MarkE claims that using ID as bait has increasing traction among Biblical creationists like himself. We recently had the West Virginia IDiotic fiasco where the ID perps were able to run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes that wanted to teach ID in their public schools, and even after the legislator was forced to remove mentioning ID from the act, and replacing it with switch scam language, Luskin had to keep running the bait and switch because the creationist rube still claimed that even though the act did not mention that ID had ever existed, that ID could still be taught in the West Virginia public schools. Luskin had to tell her flat out that the Discovery Institute did not support teaching ID in the public schools. Luskin is the coauthor of the current teach ID scam propaganda put out by the Discovery Institute claiming that it is still legal to teach ID in the public schools after the loss in Dover. Luskin supports using ID as bait, and he knows that the ID perps do not want ID to be taught in the public schools because any such incident will end up like Kitzmiller. All the ID perps understand that the ID science never existed. Another failure in court would likely mean that they would lose their creationist financial and political support. Their current financial supporters have been willing to keep using ID as bait as the only way forward for the original mission of the ID scam unit, but the dismal record of so few rubes bending over for the switch scam and another demonstration that the ID scam isn't even useful as bait would likely end that financial support.
Why is the teach ID scam resurfacing at this time? When the bait and switch first went down on the West Virginia rubes in 2023 it had been 6 years since the ID perps had run the bait and switch on the Utah creationist rubes. The Utah rubes dropped the issue instead of bend over for the obfuscation and denial switch scam that doesn't mention that ID nor creationism ever existed. The ID perps were asleep at the switch again, and avoided another West Virginia incident only because the rubes did not pass the legislation for the recent case in North Dakota. The North Dakota rubes likely only got part of the story about the West Virginia fiasco and decided to try to teach ID themselves. I can't figure out how there can still be creationist rubes that still take the bait. They all have to be aware that the bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time, and it just went down twice in West Virginia within one year. After the West Virginia rubes took the bait, and bent over for the switch scam they had to have the bait and switch run on them again when they needed reminding that the obfuscation and denial switch scam cannot mention that ID ever existed. Any ties to the ID scam would tell any honest Federal judge that the switch scam is just a creationist ploy to interfere with science education in the public schools.
MarkE claims that this isn't a black and white situation, but the fact that the bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time indicates that it has been black and white for quite some time. The bait and switch started to go down back in March 2002, and has never stopped as West Virginia indicates.
Back in 2002 getting ID taught in the public schools was one of the main objectives of the Wedge strategy. It was their way to counter what they believed real science was doing to the religious beliefs of god fearing Christians. The original mission of the ID scam unit of the Discovery Institute was to recreate a theocracy that likely had never existed in this country. Getting ID taught in the public schools was supposed to be the Wedge that they needed to get their religious beliefs into public education. When it came time to put up or shut up the ID perps decided that their ID scam nonsense wasn't going to fool anyone, and instead of giving up and admitting defeat, they decided to start using ID as bait in order to force the rubes to bend over for their obfuscation and denial switch scam as their only alternative to try to push their Wedge strategy forward.
The bait and switch strategy has been mostly a dismal failure because most of the creationist rubes drop the issue instead of bend over for a stupid obfuscation ploy. They do not want to teach their kids enough science for them to know what they need to deny if they can't tell them why they need to lie to the students. Denial for denial purposes just doesn't appeal to Biblical creationist when they can't tell the kids the religious reasons for why they need to deny the science. Only a hand full of creationist rubes have bent over for the switch scam, and the first group of rubes (Ohio) dropped the issue after Dover told them that they were never going to be able to teach ID in their public schools. Louisiana and Texas haven't tried to implement their switch scam junk at the state level since both states had to have the bait and switch run on them again in 2013 when they both tried to use the switch scam stupidity to teach ID in their public schools. Louisiana even called what the wanted to teach both ID and creationism. The ID perps had to remind the creationist rubes that the switch scam does not mention that ID nor creationism ever existed. It is just obfuscation and denial for denial purposes. Nearly all the creationists rubes that took the bait in the the last 23 years have dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam. The ID perps used to keep a list of rubes that they had had to run the bait and switch on. I recall over 20 instances on that list by the time Dover hit the fan. They claimed that the creationist rubes on the list were still considering implementing the switch scam, but nearly all of them had dropped the issue except for Ohio at the time that Dover had hit the fan. I only recall Louisiana and Texas eventually bending over for the switch scam after Dover, and both states had to repeatedly have the bait and switch run on them.
