manipulators there to put the
brakes on and give the rubes the switch scam. 100% of the ID
proponents in a position to do something (legislative and school
boards) have had the bait and switch run on them. Not a single one
was ever given the ID science or the scientific theory of intelligent
design to teach to school kids. The simple reason for this is that
the ID movement leaders understood that they never had a scientific
theory of ID to teach in the first place.
Timeline for intelligent design:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timeline-of-intelligent-design
The Supreme Court ruling came in 1987 and scientific creationism
became a losing proposition. This part of the timeline indicates that
the main ID players were around early right at the failure of
scientific creationism and the beginning of the current ID scam. Just
look up the current fellows list at the Discovery Institute.
QUOTE:
Johnson vs. evolution
• 1987 Phillip E. Johnson (in England) read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker,
the creationist bookEvolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton,
then Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Science, and found purpose in life – he
read the amicus briefs in Edwards and concluded that the definition of
science was loaded against creationism.[21] Johnson decided that the
creationists had lost that case because of their unfair exclusion from
science by the scientific community’s naturalistic definition of
science. Consequently, creationists must redefine science to restore
the supernatural.[2]
• 1987-8 Johnson met Steven Meyer who subsequently introduced him to
"the others", starting with Denton and Paul Nelson.[22]
• June 23-26, 1988, Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People,
held a conference titledSources of Information Content in DNA in
Tacoma, Washington,[23] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and
later recalled that "the term came up" ("intelligent design").[24]
• August 1988 Johnson produced draft to develop into his book (Darwin
on Trial).[25]
• December 1988 Thaxton decided to use the label "intelligent design"
instead of creationism for his new movement.[12]
• 1989 Johnson funded to speak at Seattle conference, "I soon became
the leader of the group."[22]
Of Pandas and People published
• 1989 survey found that more than 30% of a national sample of high
school biology teachers wanted to teach "creation science".[26]
• 1989 Of Pandas and People was published, printed by "Haughton
Publishing Co." (Horticultural Printers, Inc. of Dallas, with no other
books in print).[9] It included all of the basic arguments of
intelligent design in essentially modern form (except for Behe's
irreducible complexity argument which appeared in the 1993 edition).
[27][18] In 2004, Jon Buell of the FTE stated this was "the first
place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present
use."[28]
END QUOTE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Johnson
Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller testimony about how creationism became
intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People should be read by
the interested. “Cdesign proponentsists” demonstrates how guys like
Meyers and Johnson watched creationism become intelligent design after
the Supreme Court decision.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id
The leaders of the ID movement wrote a book on teaching ID in the
public schools in 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
QUOTE:
In 1999, Meyer with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest laid out a legal
strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in
their book Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.
END QUOTE:
For those that do not know Stephen Meyer has been the director of the
Discovery Institute’s ID division since it started in the mid 1990’s
and the wiki entry claims that he was involved in writing the
Teacher’s notes for the book Pandas and People. He was promoted to
vice president of the Discovery Institute, but has since gone back to
being just director of the ID wing of the Discovery Institute.
Even the person most deeply in denial (Peter Nyikos) was finally
convinced that the Discovery Institute claimed to have the ID science
to teach in the public schools by this article on the subject.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020851/http://law.gonzaga.edu/people/dewolf/fte2.htm
Teaching the Controversy:
Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science Cirriculum
David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark E Deforrest.
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:
The bait and switch continues to go down because the Discovery
Institute is still claiming to have the science of intelligent design
to teach in the public schools on their web page in their official
stance on the subject.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
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:
I should note that it wasn’t until over a year after starting to run
the bait and switch that the Discovery Institute began putting
“requiring” in these types of statements. My recollection is that the
“requiring” qualifier started to be added to their propaganda around
2004 when the Dover fiasco was heating up.
So the ID movement sold the rubes the lie that they had the science of
ID to teach in the public schools, but what did the anti-evolution
creationists get that believed the ID propaganda? I do not know how
long this link will be up, but most of the links to the news articles
have been broken in the Ohio Citizens for Science web page. They have
the early draft of the lesson plan with the Wellsian
“exaggeration” (Yes, one ID proponent claimed that Wells was not lying
when he made the claim about “no moths on tree trunks” and it is
comical that the “exaggeration” got into the early draft of the lesson
plan along with the creationist web links). Remember that ID was
supposed to be about the science. The early draft is of interest not
just for how they tried to sneak creationism in, but for how all
mention of the Discovery Institute or the guys running the ID scam
were dropped from the final draft.
