Re: Phillip Johnson wiki

On 9/1/24 08:57, Kestrel Clayton wrote:
 >
 >
 > On 31-Aug-24 17:34, x wrote:
 >> On 8/31/24 14:17, Kestrel Clayton wrote:
 >>> 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?
 >>
 >> There are also generally educational requirements for teaching
 >> positions.
 >>
 >> I am thinking that a bachelor's degree is often required to
 >> be a substitute teacher, and those often have general education
 >> requirements as well.
 >>
 >> The general idea is that the other degree requirements to go
 >> into teaching at different levels would expose the potential
 >> teachers into the subtleties of the subjects in these areas.
 >>
 >> I am thinking it is at lowest a masters for some low level
 >> subjects in college.  They often have general education
 >> requirements that go into those degrees.  They also some
 >> times have 'peer review' for who does what, and grade
 >> schools and high schools have school boards.
 >
 > I'm still not clear on your point. Is it okay if individual states in
 > the US have educational standards, or is that also totalitarian? What
 > about standards at the county or school board level?
One thing I remember doing a long time ago, is this.
I took the Constitution of NAZI Germany under Hitler.
Then I took the Constitution of the Soviet Union under
Stalin.
And then I took the Constitution of the United States
and the US Bill of Rights.
And then compared all three of them.
I came to the conclusion that all three of them have
wording in them very similar to the wording in the US
Bill of Rights.
Therefore, totalitarianism is something that is
extra-constitutional, or in other words, it is
something that tends to not be explicitly written
into something as general as the written laws or
structure in documents described as such.
I am thinking that the Constitution of Germany
has a lot in it on the family, and a lot of it
did not change from during the time of NAZI Germany
to when it was reformed from the US, French, and UK
occupation zones after WWII.  The German Constitution
of 1870 of course says that 'the President of Germany
is the King of Prussia' (to make it explicit that it
is not the king of Austria).  To not diverge too much
into 'President' versus 'Chancellor' however I tended
to get the idea that totalitarianism in Germany in the
1930s and early 1940s was the concept of 'martial law',
or more completely, that 'martial law' means that
'there are no laws at all' (except maybe 'obey this
person' who can render his or her decisions based upon
whim, caprice, or random chance).
As far as the Soviet Union, perhaps it could be summarized
as 'laws only exist to favor the rich, so let us do away
with all of the lawyers'.
They had all of those 'show trials' and 'kangaroo courts'
under Stalinism.  But the courts may have very well
rubber stamped what the politicians told them to rubber
stamp.  'Due process of law', may very well have not
actually been 'due'.  The problem however is that
the term 'due process of law' may very well actually
be very vague.
Then I am thinking there is also the British position
from both the American Revolution and slightly later -
something like - a constitution is not a specific written
document but rather - the people and institutions of a
country and its colonies.
I am not quite sure to what extent they do that in various
law schools throughout the world, and then after they have
the class debate these issues, they end with a debate about
what are 'laws' and how do they differ from things that are
'not laws'.
I tend to think of totalitarianism as an a-legalism that
tends to favor the government at the expense of human freedom.
It is a matter of extremes and may not necessarily have to
do with anything specific.
I am thinking I was comparing one extreme with another in
the past argument.  As such, it may very well have not been
valid reasoning.
  > Or is it your position that as long as a teacher has a degree and any
 > necessary official qualifications, it doesn't matter what they actually
 > teach to kids?
You know about 30 years ago, in college I remember there were some
professors in college that were conducting some job interviews for
a potential candidate for a position at the college there.  It seemed
to me, that they were acting like the job interview was something like
the defense of a masters or doctoral degree and that they were expecting something like a class or lecture for each of the candidates.
Sadly, I forgot what the topic of some of those lectures were by now.
At the time, it did not seem to me like they were patting each other
on the back and saying 'we do not need to teach any classes or do
any research any more because we are all such friends of each other'.
There is also the question, does the title of the course reflect the
outline of the course.