We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
this time when everyone has 20:20 hindsight into what happened. This is
just a history of what the ID scam has been. I've refrained from using
perps and rubes, so there isn't that excuse for remaining willfully
ignorant. It is all anyone should need to understand what has been
going on with the ID scam for over 20 years.

Investopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bait-switch.asp
QUOTE:
Bait and switch is a morally suspect sales tactic that lures customers
in with specific claims about the quality or low prices on items that
turn out to be unavailable in order to upsell them on a similar, pricier
item.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Bait and switch tactics are often considered to be a type of fraud, and
therefore is illegal. Bait and switch scams can fall under a number of
violations, from breach of contract to false advertising.
END QUOTE:

The Discovery Institute is not running the bait and switch scam on the
science side of the issue. They run the bait and switch on the Biblical
creationists that want to support the Discovery Institute's CRSC/CSC
religious-political mission.

It should be noted that the Discovery Institute fellows who have been
participating in the bait and switch, have claimed that the Wedge
Document was just a "fund raising" document as an excuse for their
religious political goals being in their Wedge Strategy. This point is
not being made to label the Discovery Institute as a criminal
organization, but to present the obvious conclusion that the Discovery
Institute has not only used their claims of being able to teach their
intelligent design science in the public schools to attract the
creationist support in order to sell them their obfuscation and denial
switch scam (an alternative that the Discovery Institute claims has
nothing to do with their intelligent design science) but they have also
used the teach ID political ploy to obtain funding.

The Wedge document may have been written in 1998, and exposed in 1999,
it repeats the original mission statement of the Discovery Institute's
Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (the ID scam unit) and also
claims teaching ID in the public schools as one of their 5 year Wedge goals.
The Wedge document:
https://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

One of their 5 year goals:
QUOTE:
Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science
curricula & include design theory
END QUOTE

It is just a fact that when the Discovery Institute had convinced states
to teach ID they began running the bait and switch instead of following
through with their stated Wedge strategy. The Discovery Institute had
secured enough notoriety so that they not only had to run the bait and
switch on Ohio in March 2002, but there were 3 or 4 other states within
the next month or two that had the bait and switch run on them. I
recall Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana also came forward and wanted to
teach intelligent design in their public schools. The Discovery
Institute would have been well on their way to meeting their 5 year
goals, but they started running the bait and switch instead.

In politics the bait and switch is morally suspect, but not illegal
because the perpetrator can always claim that they just changed their
minds, but in the case of the ID scam, after changing their minds, they
continued to sell intelligent design as the bait to this day. So after
Ohio in 2002 all the subsequent bait and switch incidences were enacted
after the Discovery Institute's CRSC fellows had changed their minds
about being able to teach ID in the public schools.

The Thomas More lawyer defending the Dover ID creationists was fully
aware that the bait and switch was being run by the Discovery Institute,
but he called it a "strategy". The bait and switch is a political
strategy, but is morally bankrupt, and dishonest.

http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704

QUOTE:
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 so called "compromise" is the current obfuscation and denial teach
the controversy switch scam. For political-legal reasons the Discovery
Institute tells their creationist supporters that this switch scam has
nothing to do with ID. They tell this lie even though teaching ID in
the public schools was part of the original teach the controversy plan.

The bait and switch had gone down dozens of times before the Dover
fiasco hit the fan, and not a single group of creationist ID supporters
were given any ID science to teach in their public schools. The bait
and switch has gone down in every single instance.

During the Dover fiasco after Barbara Forrest was deposed (Dembski was
present at the deposition) for Kitzmiller, the Discovery Institute
fellows knew that the name switch from creationism to intelligent design
was going to be exposed, and half of them quit as expert witnesses.
Forrest had evidence that "Of Pandas and People" had been transformed
from a creationist textbook to intelligent design after the Supreme
Court decision that creation science wasn't any type of science that
could be taught in the public schools. Thaxton was the editor, Kenyon
was one of the two main authors. Behe admitted to writing some of
Pandas' later edition, but was not credited. Meyer had written the
teachers notes for the textbook, and Dembski was then editing the next
edition of Pandas. The drafts of Dembski's book had also been
subpoenaed, but the subpoena was dropped when Dembski ran away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Everyone should read the NCSE archive of the Thomas More lawyer incident
because it has the Discovery Institute rep lying about the Discovery
Institute claiming to be able to teach ID in the public schools, and the
More lawyer had to demonstrate that, that was a lie by pulling the
booklet on teaching ID in the public schools out of his pocket and
quoting from it. This was the booklet that the Discovery Institute used
to give out with their ID Wedge video before they started running the
bait and switch in 2002. In 2005 this booklet was still available in
pdf form for free when the Dover fiasco was occurring.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58

This link will take you back to a Discovery Institute web page to
download their Teach the Controversy strategy. I accessed this web page
by looking at what Wayback had backed up of the Discovery Institute web
site in mid 2005. Teaching ID was part of their "Teach the Controversy"
Wedge strategy before they started running the bait and switch on
creationist ID supporters. You can "click here" and download a pdf of
the booklet that the Thomas More lawyer quoted from. The material was
still available on the Discovery Institute web site during the Dover fiasco.

The Dover creationists had followed their recommendations in obtaining
"Of Pandas and People" to teach the ID science.

From the Conclusions:
QUOTE:
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.
END QUOTE:

Original mission statement of the Discovery Institute CRSC (Center for
Renewal of Science and Culture):
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

QUOTE:
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning
cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center
explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science
raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the
case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original
research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the
opportunities for life after materialism.
END QUOTE:

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at

[screed]

Hallelujah, brother!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>
> [screed]
>
> Hallelujah, brother!
>
Amen! Can we go on now?

Why is the rape of science in the case of evolution bad, while
the rape of science in the case of our climate good?

"Consistency is the greatest sin of the Clown World," to
quote myself.

I.D. had it's day and it may yet rise again, but right now there
are *Vastly* larger threats to science and education going on,
and you can't even tell them apart from real science.

Again: Gwobull Warbling!

Prioritize.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

Synopsis: Ron O lives about two decades in the past.
He completely missed a 2007 book by Michael Behe in his interminable ramblings below.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 7:27:29 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:

> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning.

And that is that the use of the phrase "Intelligent Design creationist" to designate
Intelligent design [ID for short] is a scam that permeates all kinds of places
on the internet. Laurence A. Moran of "Sandwalk" is a prime practitioner
of this scam, as is RonO.

I've been reading the chapter "What Darwinism Can Do" in Behe's 2007 book,
_The Edge of Evolution_, and he very strongly argues there for the reality of common descent
and for the brilliance of Darwin's insights -- as far as they went.

Here is just one excerpt showing this:

"there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." --p. 72.

There's plenty of arguments right on that page and the two preceding it, for this claim.
No wonder everyone here except me is afraid to talk about this book -- for opposite reasons!

>The bait and switch strategy is a scam.

Another perennial scam by RonO is the allegation of a "bait and switch"
strategy while giving only evidence of what would be a switch if there
were any bait. He never was able to cite one example of bait since 2002.

>There is no reason to deny reality at
> this time when everyone has 20:20 hindsight into what happened.

Ron O is in massive denial about the significance of what happened,
despite access to 20-20 hindsight.