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
The early draft is accessible, but the final draft link is broken
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis.pdf
You can still access the final draft at the Discovery Institute, like
I said the NCSE link is broken, so for the time being the only source
for the final draft that I have found is at the Discovery Institute.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf
Anyone that reads this lesson plan has to ask themselves where the ID
science is. The Ohio State School board wanted to teach the science
of intelligent design, but that isn’t what they got. Anyone involved
in education should also note that this lesson plan is a pretty poor
example of a lesson plan. What were the students supposed to learn
from a bunch of negative examples? How were the students going to be
evaluated on whether they learned what they were supposed to learn?
You usually just state what you are going to teach, how you are going
to teach it (power point, textbook, teaching materials required etc)
what you expect the students to learn from the lesson (why you are
teaching the material) and how you are going to evaluate if the
students learned the lesson.
There should not be any confusion on what the Ohio Board expected to
get from the Discovery Institute. They specifically invited the
Discovery Institute to come and present the case for intelligent
design. Meyer and Wells addressed the board, but a whole contingent
came from the Discovery Institute. As I said before this was the
first major public test of the teach ID political ploy.
http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to
speak for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew
in its president and a half-dozen staff members.
END QUOTE:
This event was obviously important to the ID movement and Chapman (the
president of the Discovery Institute) was there to see that the bait
and switch went down on the Ohio board.
News accounts said that both Meyer and Wells claimed that ID was
science, but backed off after the real scientists (Ken Miller and
Lawrence Krauss) had their say and defined what science actually was.
What was sad is that the creationist board members realized that ID
was not science and a board member placed a request on the agenda for
the state board to address changing the definition of science in order
to teach intelligent design in Ohio public schools. You really can’t
make this junk up.
Audio of what the participants said is still up at:
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
No one expected the bait and switch to go down in Ohio. I remember
those times and no one knew what they were going to teach because the
Discovery Institute hadn’t put up a lesson plan for teaching ID in all
the years that they sold the bogus junk, and they still do not have an
ID lesson plan available for evaluation (even a voluntary lesson
plan). No one really knew that the bait and switch had gone down
because the Discovery Institute had been making noises about teaching
the controversy for several years, but most people just assumed that
ID was part of the controversy that they were talking about. Once the
Ohio lesson plan came out it was apparent that the bait and switch had
gone down and that the switch scam said nothing about intelligent
design.
During the Ohio fiasco Wells acted as a tag team member to confuse the
issue and delayed making it clear what the Discovery Institute policy
was going to be. Meyer talked about compromise and teaching the
controversy and Wells was just as Wellsian as ever.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/12/MN158685.DTL
QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained,
but as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:
Before the bait and switch went down there was a Colloquy session on
teaching intelligent design prompted in part by the Ohio situation.
Several Discovery Institute affiliated people participated and not a
single one indicated that the bait and switch was going to go down.
You can still access the session on Wayback.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021119135500/http:/chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/re4.htm
The Discovery Institute people come in early in the discussion and do
not last long. You have to go to the last page to see entries by
Casey Luskin, Steve Fuller, and David DeWolf. Todd Moody apparently
attended several ID movement conferences and was obviously an advocate
of intelligent design, but he did not seem to know that the bait and
switch was going to go down. Several TO regulars also participated in
the discussion including myself.
I was participating on ARN when the lesson plan came out and there was
no doubt that the bait and switch had gone down and that no ID science
had been put up to teach in Ohio. There was just abject denial of
what this meant and Mike Gene (a pen name and a prominent ID advocate
on ARN) admitted that he had given up on teaching ID back in 1999.
You would never have known that by how Gene had defended the ID scam
before the bait and switch became obvious.
