Re: Dicotute

On 9/29/2024 10:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:

On 9/29/24 7:07 AM, RonO wrote:

On 9/28/2024 6:43 PM, erik simpson wrote:

It may amuse some to see what the Discovery Institute has come down to. Gunter Bechley (a real paleontologist gone bad) is the last man standing to publicly defend the indefensible:  nntelligent design, or at least guidance.  How the mighty have fallen.
>

>
https://www.discovery.org/id/about/fellows/
>
The Discovery Institute claims more fellows than they had when the bait and switch failed and intelligent design was determined to be a bogus creationist scam in federal court in 2005.  Denton rejoined the ID scam, after Dover, knowing that the bait and switch continued to be run, and a lot of creationists seem to have been dishonest enough to support the bogus intelligent design bait and switch scam being run by the Discovery Institute.  Bechly was only one of the creationists degenerate enough to want to continue to support a dishonest scam that the Discovery Institute was running on their fellow creationists after the failure of the ID scam in Dover.  Dembski did quit for a while, but couldn't make an honest living so he came back to support the bait and switch scam.
>
No one quit in disgust when the ID perps started running the bait and switch on the rubes that believed that they had a scientific theory of intelligent design to teach in the public schools back in 2002, and all the fellows seem to be in agreement that ID can still be used as bait to sell the rubes the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
>
Have there been any objections from any fellows for the last 22 years that the bait and switch has been going down?  It is just a fact that the primary use of the Discovery Institute's claims about having a scientific theory of intelligent design is as bait to draw the rubes in so that they can force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto them.   The bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time that any creationist rubes have taken the bait.  There have been no exceptions. Dover happened because the bait and switch failed and the rubes tried to teach ID anyway.
>
There seems to be no shortage of creationists willing participate in the bait and switch as ID perps.
>
The Discovery Institute ID perps had made getting ID taught in the public schools part of their Wedge strategy to accomplish their mission of reviving a theocracy that likely never had existed.  Getting 10 states to teach ID was listed as one of their 5 year goals in the Wedge document (printed in 1998 and leaked in 1999).  When the ID scam had gained enough public notoriety so that creationists rubes wanted to teach it in the public schools, and it was time to put up or shut up, the ID perps did neither and started running the bait and switch scam instead.  All the rubes ever get after taking the bait is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that they are told has nothing to do with ID, and that they can't mention ID nor creationism when they teach the switch scam junk.
>
Obviously, none of the then fellows objected to running the bait and switch scam because they are still fellows, and none of them resigned in disgust for being made part of such a dishonest scam.
>
These are the type of fellows that the ID scam has supporting it today. The Discovery Institute continues to use ID as bait, but the rubes never get any ID science to teach.
>
Current intelligent design briefing packet for educators:
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
>
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
>
 From the Discovery Institute's education policy in this document:
>
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:
>
In 2013 when both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam legislation or school board junk to teach ID, both states claimed not to be "requiring" ID to be taught, but the bait and switch went down on both states again, and the Discovery Institute told the rubes not to teach ID in their public schools.  The ID perps have updated the briefing packet 3 times since running the bait and switch on Louisiana and Texas, and have not retracted any of their claims about being able to teach the junk.
>
All existing fellows must be in agreement with the the Discovery Institute's bait and switch policy because none of them have condemned what has been going on nor resigned in protest.
>
West Virginia is just the latest example, and none of the fellows seem to mind.  Luskin is one of the authors of the current briefing packet and ran the bait and switch on the Virginia rubes.  The West Virginia rubes were also not "requiring" ID to be taught, but Luskin told them not to do it anyway.
>
How can any of the fellows not know that the bait and switch is Discovery Institute policy?  Who else is selling the notion that there is a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools?  Who runs the bait and switch every time a group of rubes tries to teach the junk?   Why would any honest academics want to be associated with a dishonest bait and switch scam?  It is a scam run on their fellow creationists.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

All true, but Bechley is the only one trying to talk to people outside the box.
 

Behe keeps trying, and after Denton came back he wrote a series of books supporting a deistic designer that the other ID perps do not believe in.   Since Dembski's return he has tried to support the ID scam.  He seems to have abandoned his junk like CSI and no free lunch and is trying something else about his information claims.  After Dembski left the ID scam, none of his previous junk was thought to be good enough by the ID perps that were left to make it into the Top Six best evidences for the ID scam.  As sad as it may be the Top Six were all god-of-the-gaps stupidity used by the scientific creationists over 3 decades before the ID perps put them up as their Top Six.
That is the current scientific quality of the ID perps.
Links that will get the Top Six that killed IDiocy on TO:
This is supposed to be the best evidence for the ID scam in the order in which they must have logically occurred within this universe according to the ID perps.  The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because none of the IDiots on TO wanted to believe in the designer that filled those gaps in that order.  Dean claimed not to be an IDiot, but was too incompetent to understand why all the other creationists could not deal with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner.  He mostly claimed that he did not recall his previous encounters with the Top Six each time he returned to post some of the Top Six.  The IDiotic designer of the Top Six is not the Biblical designer.  None of the IDiotic creationists had wanted the ID perps to succeed in producing any valid ID science.  It would have just been more science to deny.  It is likely the reason that Nelson (a YEC ID perp) has always claimed that they did not have any ID science, but that they were just working on creating some.  If the ID perps had been successful Nelson would have had to quit the ID Wedge scam because he would have to deny that science.
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
Ron Okimoto