>This is
> just a history of what the ID scam has been. I've refrained from using
> perps and rubes, so there isn't that excuse for remaining willfully
> ignorant. It is all anyone should need to understand what has been
> going on with the ID scam for over 20 years.

<snip definitions of "bait and switch" which do more to show Ron O's
guilt than that of the DI:>

> The Discovery Institute is not running the bait and switch scam on the
> science side of the issue. They run the bait and switch on the Biblical
> creationists that want to support the Discovery Institute's CRSC/CSC
> religious-political mission.

It would be more true to claim that the Biblical creationists misuse
the Discovery Institute with cherry-picking. And even more true
in the case of Behe, where misusing him is as bad as misusing Stephen Jay Gould
with quote-mines.

>
> It should be noted that the Discovery Institute fellows who have been
> participating in the bait and switch, have claimed that the Wedge
> Document was just a "fund raising" document as an excuse for their
> religious political goals being in their Wedge Strategy.

These goals were jettisoned when it became obvious that the
Wedge Strategy was a pipe dream. Here, as in many other
aspects of what he writes in the massive posts, Ron O is
ca. 2 decades behind the times.

> This point is
> not being made to label the Discovery Institute as a criminal
> organization, but to present the obvious conclusion that the Discovery
> Institute has not only used their claims of being able to teach their
> intelligent design science in the public schools

No later than Phillip Johnson's "jaw dropping admission" that the
science for THIS wasn't there, it had become obvious that the bits and pieces
that are valid, like in _The Edge of Evolution_, could only be taught
on the advanced undergraduate level, or the graduate level.

You can read about what Johnson had said FAR, FAR below my virtual .sig
that follows, and thereby see what 20-20 hindsight is really all about.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Nothing Ron O wrote below has been deleted below

