https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-designQUOTE:
Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82).
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
Like earlier proponents of creationism, they wrote statutes or initiated lawsuits designed to permit the teaching of their view as an alternative to evolution in American public schools, where instruction in any form of religion is constitutionally forbidden. In the major case on the issue, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), concerning a school district in Dover, Pennsylvania, a federal court ruled that intelligent design was not clearly distinct from creationism and therefore should be excluded from the curriculum on the basis of earlier decisions, notably McLean v. Arkansas (1982).
END QUOTE:
They do not note that in the 1990's the ID perps at the Discovery Institute were mainly interested in getting their ID science taught in the public schools, as an extension of the scientific creationist effort to get creationism taught in the public schools, in order to achieve their Wedge political and religious goals.
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htmDavid K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. 1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
A Legal Guidebook.
There was also a Utah law review article in 2000 with about the same arguments for legality of teaching ID in the public schools.
They also got then senator Santorum to submit an "amendment" to the No child left behind legislation, but it was never included in the legislation in 2000. The ID perps still made a big deal about it being in a sort of appendix to the legislation on a web site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentThere is also the Wedge document with the goal of teaching intelligent design in the public schools.
https://ncse.ngo/wedge-documentOne of their 5 year objectives:
QUOTE:
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
END QUOTE:
When it came time to put up or shut up the ID perps decided to do neither and started running their current bait and switch scam on the rubes. They only put up the ID science as bait, but all the creationist rubes ever get to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that doesn't mention that ID nor creationism ever existed. Most rubes have dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.htmlWells participated in running the first bait and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002 and wrote up his account as a report.
QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:
The others involved in making the decision to start running the bait and switch scam were not listed, but the report mentions that Minnich and DeWolf along with some others were present in Ohio.
The bait and switch was noted by the Thomas More Lawyer when a Discovery Institute rep tried to lie about the Discovery Institute's involvement in trying to get ID taught in the public schools.
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was that, um:
"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." ...and I could go further. But, you had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.
In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert witnesses, which we could have done.
Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys, that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.
So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision, was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we thought we could present
END QUOTE:
The More attorney called the bait and switch a strategy, but described it as the usual bait and switch tactics "was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a compromise."
The bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time before Dover, and after Dover. This likely should be added to any history or description of the creationist's intelligent design fiasco. The ID perps sell ID as bait, but only give the rubes an obfuscation and denial switch scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
It should also be noted that the ID perps that ran away and did not testify did so after Forrest gave her deposition and revealed the name change in Of Pandas and People from creationism to intelligent design. Meyer had written the teachers notes for that book and Dembski was then editing the next edition of Pandas, both ran. The drafts of Dembski's book had also been subpoenaed, but had not been submitted at that time, and the subpoena was dropped when Dembski ran. Dembski still demanded to be paid for what he had done, and some of that was sitting in on Forrest's deposition, and finding out that he had to run.
Dembski understood that the bait and switch had been going down for several years, and that the next edition of Pandas was only going to be added to what they were already using as bait. It was never going to be used to legally teach ID in the public schools.
Ron Okimoto
Britannica ID scam entry Jan. 2025