Former Senator Santorum (the same fellow trying to run for president)
is an example of how clueless the ID supporters were. The Discovery
Institute had made a big deal about snowing Santorum and getting him
to sponsor the “Santorum amendment” to the No Child Left Behind
bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
The Discovery Institute was likely still baiting Santorum with ID
because he wrote this opinion piece the day that the Ohio bait and
switch was going down. If he had waited a couple of days he may have
written a different opinion piece. It is obvious that he doesn’t have
a clue that the bait and switch is going to go down in Ohio and
foolishly advocates teaching intelligent design in the public
schools. Later on this would bite him in the butt when he was running
for reelection during the Dover/Kitzmiller fiasco (in his home state)
and he was accused of flip flopping on the issue of teaching
intelligent design when all he was doing was bending over and taking
the switch scam from the guys that had lied to him about the science
of intelligent design. In his latest campaign he has dropped the
dishonest pretense and just claims that he supports teaching
creationism in the public schools.
http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in
the classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's
defense of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are
seeking to prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from
being taught to students. This threatens freedom of thought and
academic excellence.
Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
This opposition to intelligent design is surprising since there is an
increasing body of theoretical and scientific evidence that suggests
an alternate theory is possible. Research has shown that the odds that
even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a
billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call
agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information
systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that
alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species -
including that of a greater intelligence - are possible.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include
intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will
be denied a first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.
END QUOTE:
Were the rubes like Santorum, the Ohio board, the Dover school board
etc. that bought into the ID movement responsible for making ID look
like a scam? There is little reason to expect that these people were
interested in the science. Santorum is even calling it creationism at
this time instead of intelligent design. You only have to look at
things like the Wedge document and the initial mission statement for
the Discovery Institute to understand that the Discovery Institute
fostered the religious component of the ID movement. It is true that
they founded the ID movement to try to beat the courts after the
failure of scientific creationism, so they tried to say as little
about their religious beliefs as possible, but no one can look at
their mission statement and subsequent Wedge document and not
understand what their motives were.
Wedge document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
The Discovery Institute mission statement that Discovery Institute
fellows such as Meyer, Berlinski, Wells, Behe, Dembski, Kenyon,
Thaxton etc. signed up under.
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
Cultureseeks 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:
You have to click on the Wayback link to see the picture of God and
Adam as the logo for the Discovery Institute’s ID division to get the
full understanding of why guys like Santorum decided to sign up on the
ID band wagon. The Discovery Institute had this mission statement up
until 1999. Jay Richards was one of the first Discovery Institute
fellows to acknowledge that the Wedge document was genuine because he
was program director for the Discovery Institute’s ID unit when this
was their mission statement and it was the program that he was
directing.
Jay Richards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Richards
If this had all stopped with Ohio I wouldn’t be writing this post, but
the bait and switch went down in Wisconsin and Minnesota within a
month or two of Ohio and has continued to go down on any ID proponent
too clueless to know better. It is difficult to believe that there
could still be ID proponents after 10 years of having the bait and
switch run on them, but that is the current state of the ID scam. I
do not call it a scam because of the obvious dishonest political ploy,
but because the guys that are running the scam are running the bait
and switch on their own creationist support base. For the last 10
years the Discovery Institute has been the primary reason that
intelligent design proposals have been shot down where ever they pop
up. The creationist ID supporters do not listen to the science side,
but when the guys that sold you the scam tell you that you should take
something else that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed even the
most clueless step aside. Most drop the issue, but a few have bent
over and taken the switch scam from the same guys that fooled them
with the ID scam. Louisiana and Texas are the two most prominent
examples of ID proponents that have taken the switch scam to heart and
in both cases where they tried to implement the switch scam the
Discovery Institute has also shot those attempts down. Both Louisiana
and Texas tried to use the switch scam legislation or School board
science standards to try to get ID/creationist supplements into the
public school textbooks and the Discovery Institute has opposed both
efforts. Where did these guys get the idea that the switch scam would
allow them to teach ID and or creationism? Just click on the Wayback
link to the Discovery Institute mission statement again for a
refresher. Louisiana and Texas switch scam proponents were not
claiming to require the teaching of ID. They were giving the teachers
material that they would need to actually teach the junk voluntarily
if they wanted to. Someone should ask some of these ID proponent
malcontents how the Discovery Institute sold them the switch scam.
What do the ID fellows tell their creationist supporters behind closed
doors?
10 years and not a single ID proponent that has needed the ID science
to teach to public school kids has gotten any ID science to teach.
The bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time. They even tried
it on the Dover school board but failed (their only failure to
perpetrate the bait and switch and a spectacular one). There is
obviously something wrong with this story and it falls directly on the
ID movement and how they are still selling the ID scam to the
clueless.
The saddest thing about this whole fiasco is that not a single fellow
of the Discovery Institute resigned in protest to the bait and switch
scam that has been going down on their creationist supporters for a
decade. Philip Johnson did quit the ID movement (I haven’t seen him
advocate teaching intelligent design since his statement from 2006)
but only after Dover. You have to understand that Philip Johnson was
one of the main instigators of the ID movement. He was called the
godfather of the ID movement by other participants for his efforts in
getting the ID scam rolling in the early 1990’s, but he was only an
"advisor" to the Discovery Institute and not a fellow.
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/read/spring-2006/
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:
Johnson didn’t make this admission when the bait and switch started to
go down in 2002. He only dropped the issue after Kitzmiller and the
beating ID took in the courts. He obviously knew that the ID movement
never had the science to teach to school kids, so why did it take four
years to do the right thing?
So intelligent design hasn’t been much of anything except bait for the
switch scam for the last 10 years. Peter Nyikos has been the only
poster that has tried to defend the bait and switch on TO to any
significant extent in all that time. Anyone can check out some past
By their Fruits threads to see how he has done. There isn’t a single
ID proponent anywhere that should not have some explanation for why
they accept the practice of the ID movement’s leaders running such a
scam on their own creationist support base. It is a case of willful
ignorance. The ID proponents have to know that it is happening
because it happens every time someone clueless enough to believe the
propaganda pops up and wants to teach the science of intelligent
design. Even presidential candidates do not get the ID science to
teach. That is just a fact.
Michele Bachmann last June:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/17/bachmann-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/
The Discovery Institute’s response just days after (Remember that Jay
Richards was the program director for the Discovery Institute mission
statement and is still a Discovery Institute fellow and so is
Klinghoffer):
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/24/answering-the-dreaded-evolutio#
QUOTE:
Fortunately, there's an easy way to answer that takes account of the
dilemma. Asked about evolution, here's what Michele Bachmann, Tim
Pawlenty, or Chris Christie could have said:
"Life has a very long history and things change over time. However, I
don't think living creatures are nothing but the product of a
purposeless Darwinian process. I support teaching all about evolution,
including the scientific evidence offered against it."
END QUOTE:
Ten years of running a bogus bait and switch scam on their own
creationist support base. Where is that wonderful science of
intelligent design when the ID movement needs it?
Ron Okimoto
evolution creationism. It was 10 years ago (March 11th 2002) that the
current generation of creationist anti-evolution leaders of the
intelligent design (ID) movement stopped pretending and began running
an unscrupulous bait and switch scam on their own creationist support
base. If you count the publication of Of Pandas and People (1989) as
the beginning of the current ID/creationist political ploy, the ID
movement had advocated teaching intelligent design in the public
schools for over a decade by 2002. When it came time to put up or
shut up the ID movement leaders decided to, instead, run a bait and
switch scam on the creationists that had bought into intelligent
design and only gave the Ohio pro ID supporters on the Ohio State
Board of Education a switch scam that did not even mention that ID had
ever existed. No one can deny that this happened because it continues
to happen to any legislator or school board that pops up and wants to
teach the nonexistent science of intelligent design. No one can deny
that it is the ID movement’s leaders that are running in the switch
scam. Among other things the ID movement calls the switch scam Teach
the Controversy, but any creationist supporter that gets the switch
scam soon finds out that intelligent design creationism is not part of
any controversy that is permitted to be publically acknowledged in the
switch scam. A recent bait and switch victim was Michele Bachman who
was running for the Republican presidential nomination when she made
the mistake of claiming to support teaching the science of intelligent
design in the public schools.
What should be noted is that not a single ID proponent that wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design has ever gotten anything from
the perpetrators of the ID scam except the switch scam to teach in the
public schools. 10 years without a single exception. The Discovery
Institute even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover School
Board, but failed because the Dover board obtained their “free” legal
backing to test ID in the courts and Kitzmiller v. Dover was the
result. The bait and switch is a scam where the perpetrators claim to
be selling one thing as a dishonest enticement and then only give the
rubes something that they really didn’t want. It has happened to 100%
of the ID proponent school boards or legislators that have stepped
forward and claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent design
in the public schools. The ID proponents never get the science of
intelligent design and all they ever get is an obfuscation switch scam
that doesn’t even mention that intelligent design ever existed.