>to attract the
> creationist support in order to sell them their obfuscation and denial
> switch scam (an alternative that the Discovery Institute claims has
> nothing to do with their intelligent design science) but they have also
> used the teach ID political ploy to obtain funding.
>
> The Wedge document may have been written in 1998, and exposed in 1999,
> it repeats the original mission statement of the Discovery Institute's
> Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (the ID scam unit) and also
> claims teaching ID in the public schools as one of their 5 year Wedge goals.
> The Wedge document:
> https://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
>
> One of their 5 year goals:
> QUOTE:
> Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science
> curricula & include design theory
> END QUOTE
>
> It is just a fact that when the Discovery Institute had convinced states
> to teach ID they began running the bait and switch instead of following
> through with their stated Wedge strategy. The Discovery Institute had
> secured enough notoriety so that they not only had to run the bait and
> switch on Ohio in March 2002, but there were 3 or 4 other states within
> the next month or two that had the bait and switch run on them. I
> recall Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana also came forward and wanted to
> teach intelligent design in their public schools. The Discovery
> Institute would have been well on their way to meeting their 5 year
> goals, but they started running the bait and switch instead.
>
> In politics the bait and switch is morally suspect, but not illegal
> because the perpetrator can always claim that they just changed their
> minds, but in the case of the ID scam, after changing their minds, they
> continued to sell intelligent design as the bait to this day. So after
> Ohio in 2002 all the subsequent bait and switch incidences were enacted
> after the Discovery Institute's CRSC fellows had changed their minds
> about being able to teach ID in the public schools.
>
> The Thomas More lawyer defending the Dover ID creationists was fully
> aware that the bait and switch was being run by the Discovery Institute,
> but he called it a "strategy". The bait and switch is a political
> strategy, but is morally bankrupt, and dishonest.
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704
>
> QUOTE:
> 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 so called "compromise" is the current obfuscation and denial teach
> the controversy switch scam. For political-legal reasons the Discovery
> Institute tells their creationist supporters that this switch scam has
> nothing to do with ID. They tell this lie even though teaching ID in
> the public schools was part of the original teach the controversy plan.
>
> The bait and switch had gone down dozens of times before the Dover
> fiasco hit the fan, and not a single group of creationist ID supporters
> were given any ID science to teach in their public schools. The bait
> and switch has gone down in every single instance.
>
> During the Dover fiasco after Barbara Forrest was deposed (Dembski was
> present at the deposition) for Kitzmiller, the Discovery Institute
> fellows knew that the name switch from creationism to intelligent design
> was going to be exposed, and half of them quit as expert witnesses.
> Forrest had evidence that "Of Pandas and People" had been transformed
> from a creationist textbook to intelligent design after the Supreme
> Court decision that creation science wasn't any type of science that
> could be taught in the public schools. Thaxton was the editor, Kenyon
> was one of the two main authors. Behe admitted to writing some of
> Pandas' later edition, but was not credited. Meyer had written the
> teachers notes for the textbook, and Dembski was then editing the next
> edition of Pandas. The drafts of Dembski's book had also been
> subpoenaed, but the subpoena was dropped when Dembski ran away.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
>
> Everyone should read the NCSE archive of the Thomas More lawyer incident
> because it has the Discovery Institute rep lying about the Discovery
> Institute claiming to be able to teach ID in the public schools, and the
> More lawyer had to demonstrate that, that was a lie by pulling the
> booklet on teaching ID in the public schools out of his pocket and
> quoting from it. This was the booklet that the Discovery Institute used
> to give out with their ID Wedge video before they started running the
> bait and switch in 2002. In 2005 this booklet was still available in
> pdf form for free when the Dover fiasco was occurring.
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
>
> This link will take you back to a Discovery Institute web page to
> download their Teach the Controversy strategy. I accessed this web page
> by looking at what Wayback had backed up of the Discovery Institute web
> site in mid 2005. Teaching ID was part of their "Teach the Controversy"
> Wedge strategy before they started running the bait and switch on
> creationist ID supporters. You can "click here" and download a pdf of
> the booklet that the Thomas More lawyer quoted from. The material was
> still available on the Discovery Institute web site during the Dover fiasco.
>
> The Dover creationists had followed their recommendations in obtaining
> "Of Pandas and People" to teach the ID science.
>
> From the Conclusions:
> QUOTE:
> 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.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Original mission statement of the Discovery Institute CRSC (Center for
> Renewal of Science and Culture):
> http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
>
> QUOTE:
> THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
> of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
> influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
> achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
> enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
> END QUOTE:
>
> QUOTE:
> Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
> seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning
> cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
> sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center
> explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science
> raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the
> case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original
> research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the
> opportunities for life after materialism.
> END QUOTE:
>
> If you use the above link you should note the Discovery Institute's logo
> of God and Adam. There was no doubt that the mission was a
> religious-political mission. This is the mission that the fellows of
> the CRSC signed up to accomplish. This is likely the mission that they
> are currently trying to fulfill by continuing to use ID as bait.
>
> You should notice that developing real intelligent design science is not
> part of the CRSC fellow's mission. To accomplish this mission the
> fellows have been prevaricating about being able to do the same science
> as everyone else in order to demonstrate the existence of their
> intelligent designer when their mission was to actually undermine a
> basic component of real science. Science can only work for things that
> we can determine actually exist. This is not the philosophical
> materialism that the CRSC fellows want to combat, but they lump it in
> with what they do not like. Science is just the best means that we have
> figured out to understand nature, and it turned out that any ID science
> that they wanted to accomplish would have just demonstrated that nature
> wasn't the Biblical creation described in the Bible. This is the reason
> why the Top Six presented in the order in which they must have logically
> occurred in this universe killed ID on TO back in Nov. 2017. The
> Biblical creationists supporting the ID scam on TO could not deal with
> the reality that the Top Six represented. The designer that filled
> those gaps was not their Biblical designer, and most of them quit
> supporting the ID scam.
>
> Intelligent design was a part of the Wedge strategy to accomplish their
> religious-political mission.
>
> The Wedge document:
> https://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
>
> Phillip Johnson has claimed that getting ID taught in the public schools
> was part of the Wedge Strategy to achieve the religious-political goals
> of the Discovery Institute's CRSC Mission Statement.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
>
> QUOTE:
> Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the
> issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God,
> before the academic world and into the schools.
> END QUOTE:
>
> QUOTE:
> The wedge strategy details a simultaneous assault on state boards of
> education, state and federal legislatures and on the print and broadcast
> media.[33] The Discovery Institute has carried out the strategy through
> its role in the intelligent design movement, where it aggressively
> promoted ID and its Teach the Controversy campaign to the public,
> education officials and public policymakers.[34] Intelligent design
> proponents, through the Discovery Institute, have employed a number of
> specific political strategies and tactics in their furtherance of their
> goals. These range from attempts at the state level to undermine or
> remove altogether the presence of evolutionary theory from the public
> school classroom, to having the federal government mandate the teaching
> of intelligent design, to 'stacking' municipal, county and state school
> boards with ID proponents.[35]
> END QUOTE:
>
> TO participants that were posting in the 1990's should recall that
> intelligent design first came to our attention as something that the
> anti-evolution Biblical creationists wanted to teach in the public
> schools. Initially teaching intelligent design was a major part of the
> Teach the Controversy political ploy, but they dropped ID out of their
> Teach the Controversy material after they started running the bait and
> switch. The Teach the Controversy ploy became the switch scam, and
> wasn't supposed to mention that ID had ever existed. You can just go
> back up to the conclusions of their 1999 public school ID propaganda
> quoted above to note that ID was definitely part of the original Teach
> the Controversy strategy. The title of the booklet is "Teaching the
> Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science
> Curriculum". By continuing to use ID as bait, they are just continuing
> with their original mission.
>
> When the bait and switch started to go down Johnson retired from his ARN
> ID Blog one month later. He did not give up on teaching ID in the
> public schools, and he came back to support the Dover effort. Johnson
> sat in the Federal courtroom every day of testimony. After that Johnson
> quit supporting teaching ID in the public schools and admitted that the
> ID science had never existed. The Discovery Institute doubled down
> after Dover and put out their current teach ID propaganda even after
> Phillip Johnson's admission. The Discovery Institute intelligent design
> Wedge advocates could not give up on using ID as bait. The obfuscation
> and denial switch scam was their only way forward with their Wedge
> goals, and the creationist ID supporters were not interested in the
> obfuscation and denial switch scam. They needed to keep using
> Intelligent design as bait to dishonestly garner creationist support for
> their Wedge goals. All the Discovery Institute ID fellows accepted this
> as the way forward in trying to achieve their Wedge goals. None of the
> fellows at the Discovery Institute have ever protested the bait and
> switch strategy, nor resigned because of it. Probably most of the
> current fellows that have signed up after Kitzmiller, signed up knowing
> that bait is all they could expect ID to be used for. None of them have
> ever produced any legitimate ID science nor have they tried to create
> something positive from their "best evidence" for intelligent design.
>
> Phillip Johnson's admissions about intelligent design Spring 2006:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20070609171527/http:/sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf
>
> QUOTE:
> I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> at the present time to propose as a comparable alterna tive 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 edu cational 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 accom plish
> anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all."
> END QUOTE:
>
> Even after Johnson made these admissions the Discovery Institute
> continued to use ID as bait:
> https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>
> If you download their current edition of this teach ID propaganda (they
> have updated it around every 3 years since producing it after
> Kitzmiller) you will find their Science Education Policy that they put
> up on their web site after Kitzmiller. It claims that there is a
> legitimate scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools, but
> they do not want ID "required" to be taught. In 2013 both Louisiana and
> Texas wanted to use their "Teach the Controversy" switch scam to teach
> ID in their public schools, and both states claimed that they were not
> requiring teaching ID, but were only providing the teachers with the
> means to teach the material if they wanted to. The Discovery Institute
> ran the bait and switch on both states again, and reminded them that the
> switch scam had nothing to do with ID. The Discovery Institute removed
> this paragraph from the Science Education policy then up on their web
> page, but you can still find the intact education policy on page 15 of
> their current teach ID propaganda.
>
> 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:
>
> They simply deleted this paragraph from their education policy on their
> web site, left the rest intact, and continued to use ID as bait. Their
> bogus claim of not "requiring" ID to be taught had just been an excuse
> for using ID as the bait and never giving their creationist supporters
> any ID science to teach.
>
> There should be no doubt that the Discovery Institute intelligent design
> advocates have been perpetrating the bait and switch scam on creationist
> ID supporters for over 20 years (since March 2002).
>
> They last updated their teach ID propaganda in 2021, but subsequently
> reformatted the site and seem to have reverted to the 2018 edition.
>
> The Discovery Institute has a new Science Education Policy up where the
> "required" denial returns front and center, so that ID can be used as
> the bait, but the policy is heavily pushing the obfuscation and denial
> switch scam. They are literally running the bait and switch on the
> rubes with their current education policy. The rubes have obviously
> come in to get the ID science, but now they are told, obliquely, that
> they do not want to teach the ID science, but there is this nifty
> obfuscation and denial stupidity that they should teach instead. After
> the bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas when they were not
> "requiring" ID to be taught, everyone should know that this is just
> their continued efforts to use ID as bait. They have no intention of
> providing any ID science for anyone to teach in the public schools.
>
> https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/
>
> They have not retracted their claims about having the ID science to
> teach in the public schools, and one thing that you will notice is that
> both Louisiana and Texas have had to have the bait and switch run on
> them again after bending over for the switch scam (twice for Louisiana).
> This means that those two states only adopted the the switch scam as a
