Re: Phillip Johnson wiki

On 31-Aug-24 16:36, x wrote:

On 8/28/24 18:16, RonO wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
>
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki.  There seems to be no valid reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had emailed the editor that made the edit to see what was going on.  I guess nothing has come of the request.
>
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which a major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent design creationist scam.
>
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught in the public schools.  He had made it part of his Wedge strategy.  It was one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but 20/20 hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the science, and did not understand that the ID perps never had any legitimate ID science worth teaching in the public schools.
>
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not understand scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by Nancey Murphy, an associate professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as "dogmatic and unconvincing", primarily because "he does not adequately understand scientific reasoning.""  Johnson had been convinced by the other ID perps that the ID science existed, and could be taught in the public schools.
>
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam.  Most notably then Senator Santorum.  Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic "amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was submitted by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that legislation.  Both Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion of the "amendment" supported teaching intelligent design in the public schools.
>
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were invited to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School board the ID perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam where they would just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an obfuscation and denial swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the creationist rubes had nothing to do with ID.  It does not look like the ID perps bothered to inform Santorum and Johnson of what they planned to do because both Johnson and Santorum came out in support of teaching ID in the public schools in Ohio before the bait and switch went down.
>
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait and switch was going down in Ohio.  There is no reason why Johnson would hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait and switch scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for Santorum to have written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait and switch was going down.
>
https://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:
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.
>
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
>
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
END QUOTE:
>
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift for the ID scam.  After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach ID scam as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any creationist rubes that wanted to teach it.
>
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch had gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
>
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/ scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
>
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:
>
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public schools in 2005.  Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection.  As sad as it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.  Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed to support creationism.  It would take some willful ignorance of what the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if you look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach.  You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the video that they had produced as one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
>
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools. Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http:// sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
>
This is the quote that was removed.  In one post in the previous thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
>
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:
>
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims.  I used to quote two parts of the interview.
>
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:
>
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it.  They never have."  Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
>
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial.  At the time I did not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had likely already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science Review.
>
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
>
Ron Okimoto

 Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
 This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try.  It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
 There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

That's an interesting claim. Is it your position that all educational standards are "totalitarian"? Would the United States be in better hands if it didn't try to give kids a basic grounding in reading, writing, mathematics, science, art, and history?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Kestrel Clayton
I used to have a Kipling quote here,
but I'm not so fond of him any more.