I decided to write this post because several posters have asked for
the history and I find it increasingly difficult to get the
information because so many links are broken and most old news
articles are behind subscriptions to access. Looking around I did
find enough material to make writing this post worth while.
There is no doubt that the ID movement sold teaching ID in the public
schools from the start with the book Of Pandas and People. You just
have to read the Wiki pages on intelligent design, Stephen Meyer,
Philip Johnson etc. Intelligent design had festered for a decade and
had built up enough steam so that multiple public school groups were
making noises about teaching intelligent design by 2002. The problem
for the ID movement was the simple fact that they had oversold their
ploy and didn’t have the ID science to teach. It was the scientific
creationist fiasco all over again. Instead of doing the right thing
such as admitting that they didn’t have any ID science worth teaching
or putting what they did have forward, the movement leaders decided to
run the bait and switch on their loyal creationist support base, and
they have continued to run the bait and switch on anyone stupid enough
to continue to believe the ID claptrap. It is ironic that the ID scam
artists have become the major force in keeping intelligent design/
creationism out of the public schools for the last 10 years. You just
have to investigate any such instance that has made the news and you
will find the Discovery Institute ID manipulators there to put the
brakes on and give the rubes the switch scam. 100% of the ID
proponents in a position to do something (legislative and school
boards) have had the bait and switch run on them. Not a single one
was ever given the ID science or the scientific theory of intelligent
design to teach to school kids. The simple reason for this is that
the ID movement leaders understood that they never had a scientific
theory of ID to teach in the first place.
Timeline for intelligent design:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timeline-of-intelligent-design
The Supreme Court ruling came in 1987 and scientific creationism
became a losing proposition. This part of the timeline indicates that
the main ID players were around early right at the failure of
scientific creationism and the beginning of the current ID scam. Just
look up the current fellows list at the Discovery Institute.
QUOTE:
Johnson vs. evolution
• 1987 Phillip E. Johnson (in England) read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker,
the creationist bookEvolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton,
then Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Science, and found purpose in life – he
read the amicus briefs in Edwards and concluded that the definition of
science was loaded against creationism.[21] Johnson decided that the
creationists had lost that case because of their unfair exclusion from
science by the scientific community’s naturalistic definition of
science. Consequently, creationists must redefine science to restore
the supernatural.[2]
• 1987-8 Johnson met Steven Meyer who subsequently introduced him to
"the others", starting with Denton and Paul Nelson.[22]
• June 23-26, 1988, Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People,
held a conference titledSources of Information Content in DNA in
Tacoma, Washington,[23] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and
later recalled that "the term came up" ("intelligent design").[24]
• August 1988 Johnson produced draft to develop into his book (Darwin
on Trial).[25]
• December 1988 Thaxton decided to use the label "intelligent design"
instead of creationism for his new movement.[12]
• 1989 Johnson funded to speak at Seattle conference, "I soon became
the leader of the group."[22]
Of Pandas and People published
• 1989 survey found that more than 30% of a national sample of high
school biology teachers wanted to teach "creation science".[26]
• 1989 Of Pandas and People was published, printed by "Haughton
Publishing Co." (Horticultural Printers, Inc. of Dallas, with no other
books in print).[9] It included all of the basic arguments of
intelligent design in essentially modern form (except for Behe's
irreducible complexity argument which appeared in the 1993 edition).
[27][18] In 2004, Jon Buell of the FTE stated this was "the first
place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present
use."[28]
END QUOTE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Johnson
Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller testimony about how creationism became
intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People should be read by
the interested. “Cdesign proponentsists” demonstrates how guys like
Meyers and Johnson watched creationism become intelligent design after
the Supreme Court decision.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id
The leaders of the ID movement wrote a book on teaching ID in the
public schools in 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
QUOTE:
In 1999, Meyer with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest laid out a legal
strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in
their book Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.
END QUOTE:
For those that do not know Stephen Meyer has been the director of the
Discovery Institute’s ID division since it started in the mid 1990’s
and the wiki entry claims that he was involved in writing the
Teacher’s notes for the book Pandas and People. He was promoted to
vice president of the Discovery Institute, but has since gone back to
being just director of the ID wing of the Discovery Institute.