> means to keep trying to teach creationism in their public schools. No
> one likes the switch scam, and all the states mentioned have never
> really implemented it. Ohio was the only state to not only bend over
> for the switch scam, but actually try to implement it without trying to
> teach creationism, and they dropped the whole deal after Kitzmiller.
> None of the other states mentioned never seemed to have implemented
> their policy changes, at least, they have never put out how a teacher
> was supposed to implement the policies. No lesson plans, and no
> teaching materials have been provided to get the switch scam obfuscation
> and denial taught. The creationists really do not want to teach their
> kids enough science for them to understand what they have to deny.
>
> It should be noted that the ID Network quit the ID scam back in 2009.
> Their web site remained dormant until a message appeared that you could
> look for them as COPE. COPE was their effort to get the switch scam
> taught in the public schools without having ID in the name of their
> organization. COPE was a failure, and I do not recall any instances
> where the ID Network was able to sell anyone the switch scam through
> that organization. The ID Network is back using ID as bait, and they
> admit that COPE was their effort. The Biblical creationists were not
> interested in the switch scam, and did not want to teach their kids
> enough science for them to understand what they have to deny if they can
> not tell them why they have to deny the science.
>
> http://intelligentdesignnetwork.org/about/
>
> I can't recall when they founded COPE, but their history claims that it
> was in 2011. After the COPE efforts failed they fired up the ID Network
> again.
>
> It should be noted that in all the years that the Discovery Institute
> has advocated teaching intelligent design in the public schools they
> have never produced a public school lesson plan demonstrating that they
> had any ID science to teach, how the subject would be taught, what
> materials a teacher could use to teach the subject, and how the students
> would be evaluated on what they should have learned. Before they
> started running the bait and switch they recommended using "Of Pandas
> and People" to teach intelligent design, but they stopped doing that
> after Kitzmiller for obvious reasons.
>
> The Discovery Institute used to have someone whose job it was to make
> sure that the bait and switch went down on any creationist school boards
> or legislators that wanted to teach the ID science. That person was
> running the Bait and Switch on the Utah creationists back in Nov. 2017
> when the Discovery Institute was putting out their Top Six best
> evidences for ID. She left the Discovery Institute, and I don't know if
> they replaced her.
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/dear-utah-teach-about-the-scientific-controversy-over-evolution-not-about-intelligent-design/
>
> QUOTE:
> SARAH CHAFFEE
> Now a teacher, Sarah Chaffee served as Program Officer in Education and
> Public Policy at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
> END QUOTE:
>
> QUOTE:
> Let’s be clear: We think that Utah should not include intelligent design
> in their science standards. Our Science Education Policy states:
>
> As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to
> require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state
> boards of education….
>
> …. Instead of recommending teaching about intelligent design in public
> K-12 schools, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of
> evolution in curricula. It believes that evolution should be fully and
> completely presented to students, and they should learn more about
> evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words,
> evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to
> critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned..
> END QUOTE:
>
> The Texas and Lousiana examples demonstrates how the Discovery Institute
> is actually using their "requiring" recommendation.
>
> Anyone wonder why she isn't quoting from the their "Educator's Briefing
> Packet" where the Discovery Institute sold the Utah creationists on
> teaching ID in the first place?
>
> From the Briefing Packet, link given previously:
> 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:
>
> In the Kitzmiller Wiki the Discovery Institute person responsible for
> running the bait and switch at the time that the Dover fiasco hit the
> fan was named as Seth Cooper.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
>
> QUOTE:
> This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
> Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
> "communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
> and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
> educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
> he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
> intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
> into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
> sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
> the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
> take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Cooper's job had likely become routine. The bait and switch had gone
> down dozens of times by the time Dover hit the fan, and it was common
> knowledge that the Discovery Institute was running the bait and switch.
> No one had ever gotten any ID science to teach for 3 years. It was
> likely that it only took one phone call to make the creationists realize
> that they did not want to teach ID if the guys that sold them the scam
> were telling them not to do it, but Cooper screwed up and did not follow
> up and make sure that the Dover creationists had gotten that message. He
> had run into a group of creationists just as dishonest as the Discovery
> Institute ID fellows, but too ignorant to realize that the ID bait and
> switch scam had come from the Discovery Institute, and that they were
> disregarding the advice of the scam artists who had been selling ID as
> bait to the public.
>
> This reality is never going to change and all of you can look back on
> what the Discovery Institute has been doing since starting to run the
> bait and switch back in March 2002. By 2002 the ID perps were best
> known for wanting to teach their ID science in the public schools and
> the Wedge document, and Phillip Johnson claimed that getting ID taught
> was part of their Wedge strategy, but when it came time to put up or
> shut up they decided to start running the bait and switch. They could
> not stop using ID as the bait because most Biblical creationists can't
> stand the obfuscation and denial switch scam if they can't tell the
> students why they have to deny the science.
>
> Jonathan Wells participated in the first bait and switch on the Ohio
> State Board of Education, and part of his job was to write up a report
> on the incident. This is a WayBack archive of that report.
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20110814145400/http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>
>
> 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:
>
> Meyer was not only the director of the CRSC of the Discovery Institute,
> but was one of the chief cheerleaders for teaching ID in the public
> schools, and one of the authors of the booklet that the Thomas More
> lawyer would quote from during the Dover fiasco. Meyer was one of the
> chief salesmen for teaching ID in the public schools at this time. What
> Wells is telling the other ID fellows is that they made the decision to
> start running the bait and switch instead of teach ID in the public
> schools. In the report Wells names Minnich and DeWolf as also being
> among the ID fellows that made the decision, but News accounts claimed
> that the President of the Discovery Institute was in attendance with
> half a dozen Discovery Institute staff members. This was a major event
> for the Discovery Institute. They had finally gained enough public
> notoriety for the Biblical creationists to want to teach their ID
> science in the public schools. The Discovery Institute fellows decided
> to start running the bait and switch instead of teaching ID. There is
> no doubt that they understood that they were running the bait and switch
> scam.
>
> Meyer and DeWolf are authors of their teach ID booklet that they would
> give out with their Wedge video before the bait and switch started.
>
> This is the link from above. The booklet was still available on the
> Discovery Institute web site during the Dover fiasco. They had not
> stopped selling the teach ID ploy to the public, and they never
> retracted what was written in their Teach the Controversy recommendations..
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
>
> The Discovery Institute also ran the bait and switch on then Senator
> Santorum. Santorum had allowed Phillip Johnson to draft his addition to
> the "No child left behind" legislation, and it ended up in the appendix
> of the bill, and the Discovery Institute heralded it as support for
> teaching ID in the public schools. Santorum wrote an editorial before
> the bait and switch went down March 14, 2002.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
>
> 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:
> This opposition to intelligent design is surprising since there is an
> increasing body of theoretical and scientific evidence that suggests an
> alternate theory is possible. Research has shown that the odds that even
> one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a billion.
> Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call agent
> causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information systems
> such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that alternate
> theories regarding the origins of the human species - including that of
> a greater intelligence - are possible.
>
> Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that
> should be taught in science classes.
> 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.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Senator Santorum, obviously, did not know that the bait and switch was
> going to go down. He expected the Discovery Institute to follow through
> with the teach ID Wedge strategy, and the bait and switch obviously was
> run on Santorum as well as the Ohio State school board that day. The
> sad thing is that the Discovery Institute had to run the bait and switch
> on Santorum again when the Dover fiasco hit the fan in Santorum's home
> state. Santorum initially supported the Dover creationists in teaching
> ID, but when the Discovery Institute started running the bait and
> switch, Santorum flip-flopped on the issue during his reelection
> campaign. As sad as it was Santorum's Republican opponents in the
> primaries questioned Santorum's religious convictions when he stopped
> supporting teaching intelligent design in Dover. The other Republican
> candidates understood that teaching ID was a religious issue. Santorum
> lost his bid to be reelected, and when he ran for President he no longer
> supported intelligent design, but claimed to support Biblical creationism..
>
> This is the background history that TO participants need to understand
> as they try to recollect what happened with the ID scam on TO for over 2
> decades.
>
> The Discovery Institute ID perps have been perpetrating the bait and
> switch on their Biblical creationist support base for over 20 years.
> They are still using ID as bait, and have never produced any viable ID
> science nor done anything positive with their "best evidence" for ID.
> They have just kept presenting the bait knowing that, that is all that
> ID will ever be.
>
> The current Teach ID propaganda, originally authored by West and Luskin
> after Kitzmiller, is likely going to be updated again in 2024 (last
> updated in 2021), and Luskin is now associate director of the ID scam
> unit of the Discovery Institute, while West is Managing Director of the
> CSC, and Vice President of the Discovery Institute. Both authors wanted
> to keep using ID as bait after Kitzmiller. Using ID as bait was
> institutionalized by the Discovery Institute years before Kitzmiller. No
> ID science has ever been produced, and nothing positive was ever done
> with their "best evidence". All that they have done with ID is use it
> as bait for over 20 years. None of the CRSC/CSC fellows have protested
> the bait and switch strategy, and none of them have resigned because of
> it. More have joined in order to keep using ID as bait. Can anyone
> demonstrate that fellows like Bechly and Sternberg, who joined in the
> scam after Dover, have ever produced any legitimate ID science or done
> anything positive with the best evidence for ID that the Discovery
> Institute claims to have? All that ID has been for the Discovery
> Institute for over 20 years is bait to draw in the rubes. The
> obfuscation and denial switch scam is all that they are willing to give
> to the rubes at this time, and they tell the rubes that the switch scam
> has nothing to do with their ID science.
>
> Using ID as bait was not due to the act of some deranged flunky of the
> Discovery Institute. Meyer was the director of the ID scam unit of the
> Discovery Institute at the time he wrote the booklet that the Thomas
> More Lawyer quoted from, and when West continued to offer up ID as bait
> after Kitzmiller (2007 first edition) he was listed as associate
> director of the ID scam unit, and in the teach ID propaganda his
> credentials were Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs
> Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute.
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20081227132545/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
> By the time West authored the briefing packet for educators, using ID as
> bait had been institutionalized by the Discovery Institute. No group of
> creationists had ever gotten any ID science to teach from the Discovery
> Institute for half a decade by 2007.
>
> If anyone still wants to remain willfully ignorant of what the ID scam
> has been for the last 2 decades, all they should need to do is to try to
> imagine what things would be like if the Discovery Institute had not
> started running the bait and switch scam. The Ohio creationist rubes
> would have tried to teach the ID science, then Senator Santorum would
> have been cheering them on, and the ID scam would have been tested in
> the Federal courts years before Dover. Like the scientific
> creationists, even if the Ohio IDiots had decided not to appeal a
> Federal court loss there would have been other creationist groups in
> other states that would have taken the issue to the Supreme Court, and
> there is no evidence that the decision would have been any different
> than it had been for the scientific creationists. The Discovery
> Institute's Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments had been used by
> and had failed the scientific creationists in 1987. There is no reason
> to believe that the IDiots would have done any better with the court
> that existed at the turn of the century.
>
> Phillip Johnson's admissions after Kitzmiller should leave no doubt that
> any honest evaluation would have ended in the failure of the creationist
> ID political ploy. The other ID perps have understood that fact for
> over 20 years, so all they use ID for is bait. Kitzmiller would have
> never needed to have happened because the ID scam would have ended years
> before, and ID would not have been useful as bait any longer. Like the
> Institute for Creation Research the Discovery Institute's ID scam unit
> might still exist, but like the ICR, existing is about all they would be
> doing. The situation would obviously be worse for them than it is at
> this time, since they currently continue to use ID as bait.
>
> Ron Okimoto

