Re: West Virginia Governor signed the vague creationist education bill

On 3/31/2024 10:55 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 3/30/2024 11:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

RonO wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>
>
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more honest as to what they were doing.

 >
Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know why Intellignet Design is wrong,

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

The creationist ID scam has always conflated the common notion of theory as equivalent to some type of guess, with what a scientific theory actually is.  The creationists do this because they need to lie to themselves about what the theory of biological evolution is.  Behe and Denton have told the rubes for decades that biological evolution is more than just a theory in the creationists sense of theory, and have told them that biological evolution is just a fact of nature that any intelligent design explanation would have to incorporate in order to reflect reality.
>
Intelligent design has never been a scientific theory.  The ID perps have known this since they started the ID scam. Behe knew that ID wasn't a scientific theory, and even claimed that ID was equivalent to the type of theories around when intelligent design advocates were still burning heretics at the stake.  He claimed that ID was an equivalent theory to astrology as practiced in the middle ages when astronomers of the time were casting horoscopes to pay the bills.
>
What you should be wondering is what type of theories this act allows to be discussed because there are no scientific alternatives worth discussing at this time.  The ID perps understand this.  That is why, if you read the article, that the ID perps do not want ID to be taught in the public schools.  They may use ID as bait, but that is all ID has ever been for the ID scam.  All the ID perps have ever given the rubes to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell the rubes, has nothing to do with ID.  Really, read the article that I linked to above.  The ID perps have been running the bait and switch on the creationist rubes for 22 years, and that is what they are doing now in West Virginia.  They really do not want ID to be taught in the public schools.  They know that it will only end up like Kitzmiller.  The ID perps were asleep at the switch.  It looks like they never refilled the staff position responsible for making sure that the bait and switch always went down, and they were not able to stop this legislation from passing, as they had done in years past in other states.  So they have to try to keep the rubes from teaching the junk and exposing the ID scam for what it has always been, again.  Dover was the last time that they failed to run the bait and switch, and the creationist rubes tried to teach ID anyway.  They have failed again, and the only thing that they can do is tell the rubes not to teach the junk.
>
When I wrote the 3/29 post in this thread the ID perps had removed their education policy claiming to be able to teach ID in the public schools from their web site, but now it is back up on the web site.  For a few years after they had to run the bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas the ID perps had removed the "required" paragraph from their education policy because both Louisiana and Texas were claiming that they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID perps did not want ID to be taught, period.  The ID perps had to go back to using ID as bait and rewrote their education policy.  The creationist rubes just do not like the switch scam because they do not want to teach their kids enough science for them to know what they have to deny.
>
https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/
>
The current education policy, likely, should be enough to deter the rubes from trying to teach the junk in the public schools, but the ID perps still claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools in their educator's briefing packet.  Instead the current education policy runs the bait and switch, and puts ID out as bait, but wants the rubes to teach the obfuscation and denial switch scam, instead of ID.
>
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>
Using ID as bait is all the ID perps have done for over two decades. Not a single creationist rube legislator or school board has gotten any ID science to teach from the ID perps, all they have ever gotten is the obfuscation and denial switch scam.  Read the article linked to in the original post, and note that Luskin is one of the authors of the briefing packet putting ID out as bait, but what is Luskin giving the West Virginia creationist rubes instead?

 >
The problem I have with this scenario is the fact that Intelligent design is identified with Genesis Creationism with no distinctions drawn. This I think is dishonest and underhanded. There is a
difference.

That should not be a problem at this time because all the ID perps that I know of that pushed the ID scam onto other Biblical creationist rubes have come clean and admitted that they are all Biblical creationists. Do you know of an exception to this fact?  Denton had claimed to be an agnostic, but the ID perps put out an article a few years ago where they made fun of Denton's claims and in the article Denton was supposed to have a "sly twinkle" in his eye when he discussed the issue, and admitted that me may just be a back sliding Christian.  Denton was only agnostic about other people's belief in some god.  He has his own deistic Biblcial beliefs.
There is only the claim that ID is different from what Biblical creationists believe, but it is obviously something that Biblical creationists do believe, because all the creationists involved in creating the ID scam still are Biblical creationists, except for the ones like Philip Johnson who have passed on who were Biblical creationists when they were involved in pushing the creationist scam.
Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical creationists?  To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes, there isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical creationism to worry about.  If you do not understand that, you are not competent enough to discuss the issue.
Ron Okimoto

>
Ron Okimoto
>