Even the person most deeply in denial (Peter Nyikos) was finally
convinced that the Discovery Institute claimed to have the ID science
to teach in the public schools by this article on the subject.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020851/http://law.gonzaga.edu/people/dewolf/fte2.htm
Teaching the Controversy:
Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science Cirriculum
David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark E Deforrest.
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:
The bait and switch continues to go down because the Discovery
Institute is still claiming to have the science of intelligent design
to teach in the public schools on their web page in their official
stance on the subject.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
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:
I should note that it wasn’t until over a year after starting to run
the bait and switch that the Discovery Institute began putting
“requiring” in these types of statements. My recollection is that the
“requiring” qualifier started to be added to their propaganda around
2004 when the Dover fiasco was heating up.
So the ID movement sold the rubes the lie that they had the science of
ID to teach in the public schools, but what did the anti-evolution
creationists get that believed the ID propaganda? I do not know how
long this link will be up, but most of the links to the news articles
have been broken in the Ohio Citizens for Science web page. They have
the early draft of the lesson plan with the Wellsian
“exaggeration” (Yes, one ID proponent claimed that Wells was not lying
when he made the claim about “no moths on tree trunks” and it is
comical that the “exaggeration” got into the early draft of the lesson
plan along with the creationist web links). Remember that ID was
supposed to be about the science. The early draft is of interest not
just for how they tried to sneak creationism in, but for how all
mention of the Discovery Institute or the guys running the ID scam
were dropped from the final draft.
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
The early draft is accessible, but the final draft link is broken
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis.pdf
You can still access the final draft at the Discovery Institute, like
I said the NCSE link is broken, so for the time being the only source
for the final draft that I have found is at the Discovery Institute.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf
Anyone that reads this lesson plan has to ask themselves where the ID
science is. The Ohio State School board wanted to teach the science
of intelligent design, but that isn’t what they got. Anyone involved
in education should also note that this lesson plan is a pretty poor
example of a lesson plan. What were the students supposed to learn
from a bunch of negative examples? How were the students going to be
evaluated on whether they learned what they were supposed to learn?
You usually just state what you are going to teach, how you are going
to teach it (power point, textbook, teaching materials required etc)
what you expect the students to learn from the lesson (why you are
teaching the material) and how you are going to evaluate if the
students learned the lesson.
There should not be any confusion on what the Ohio Board expected to
get from the Discovery Institute. They specifically invited the
Discovery Institute to come and present the case for intelligent
design. Meyer and Wells addressed the board, but a whole contingent
came from the Discovery Institute. As I said before this was the
first major public test of the teach ID political ploy.
http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to
speak for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew
in its president and a half-dozen staff members.
END QUOTE:
This event was obviously important to the ID movement and Chapman (the
president of the Discovery Institute) was there to see that the bait
and switch went down on the Ohio board.
News accounts said that both Meyer and Wells claimed that ID was
science, but backed off after the real scientists (Ken Miller and
Lawrence Krauss) had their say and defined what science actually was.
What was sad is that the creationist board members realized that ID
was not science and a board member placed a request on the agenda for
the state board to address changing the definition of science in order
to teach intelligent design in Ohio public schools. You really can’t
make this junk up.
Audio of what the participants said is still up at:
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
No one expected the bait and switch to go down in Ohio. I remember
those times and no one knew what they were going to teach because the
Discovery Institute hadn’t put up a lesson plan for teaching ID in all
the years that they sold the bogus junk, and they still do not have an
ID lesson plan available for evaluation (even a voluntary lesson
plan). No one really knew that the bait and switch had gone down
because the Discovery Institute had been making noises about teaching
the controversy for several years, but most people just assumed that
ID was part of the controversy that they were talking about. Once the
Ohio lesson plan came out it was apparent that the bait and switch had
gone down and that the switch scam said nothing about intelligent
design.
During the Ohio fiasco Wells acted as a tag team member to confuse the
issue and delayed making it clear what the Discovery Institute policy
was going to be. Meyer talked about compromise and teaching the
controversy and Wells was just as Wellsian as ever.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/12/MN158685.DTL
QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained,
but as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:
Before the bait and switch went down there was a Colloquy session on
teaching intelligent design prompted in part by the Ohio situation.