On 1/3/2024 10:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>
> [screed]
>
> Hallelujah, brother!
>

Nyikosian snipping and running from reality is stupid. You can remain
willfully ignorant, but what good does it do you the next time that you
screw up because of your ignorance. Joining in with the others when you
didn't know what was going on isn't anything worth doing.

You might want to try to figure out what things would be like if ID had
not been a scam for over 20 years. What if they had never started
running the bait and switch, but had gone through with their original
Wedge strategy of teaching the junk in the public schools instead of
running the bait and switch. You have 20:20 hind sight, and you know
what the result of Kitzmiller was, so what do you think would be the
case, right now if the ID perps had not started running the bait and
switch scam over 20 years ago?

Ron Okimoto

On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning.  The bait
>>> and switch strategy is a scam.  There is no reason to deny reality at
>>
>> [screed]
>>
>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>
> Amen! Can we go on now?
>

You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and rubes
when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do that,
you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for over 20
years. All the evidence that you need is there in the material that was
snipped out. If you can't remember what happened you have links to
remind you.

Ron Okimoto

On 1/3/2024 2:23 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> Why is the rape of science in the case of evolution bad, while
> the rape of science in the case of our climate good?
>
> "Consistency is the greatest sin of the Clown World," to
> quote myself.
>
> I.D. had it's day and it may yet rise again, but right now there
> are *Vastly* larger threats to science and education going on,
> and you can't even tell them apart from real science.
>
> Again: Gwobull Warbling!
>
> Prioritize.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html
>

Just a matter of fact history of what went down. You might have read it
to find that out. The links to what happened still exist, so that you
can verify it all for yourself. It is about ignoring reality, and not
about how stupid and dishonest everyone knows ID is today. The bait and
switch will go down on the next group of rubes that want to believe the
scam artists. There isn't much doubt that any effort will fail even if
they ignore the scam artists and try to teach the junk anyway. We
already have Dover as an example of that.

Ron Okimoto

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:18:02 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

>I've been reading the chapter "What Darwinism Can Do" in Behe's 2007 book,
>_The Edge of Evolution_, and he very strongly argues there for the reality of common descent
>and for the brilliance of Darwin's insights -- as far as they went.
>
>Here is just one excerpt showing this:
>
>"there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." --p. 72.
>
>There's plenty of arguments right on that page and the two preceding it, for this claim.
>No wonder everyone here except me is afraid to talk about this book -- for opposite reasons!

The above quote is the closest I have read where Behe acknowledges
*universal* common descent, as opposed to common descent, which is
consistent with the revisionist "kinds" advocated by AIG et al. So
thank you for doing, however unintentionally, what Harshman refused to
do.

Perhaps someday you will explain where you and Behe think Darwin's
insights failed.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 1/4/2024 12:47 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:18:02 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>> I've been reading the chapter "What Darwinism Can Do" in Behe's 2007 book,
>> _The Edge of Evolution_, and he very strongly argues there for the reality of common descent
>> and for the brilliance of Darwin's insights -- as far as they went.
>>
>> Here is just one excerpt showing this:
>>
>> "there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." --p. 72.
>>
>> There's plenty of arguments right on that page and the two preceding it, for this claim.
>> No wonder everyone here except me is afraid to talk about this book -- for opposite reasons!
>
>
> The above quote is the closest I have read where Behe acknowledges
> *universal* common descent, as opposed to common descent, which is
> consistent with the revisionist "kinds" advocated by AIG et al. So
> thank you for doing, however unintentionally, what Harshman refused to
> do.
>
> Perhaps someday you will explain where you and Behe think Darwin's
> insights failed.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

Behe hasn't made that much of a deal about "universal" common descent.
He usually just admits that common descent biological evolution is a
fact of nature and he usually puts up apes to humans as his example. He
made the point at the turn of the century in his responses to his
critics. He claimed that his critics could not use the anti-evolution
card against him because he was not anti-evolution. All he claimed was
that his designer had to have something to do with the evolution of life
on earth.

