Re: West Virginia creationism

Ron Dean wrote:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
 

https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
it gets interpreted.
>

Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
in this article...
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
 ...as well as those shown in this one...
 https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
 ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...

>
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
>
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down.  It
looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
have to deny.

 >
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports intelligent design.  However, they can not point to any evidence that they can claim points to the identity of the designer.

Like horse and carriage, love and marriage, you can't have one
without the other. Without any attributes of the designer
saying it was "designed" is the same as saying it was "flubbied". It may sound like an explanation, but isn't one. But you sell yourself short! By your own analysis from earlier posts, the evidence for design that you gave allows us to say quite
a bit about the designer. The teacher could e.g. say that the evidence that Ron Dean has unearthed, we can rule out
categorically the deity of the Abrahamic religions But

in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly, geologically speaking.

That's not evidence for design, that's a somewhat trivial recognition
that the further we go back in history, the less likely it is becomes
that remains were preserved, and at one point data will simply run out

The problem is information. How and from where did the information to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?

From earlier, simpler organisms. You have been given in the past
references to quite a number of them.
If the present is

key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.

>