Several Discovery Institute affiliated people participated and not a
single one indicated that the bait and switch was going to go down.
You can still access the session on Wayback.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021119135500/http:/chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/re4.htm
The Discovery Institute people come in early in the discussion and do
not last long. You have to go to the last page to see entries by
Casey Luskin, Steve Fuller, and David DeWolf. Todd Moody apparently
attended several ID movement conferences and was obviously an advocate
of intelligent design, but he did not seem to know that the bait and
switch was going to go down. Several TO regulars also participated in
the discussion including myself.
I was participating on ARN when the lesson plan came out and there was
no doubt that the bait and switch had gone down and that no ID science
had been put up to teach in Ohio. There was just abject denial of
what this meant and Mike Gene (a pen name and a prominent ID advocate
on ARN) admitted that he had given up on teaching ID back in 1999.
You would never have known that by how Gene had defended the ID scam
before the bait and switch became obvious.
Former Senator Santorum (the same fellow trying to run for president)
is an example of how clueless the ID supporters were. The Discovery
Institute had made a big deal about snowing Santorum and getting him
to sponsor the “Santorum amendment” to the No Child Left Behind
bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
The Discovery Institute was likely still baiting Santorum with ID
because he wrote this opinion piece the day that the Ohio bait and
switch was going down. If he had waited a couple of days he may have
written a different opinion piece. It is obvious that he doesn’t have
a clue that the bait and switch is going to go down in Ohio and
foolishly advocates teaching intelligent design in the public
schools. Later on this would bite him in the butt when he was running
for reelection during the Dover/Kitzmiller fiasco (in his home state)
and he was accused of flip flopping on the issue of teaching
intelligent design when all he was doing was bending over and taking
the switch scam from the guys that had lied to him about the science
of intelligent design. In his latest campaign he has dropped the
dishonest pretense and just claims that he supports teaching
creationism in the public schools.
http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in
the classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's
defense of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are
seeking to prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from
being taught to students. This threatens freedom of thought and
academic excellence.
Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
This opposition to intelligent design is surprising since there is an
increasing body of theoretical and scientific evidence that suggests
an alternate theory is possible. Research has shown that the odds that
even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a
billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call
agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information
systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that
alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species -
including that of a greater intelligence - are possible.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include
intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will
be denied a first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.
END QUOTE:
Were the rubes like Santorum, the Ohio board, the Dover school board
etc. that bought into the ID movement responsible for making ID look
like a scam? There is little reason to expect that these people were
interested in the science. Santorum is even calling it creationism at
this time instead of intelligent design. You only have to look at
things like the Wedge document and the initial mission statement for
the Discovery Institute to understand that the Discovery Institute
fostered the religious component of the ID movement. It is true that
they founded the ID movement to try to beat the courts after the
failure of scientific creationism, so they tried to say as little
about their religious beliefs as possible, but no one can look at
their mission statement and subsequent Wedge document and not
understand what their motives were.
Wedge document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
The Discovery Institute mission statement that Discovery Institute
fellows such as Meyer, Berlinski, Wells, Behe, Dembski, Kenyon,
Thaxton etc. signed up under.
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
Cultureseeks 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:
You have to click on the Wayback link to see the picture of God and
Adam as the logo for the Discovery Institute’s ID division to get the
full understanding of why guys like Santorum decided to sign up on the
ID band wagon. The Discovery Institute had this mission statement up
until 1999. Jay Richards was one of the first Discovery Institute
fellows to acknowledge that the Wedge document was genuine because he
was program director for the Discovery Institute’s ID unit when this
was their mission statement and it was the program that he was
directing.