Behe has gone back pretty far for examples. The flagellum evolved over
a billion years ago and the adaptive immune system and blood clotting
system evolved around the time of the Cambrian explosion, so Behe has
acknowleded that evolution had been happening for a very long time.

Ron Okimoto

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> >> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning.  The bait
> >>> and switch strategy is a scam.  There is no reason to deny reality at
> >>
> >> [screed]
> >>
> >> Hallelujah, brother!
> >>
> > Amen! Can we go on now?
> >
>
> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and rubes
> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do that,
> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for over 20
> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the material that was
> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened you have links to
> remind you.
>
Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 05:45:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/4/2024 12:47 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:18:02 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip for focus>
>>
>>> I've been reading the chapter "What Darwinism Can Do" in Behe's 2007 book,
>>> _The Edge of Evolution_, and he very strongly argues there for the reality of common descent
>>> and for the brilliance of Darwin's insights -- as far as they went.
>>>
>>> Here is just one excerpt showing this:
>>>
>>> "there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." --p. 72.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of arguments right on that page and the two preceding it, for this claim.
>>> No wonder everyone here except me is afraid to talk about this book -- for opposite reasons!
>>
>>
>> The above quote is the closest I have read where Behe acknowledges
>> *universal* common descent, as opposed to common descent, which is
>> consistent with the revisionist "kinds" advocated by AIG et al. So
>> thank you for doing, however unintentionally, what Harshman refused to
>> do.
>>
>> Perhaps someday you will explain where you and Behe think Darwin's
>> insights failed.
>>
>
>Behe hasn't made that much of a deal about "universal" common descent.
>He usually just admits that common descent biological evolution is a
>fact of nature and he usually puts up apes to humans as his example. He
>made the point at the turn of the century in his responses to his
>critics. He claimed that his critics could not use the anti-evolution
>card against him because he was not anti-evolution. All he claimed was
>that his designer had to have something to do with the evolution of life
>on earth.
>
>Behe has gone back pretty far for examples. The flagellum evolved over
>a billion years ago and the adaptive immune system and blood clotting
>system evolved around the time of the Cambrian explosion, so Behe has
>acknowleded that evolution had been happening for a very long time.

Evolution via supernatural agency is a very different explanation than
evolution via unguided natural processes. Common descent within kinds
is a very phenomenon than universal common descent. AIG accepts both
supernatural agency and kinds, but explicitly rejects evolution as
described by NCSE. Depending on his audience, Behe's sophistry is
consistent with AIG or with NCSE. OTGH his continued advocacy of ID
and Devolution unambiguously marks him as an evolution pseudoskeptic,
IMO and YMMV.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 2024-01-04 12:33:04 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning.  The bait
>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam.  There is no reason to deny reality at
>>>>
>>>> [screed]
>>>>
>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>>>
>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
>>>
>>
>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and
>> rubes> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do
>> that,> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for
>> over 20> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the
>> material that was> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened
>> you have links to> remind you.
>>
> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.

You're dreaming. He'll keep on about for at least another 20 years. He
still hasn't grasped that not wanting to read the same rants over and
over again is not the same as not wanting to figure out what has been
going on for over 20 years.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-01-04 12:33:04 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
> > RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> >>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
> >>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
> >>>>
> >>>> [screed]
> >>>>
> >>>> Hallelujah, brother!
> >>>>
> >>> Amen! Can we go on now?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and
> >> rubes> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do
> >> that,> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for
> >> over 20> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the
> >> material that was> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened
> >> you have links to> remind you.
> >>
> > Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
> You're dreaming. He'll keep on about for at least another 20 years. He
> still hasn't grasped that not wanting to read the same rants over and
> over again is not the same as not wanting to figure out what has been
> going on for over 20 years.

Maybe if we all voted to give him a lifetime achievement award for distinguished
service in the exposure of perps and rubes he would lose the chip on his shoulder.

I hereby announced the TOE awards.

The rules: anyone can nominate either a category or a post within a category,
or in the case of lifetime achievement awards an individual poster for that
category.

To kick things off, I nominate the category of lifetime achievement in the very
persistent proclamation of the existence of Purveyors Repeatedly and Egregiously
Promoting (PERPs) Scurrilous Content Attacking Materialism (SCAMs) targeted
towards Religious Unsophisticated BElivers. (RUBEs).

Please consider the history of posting to talk origins and see if you can think of
someone who has given their all to consistently and frequently remind any who
might listen, and even those who had heard it all before, of the nature of PERPS
promoting their SCAM to RUBEs.

Next, I might formulate a category for Science Fiction in support of Directed Panspermia

On 1/4/24 10:20 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-01-04 12:33:04 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>>>>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>>>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [screed]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and
>>>> rubes> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do
>>>> that,> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for
>>>> over 20> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the
>>>> material that was> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened
>>>> you have links to> remind you.
>>>>
>>> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
>> You're dreaming. He'll keep on about for at least another 20 years. He
>> still hasn't grasped that not wanting to read the same rants over and
>> over again is not the same as not wanting to figure out what has been
>> going on for over 20 years.
>
> Maybe if we all voted to give him a lifetime achievement award for distinguished
> service in the exposure of perps and rubes he would lose the chip on his shoulder.
>
> I hereby announced the TOE awards.
>
> The rules: anyone can nominate either a category or a post within a category,
> or in the case of lifetime achievement awards an individual poster for that
> category.
>
> To kick things off, I nominate the category of lifetime achievement in the very
> persistent proclamation of the existence of Purveyors Repeatedly and Egregiously
> Promoting (PERPs) Scurrilous Content Attacking Materialism (SCAMs) targeted
> towards Religious Unsophisticated BElivers. (RUBEs).
>
> Please consider the history of posting to talk origins and see if you can think of
> someone who has given their all to consistently and frequently remind any who
> might listen, and even those who had heard it all before, of the nature of PERPS
> promoting their SCAM to RUBEs.
>
> Next, I might formulate a category for Science Fiction in support of Directed Panspermia
>
The award for TOE is a great idea. What's Directed Panspermia? Doe it
have anything to do with Jeremy Epstein?

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:47:30 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On 1/4/24 10:20 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2024-01-04 12:33:04 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
> >>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> >>>>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
> >>>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [screed]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and
> >>>> rubes> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do
> >>>> that,> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for
> >>>> over 20> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the
> >>>> material that was> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened
> >>>> you have links to> remind you.
> >>>>
> >>> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
> >> You're dreaming. He'll keep on about for at least another 20 years. He
> >> still hasn't grasped that not wanting to read the same rants over and
> >> over again is not the same as not wanting to figure out what has been
> >> going on for over 20 years.
> >
> > Maybe if we all voted to give him a lifetime achievement award for distinguished
> > service in the exposure of perps and rubes he would lose the chip on his shoulder.
> >
> > I hereby announced the TOE awards.
> >
> > The rules: anyone can nominate either a category or a post within a category,
> > or in the case of lifetime achievement awards an individual poster for that
> > category.
> >
> > To kick things off, I nominate the category of lifetime achievement in the very
> > persistent proclamation of the existence of Purveyors Repeatedly and Egregiously
> > Promoting (PERPs) Scurrilous Content Attacking Materialism (SCAMs) targeted
> > towards Religious Unsophisticated BElivers. (RUBEs).
> >
> > Please consider the history of posting to talk origins and see if you can think of
> > someone who has given their all to consistently and frequently remind any who
> > might listen, and even those who had heard it all before, of the nature of PERPS
> > promoting their SCAM to RUBEs.
> >
> > Next, I might formulate a category for Science Fiction in support of Directed Panspermia
> >
> The award for TOE is a great idea. What's Directed Panspermia? Doe it
> have anything to do with Jeremy Epstein?