Dover happened because the ID perp responsible for running the bait and switch did not follow up on his attempt to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes. The Dover rubes ignored his advice that they teach the switch scam instead of ID, and tried to teach ID anyway. The rest is history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaignsQUOTE:
The overarching goal of the Institute in conducting the intelligent design campaigns is religious; to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[12][non-primary source needed] To accomplish this the Institute has conducted a number of public relations campaigns. The governing strategy of these various campaigns is called the Wedge strategy and was first made public when the Institute's "Wedge Document" was leaked on the World Wide Web in 1999.[13] The Discovery Institute argues that science, due to its reliance on naturalism, is an inherently materialistic and atheistic enterprise and thus the source of many of society's ills, and that "Design theory [intelligent design] promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview."[12]
None of the campaigns are aimed at directly influencing the scientific community, which the Institute considers dogmatic and hidebound, but rather are focused on swaying the opinions of the public and public policy makers, which, if effective, it is hoped will respond by forcing the academic institutions supporting the scientific community to accept the Discovery Institute's redefinition of science. Public high school science curricula has been the most common and visible target of the campaigns, with the Institute publishing its own model lesson plan, the Critical Analysis of Evolution.[citation needed]
END QUOTE:
The Wedge document had teaching ID in 10 states as one of the 5 year goals. This wiki doesn't mention the bait and switch, but even the More lawyer (defending the Dover rubes) understood that the bait and switch had been going down since Ohio in 2002. That lawyer just thought that it was an acceptable strategy for creationists to take.
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...
Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?
MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.
MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.
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
MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.
KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.
Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.
Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:
The intelligent design wiki also has it wrong about the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan. It is true that teaching ID was part of the original "Teach the Controversy" proposed by the ID perps.
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htmThis ID perp teach ID scam propaganda was published in 1999 and clearly has ID as part of the Teach the Controversy Wedge ploy that they were selling at that time.
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. 160 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:
The ID perps have been claiming to be able to teach the science of ID since the ID scam unit started in 1995 at the Discovery Institute, but they have never put up a public school lesson plan demonstrating that they had anything worth teaching. When they started running the bait and switch on Ohio in 2002 they did not have an obfuscation and denial switch scam lesson plan to give to the rubes. Their only advice was that the rubes could not mention ID nor creationism in any of the denial because the switch scam had nothing to do with ID. The ID Network had to step forward and help the Ohio creationist rubes with developing a lesson plan. Leonard (a graduate student at the time with ID Network members on his committee) wrote up a draft of the lesson plan, but he screwed up, and had one of the Wellsian lies about no moths on tree trunks in the lesson plan, and he put creationist web links in it. The final draft had all creationist web links deleted, and all references to Discovery Institute ID perps removed even though Wells' book (Icons of evolution) had been used to develop the lesson plan. The final draft that was accepted no longer exists because it was never backed up on Wayback, but one of the initial drafts with the creationist web links still exists and a modified version can be found on Wayback with some of the changes included.
One of the initial drafts that still has the creationist web links:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050528125931/
http://www.ohioroundtable.org/resources/Analysis_Evolution.pdfA draft claimed to have some of the changes made by the Ohio State school board.
https://web.archive.org/web/20041018053234/https://www.texscience.org/files/critical-analysis-evolution.pdf So, the wiki is wrong about the Discovery Institute ever producing a model lesson plan for either their teach ID scam, nor their Teach the Controversy switch scam.
The ID perps at the Discovery Institute have done nothing with their ID "science" except use it as bait for the last 23 years. They have never demonstrated that they ever had anything worth teaching by producing a viable lesson plan for the public schools, nor have they produced a viable lesson plan for their switch scam obfuscation and denial stupidity.
There seems to be no increasing traction for supporting the creationist ID scam, just creationist rubes too stupid and dishonest to breath deciding to take the bait. My guess is that they have never produced a switch scam lesson plan because any rubes looking into the ID scam would know that they didn't want to teach the junk. The reason that they have never produced an ID scam lesson plan is due to the fact that there isn't any viable ID science worth teaching.
Ron Okimoto
Why is ID still viable bait?