Jay Richards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Richards
If this had all stopped with Ohio I wouldn’t be writing this post, but
the bait and switch went down in Wisconsin and Minnesota within a
month or two of Ohio and has continued to go down on any ID proponent
too clueless to know better. It is difficult to believe that there
could still be ID proponents after 10 years of having the bait and
switch run on them, but that is the current state of the ID scam. I
do not call it a scam because of the obvious dishonest political ploy,
but because the guys that are running the scam are running the bait
and switch on their own creationist support base. For the last 10
years the Discovery Institute has been the primary reason that
intelligent design proposals have been shot down where ever they pop
up. The creationist ID supporters do not listen to the science side,
but when the guys that sold you the scam tell you that you should take
something else that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed even the
most clueless step aside. Most drop the issue, but a few have bent
over and taken the switch scam from the same guys that fooled them
with the ID scam. Louisiana and Texas are the two most prominent
examples of ID proponents that have taken the switch scam to heart and
in both cases where they tried to implement the switch scam the
Discovery Institute has also shot those attempts down. Both Louisiana
and Texas tried to use the switch scam legislation or School board
science standards to try to get ID/creationist supplements into the
public school textbooks and the Discovery Institute has opposed both
efforts. Where did these guys get the idea that the switch scam would
allow them to teach ID and or creationism? Just click on the Wayback
link to the Discovery Institute mission statement again for a
refresher. Louisiana and Texas switch scam proponents were not
claiming to require the teaching of ID. They were giving the teachers
material that they would need to actually teach the junk voluntarily
if they wanted to. Someone should ask some of these ID proponent
malcontents how the Discovery Institute sold them the switch scam.
What do the ID fellows tell their creationist supporters behind closed
doors?
10 years and not a single ID proponent that has needed the ID science
to teach to public school kids has gotten any ID science to teach.
The bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time. They even tried
it on the Dover school board but failed (their only failure to
perpetrate the bait and switch and a spectacular one). There is
obviously something wrong with this story and it falls directly on the
ID movement and how they are still selling the ID scam to the
clueless.
The saddest thing about this whole fiasco is that not a single fellow
of the Discovery Institute resigned in protest to the bait and switch
scam that has been going down on their creationist supporters for a
decade. Philip Johnson did quit the ID movement (I haven’t seen him
advocate teaching intelligent design since his statement from 2006)
but only after Dover. You have to understand that Philip Johnson was
one of the main instigators of the ID movement. He was called the
godfather of the ID movement by other participants for his efforts in
getting the ID scam rolling in the early 1990’s, but he was only an
"advisor" to the Discovery Institute and not a fellow.
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/read/spring-2006/
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:
Johnson didn’t make this admission when the bait and switch started to
go down in 2002. He only dropped the issue after Kitzmiller and the
beating ID took in the courts. He obviously knew that the ID movement
never had the science to teach to school kids, so why did it take four
years to do the right thing?
So intelligent design hasn’t been much of anything except bait for the
switch scam for the last 10 years. Peter Nyikos has been the only
poster that has tried to defend the bait and switch on TO to any
significant extent in all that time. Anyone can check out some past
By their Fruits threads to see how he has done. There isn’t a single
ID proponent anywhere that should not have some explanation for why
they accept the practice of the ID movement’s leaders running such a
scam on their own creationist support base. It is a case of willful
ignorance. The ID proponents have to know that it is happening
because it happens every time someone clueless enough to believe the
propaganda pops up and wants to teach the science of intelligent
design. Even presidential candidates do not get the ID science to
teach. That is just a fact.
Michele Bachmann last June:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/17/bachmann-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/
The Discovery Institute’s response just days after (Remember that Jay
Richards was the program director for the Discovery Institute mission
statement and is still a Discovery Institute fellow and so is
Klinghoffer):
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/24/answering-the-dreaded-evolutio#
QUOTE:
Fortunately, there's an easy way to answer that takes account of the
dilemma. Asked about evolution, here's what Michele Bachmann, Tim
Pawlenty, or Chris Christie could have said:
"Life has a very long history and things change over time. However, I
don't think living creatures are nothing but the product of a
purposeless Darwinian process. I support teaching all about evolution,
including the scientific evidence offered against it."
END QUOTE:
Ten years of running a bogus bait and switch scam on their own
creationist support base. Where is that wonderful science of
intelligent design when the ID movement needs it?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Mar 19, 2012, 7:18:37 PM3/19/12
to
On Mar 15, 8:42 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
Someone else (Robert Hoppe) is remembering Ohio and the subsequent
years of the intelligent design movement over at the Panda's Thumb.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/03/the-disappearin.html#comment-281470
Ron Okimoto
Someone else (Robert Hoppe) is remembering Ohio and the subsequent
years of the intelligent design movement over at the Panda's Thumb.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/03/the-disappearin.html#comment-281470
Ron Okimoto
0 new messages