Who is Jeremy Esptein? Is he related to the guy that Hillary strangled and made it
look like a suicide?

RonO wrote:

> Just a matter of fact history of what went down. You might have read it
> to find that out.

Why would I need anyone to tell me what went down -- PAST! TENSE! --
when I know what went down, I lived through it. I've often referenced it.
And I did right here, same as you, in the past tense.

Right! Now! there is fake science going down. Present tense. So clearly
that must be the highest priority.

No, not what DID happen and might happen again in the future, but what
is going on Right! Now!

> It is about ignoring reality, and not
> about how stupid and dishonest everyone knows ID is today.

Ironically, I've pointed that out countless times over the years, applying
the lesson to Gwobull Warbling.

And I just did it in this thread. And you ignored it.

Actually, propaganda mostly works on associations. It invents
positive associations with compliance, negative associations
with a failure to comply.

I.D. really did hijack science, it hijacked education but that was a
long time ago. It may rise again or it may not. But Gwobull Warbling
has hijacked science & education today.

Did you learn ANYTHING from the struggle against I.D. or are you
just as big of a faker as I always said that you were?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/730359491090169856

On 1/4/24 10:59 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:47:30 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 1/4/24 10:20 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-04 12:33:04 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
>>>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>>>>>>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>>>>>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [screed]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and
>>>>>> rubes> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do
>>>>>> that,> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for
>>>>>> over 20> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the
>>>>>> material that was> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened
>>>>>> you have links to> remind you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
>>>> You're dreaming. He'll keep on about for at least another 20 years. He
>>>> still hasn't grasped that not wanting to read the same rants over and
>>>> over again is not the same as not wanting to figure out what has been
>>>> going on for over 20 years.
>>>
>>> Maybe if we all voted to give him a lifetime achievement award for distinguished
>>> service in the exposure of perps and rubes he would lose the chip on his shoulder.
>>>
>>> I hereby announced the TOE awards.
>>>
>>> The rules: anyone can nominate either a category or a post within a category,
>>> or in the case of lifetime achievement awards an individual poster for that
>>> category.
>>>
>>> To kick things off, I nominate the category of lifetime achievement in the very
>>> persistent proclamation of the existence of Purveyors Repeatedly and Egregiously
>>> Promoting (PERPs) Scurrilous Content Attacking Materialism (SCAMs) targeted
>>> towards Religious Unsophisticated BElivers. (RUBEs).
>>>
>>> Please consider the history of posting to talk origins and see if you can think of
>>> someone who has given their all to consistently and frequently remind any who
>>> might listen, and even those who had heard it all before, of the nature of PERPS
>>> promoting their SCAM to RUBEs.
>>>
>>> Next, I might formulate a category for Science Fiction in support of Directed Panspermia
>>>
>> The award for TOE is a great idea. What's Directed Panspermia? Doe it
>> have anything to do with Jeremy Epstein?
>
> Who is Jeremy Esptein? Is he related to the guy that Hillary strangled and made it
> look like a suicide?
>
Something like that.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:47:30?PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 1/4/24 10:20 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:32:29?PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> On 2024-01-04 12:33:04 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
>> >>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> >>>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>> >>>>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>> >>>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [screed]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and
>> >>>> rubes> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do
>> >>>> that,> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for
>> >>>> over 20> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the
>> >>>> material that was> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened
>> >>>> you have links to> remind you.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
>> >> You're dreaming. He'll keep on about for at least another 20 years. He
>> >> still hasn't grasped that not wanting to read the same rants over and
>> >> over again is not the same as not wanting to figure out what has been
>> >> going on for over 20 years.
>> >
>> > Maybe if we all voted to give him a lifetime achievement award for distinguished
>> > service in the exposure of perps and rubes he would lose the chip on his shoulder.
>> >
>> > I hereby announced the TOE awards.
>> >
>> > The rules: anyone can nominate either a category or a post within a category,
>> > or in the case of lifetime achievement awards an individual poster for that
>> > category.
>> >
>> > To kick things off, I nominate the category of lifetime achievement in the very
>> > persistent proclamation of the existence of Purveyors Repeatedly and Egregiously
>> > Promoting (PERPs) Scurrilous Content Attacking Materialism (SCAMs) targeted
>> > towards Religious Unsophisticated BElivers. (RUBEs).
>> >
>> > Please consider the history of posting to talk origins and see if you can think of
>> > someone who has given their all to consistently and frequently remind any who
>> > might listen, and even those who had heard it all before, of the nature of PERPS
>> > promoting their SCAM to RUBEs.
>> >
>> > Next, I might formulate a category for Science Fiction in support of Directed Panspermia
>> >
>> The award for TOE is a great idea. What's Directed Panspermia? Doe it
>> have anything to do with Jeremy Epstein?
>
>Who is Jeremy Esptein? Is he related to the guy that Hillary strangled and made it
>look like a suicide?
>
"...failed to make it look...".
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 1/4/2024 6:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning.  The bait
>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam.  There is no reason to deny reality at
>>>>
>>>> [screed]
>>>>
>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>>>
>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
>>>
>>
>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and rubes
>> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do that,
>> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for over 20
>> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the material that was
>> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened you have links to
>> remind you.
>>
> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
>

You guys are the ones that are going on about it as if there is some
issue with simply stating what reality has been for over 20 years. It
is really your issue. Think about it. Who made it an issue? It was
only to blame someone for their own incompetence. You may not have
known that, but what does that tell you about what you have been doing?
A lot of TO regulars missed out on what happened when the ID perps put
out their Top Six. That wasn't my fault because the IDiots didn't miss
what was going on. As far as I am concerned I didn't do anything to
warrant the sour grapes harassment for others being ignorant and
incompetent.

Ron Okimoto

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 7:47:30 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 6:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
> > RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> >>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
> >>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
> >>>>
> >>>> [screed]
> >>>>
> >>>> Hallelujah, brother!
> >>>>
> >>> Amen! Can we go on now?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and rubes
> >> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do that,
> >> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for over 20
> >> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the material that was
> >> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened you have links to
> >> remind you.
> >>
> > Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
> >
> You guys are the ones that are going on about it as if there is some
> issue with simply stating what reality has been for over 20 years. It
> is really your issue. Think about it. Who made it an issue?

Looks up to see who started this thread.

Raises hand. Ooooh Ooooh. Mr. Kotta, Mr. Kotta. I know.

On 1/4/2024 7:09 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 7:47:30 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 6:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>>>>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>>>>>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [screed]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Amen! Can we go on now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and rubes
>>>> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do that,
>>>> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for over 20
>>>> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the material that was
>>>> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened you have links to
>>>> remind you.
>>>>
>>> Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
>>>
>> You guys are the ones that are going on about it as if there is some
>> issue with simply stating what reality has been for over 20 years. It
>> is really your issue. Think about it. Who made it an issue?
>
> Looks up to see who started this thread.
>
> Raises hand. Ooooh Ooooh. Mr. Kotta, Mr. Kotta. I know.
>
>

You are one of the reasons why the post was needed. You guys made it an
issue. Face reality and take responsibility for your own stupidity.

Ron Okimoto

On 1/4/2024 8:37 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 05:45:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/2024 12:47 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:18:02 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>> <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip for focus>
>>>
>>>> I've been reading the chapter "What Darwinism Can Do" in Behe's 2007 book,
>>>> _The Edge of Evolution_, and he very strongly argues there for the reality of common descent
>>>> and for the brilliance of Darwin's insights -- as far as they went.
>>>>
>>>> Here is just one excerpt showing this:
>>>>
>>>> "there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." --p. 72.
>>>>
>>>> There's plenty of arguments right on that page and the two preceding it, for this claim.
>>>> No wonder everyone here except me is afraid to talk about this book -- for opposite reasons!
>>>
>>>
>>> The above quote is the closest I have read where Behe acknowledges
>>> *universal* common descent, as opposed to common descent, which is
>>> consistent with the revisionist "kinds" advocated by AIG et al. So
>>> thank you for doing, however unintentionally, what Harshman refused to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someday you will explain where you and Behe think Darwin's
>>> insights failed.
>>>
>>
>> Behe hasn't made that much of a deal about "universal" common descent.
>> He usually just admits that common descent biological evolution is a
>> fact of nature and he usually puts up apes to humans as his example. He
>> made the point at the turn of the century in his responses to his
>> critics. He claimed that his critics could not use the anti-evolution
>> card against him because he was not anti-evolution. All he claimed was
>> that his designer had to have something to do with the evolution of life
>> on earth.
>>
>> Behe has gone back pretty far for examples. The flagellum evolved over
>> a billion years ago and the adaptive immune system and blood clotting
>> system evolved around the time of the Cambrian explosion, so Behe has
>> acknowleded that evolution had been happening for a very long time.
>
>
> Evolution via supernatural agency is a very different explanation than
> evolution via unguided natural processes. Common descent within kinds
> is a very phenomenon than universal common descent. AIG accepts both
> supernatural agency and kinds, but explicitly rejects evolution as
> described by NCSE. Depending on his audience, Behe's sophistry is
> consistent with AIG or with NCSE. OTGH his continued advocacy of ID
> and Devolution unambiguously marks him as an evolution pseudoskeptic,
> IMO and YMMV.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

If you recall Ken Miller (the defender of real science) claims that the
designer could have manipulated things by jiggling atoms. Miller
believes in an interactive god, he just understands that creationism
isn't science. Behe's type of god-did-it evolution isn't scientific.
The whole point of participating in the ID scam for Behe was to further
the stated mission of the Discovery Institute CRSC. That mission
statement did not list creating ID science as a major objective. The
Wedge document had ID in as a means to accomplish their stated mission.
The only time Behe makes the distinction between evolution within kinds
and evolution between kinds is when he is obfuscating the issue in order
to obtain creationist support. He claims to have no issue with the
evolution of humans from apes, and his whale debacle had him claiming
that whale evolution was macro evolution, but it was due to a bad type
of evolution that "Darwinian" mechanisms could account for. He called
it devolution, but he claimed that whales had evolved from terrestrial
mammals, just in a bad way. It is a crazy and stupid argument, but
Glenn and Nyikos lapped it up, and only wanted to be lied to with the
negative claims about evolution by breaking things and devolution. Behe
likely relies on that type of dishonest acceptance of his junk.

The ID scam has been stupid and dishonest for over 20 years, and Behe
has supported the effort and never resigned nor openly objected to what
the other ID perps have been doing, but only supported the effort by
keeping ID out there as bait. Behe and Minnich had claimed that doing
ID science was possible in Kitzmiler, and even put up an example of
testing that might be done, but he and Minnich admitted that they had
never bothered to do the science. All ID is, is bait. Behe knows that
they can't use ID to further their mission (he as even claimed that he
does not support teaching the junk in the public schools) and that the
switch scam is the only way forward for the ID perps.

Ron Okimoto

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:49:48 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/3/2024 10:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning. The bait
>>> and switch strategy is a scam. There is no reason to deny reality at
>>
>> [screed]
>>
>> Hallelujah, brother!
>>
>
>Nyikosian snipping and running from reality is stupid. You can remain
>willfully ignorant, but what good does it do you the next time that you
>screw up because of your ignorance. Joining in with the others when you
>didn't know what was going on isn't anything worth doing.
>
>You might want to try to figure out what things would be like if ID had
>not been a scam for over 20 years. What if they had never started
>running the bait and switch, but had gone through with their original
>Wedge strategy of teaching the junk in the public schools instead of
>running the bait and switch. You have 20:20 hind sight, and you know
>what the result of Kitzmiller was, so what do you think would be the
>case, right now if the ID perps had not started running the bait and
>switch scam over 20 years ago?
>
>Ron Okimoto

I know I really shouldn't but ….

Does it never register with you that you are attacking people here
who:

1) Know and understand what you are posting about.

2) Totally agree with what you are saying.

3) Aren't complaining about the issues you identify, they are simply
tired of your feelings about them being regurgitated ad nauseum.

?

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:45:23 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

> On 1/4/2024 6:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 18:52:24 -0600
> > RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/3/2024 10:53 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On 1/3/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:23:49 -0600
> >>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We likely have to get one thing straight from the beginning.  The bait
> >>>>> and switch strategy is a scam.  There is no reason to deny reality at
> >>>>
> >>>> [screed]
> >>>>
> >>>> Hallelujah, brother!
> >>>>
> >>> Amen! Can we go on now?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You guys can all accept reality and stop whinning about perps and rubes
> >> when they are just a fact of life. If you aren't prepared to do that,
> >> you might want to try to figure out what has been going on for over 20

20 years worth of arguing about who said what and when isn't worth my
while wading through. I'm just too stupid to remember it all anyway.
It's all I can do to look at current arguments.

> >> years. All the evidence that you need is there in the material that was
> >> snipped out. If you can't remember what happened you have links to
> >> remind you.
> >>
> > Thank you. No need to keep on about it though.
> >
>
> You guys are the ones that are going on about it as if there is some
> issue with simply stating what reality has been for over 20 years. It
> is really your issue. Think about it. Who made it an issue? It was

You keep going on about it. I'd like to think that I can summarise on
behalf of the posters here that no-one here cares except you.

> only to blame someone for their own incompetence. You may not have
> known that, but what does that tell you about what you have been doing?
> A lot of TO regulars missed out on what happened when the ID perps put
> out their Top Six. That wasn't my fault because the IDiots didn't miss
> what was going on. As far as I am concerned I didn't do anything to
> warrant the sour grapes harassment for others being ignorant and
> incompetent.
>

No-one is currently blaming you, as far as I can see, for anything other
than dredging up this 20-year old stuff again and again.
>
Please move on, post something relevant to today. TIA.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.