https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html

The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise they
should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
honest as to what they were doing.

Ron Okimoto

On 3/29/2024 9:55 AM, RonO wrote:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>
>
> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they
> should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
> honest as to what they were doing.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

It should be noted that the ID perps were asleep at the switch again and
obviously did not want this bill to pass, but I think they no longer pay
someone to track these things and make sure that the bait and switch
goes down. They no longer list the position that was vacated after she
ran the last bait and switch on the Utah creationist rubes back in 2017.
This bill was consistent with their most recent education policy where
they had gone back to claiming that ID could be taught in the public
schools, but they just did not want ID to be "required" to be taught.
The not required to be taught paragraph had been removed from their
education policy back in 2013 for a few years after both Louisiana and
Texas claimed that they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID
perps ran the bait and switch on them anyway. I just checked the ID
perp's web site and they no longer have a current public school
education policy. They had an education policy up just a few weeks ago
when I checked it for a post. It has been removed, but they still have
their "Educator's breifing packet" that has their old pre 2013 education
policy in it and the whole packet claims that ID can be legally taught
in the public schools, and that the Kitzmiller decision was wrong.

https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

The Discovery Institute is trying to run the bait and switch on the
Virginia creationist rubes after the fact, and even though they had been
claiming that ID could be taught in the public schools, now they claim
that they do not support teaching intelligent design in the public
schools. They have removed their education policy supporting teaching
intelligent design in the public schools and Luskin is one of the
authors of the teach ID scam briefing packet with the pre 2013 education
policy on page 15. Luskin is now going against what the Discovery
Institute had in their education policies and the briefing packet that
they have updated around every 3 years since Dover. Their briefing
packet and education policies were only meant to put out ID as bait.
They have never had anything that they have wanted to teach about the
theory of intelligent design.

QUOTE:
The Seattle-based Center for Science and Culture, the leading
organization advocating for intelligent design acceptance and research,
is against public schools teaching the concept.

Instead, the organization pushes for public school policies “protecting
teacher academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and
weaknesses of evolution without getting into alternative theories like
intelligent design,” Center Associate Director Casey Luskin said.

He said supporters’ “priority with intelligent design is to see it grow
and develop as a science.”

“When it gets brought into public schools, that politicizes the issue,
and that politicization leads to witch hunts and discrimination against
pro-ID scientists and faculty in the academy,” he said.
END QUOTE:

The ID perps have only used ID as bait for the last 22 years. They have
never had anything that they have wanted to teach in the public schools
about intelligent design because they never produced any ID science
worth teaching. Their only way forward had been the obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the rubes don't like because they do not want to
teach the kids enough science for them to understand what they have to
deny. The dishonest creationist rubes would rather lie to the students
about there being some legitimate alternative.

Ron Okimoto

RonO wrote:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>
>
>
> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they
> should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
> honest as to what they were doing.
>
Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:

> RonO wrote:
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>
>>
>>
>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they
>> should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
>> honest as to what they were doing.
> >
> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
> why Intellignet Design is wrong,

The answer to the question is "mu".

(The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
that it is "right".)

Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
"corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
hmmm?

--
-v

vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
> wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
>
>> RonO wrote:
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
> intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
> e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they
>>> should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
>>> honest as to what they were doing.
>> >
>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
>> why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>
> The answer to the question is "mu".
>
> (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
> that it is "right".)
>
> Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
> a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
> "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
> hmmm?
>
My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
question that you love terrorist.
But what other reason for challenging my view?

Ron Dean wrote:

> vallor wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
> > wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
> >
> > > RonO wrote:
> > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
> > intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
> > e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
> > > > "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
> > > > recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
> > > > the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
> > > > scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
> > > > any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they
> > > > should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
> > > > honest as to what they were doing.
> >> >
> > > Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> > > designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
> > > why Intellignet Design is wrong,
> >
> > The answer to the question is "mu".
> >
> > (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
> > that it is "right".)
> >
> > Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
> > a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
> > "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
> > hmmm?
> >
> My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
> question that you love terrorist. But what other reason for challenging my
> view?
-------------------------------------

Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this thread.
If one examines recent christian history, I think it could properly be said
that christianity shares some distinct terroristic tendencies with other
contemporary religions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm
https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Dexter wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>
>> vallor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
>>>
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
>>> intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
>>> e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they
>>>>> should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
>>>>> honest as to what they were doing.
>>>> >
>>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
>>>> why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>
>>> The answer to the question is "mu".
>>>
>>> (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
>>> that it is "right".)
>>>
>>> Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
>>> a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
>>> "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
>>> hmmm?
>>>
>> My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
>> question that you love terrorist. But what other reason for challenging my
>> view?
> -------------------------------------
>
> Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this thread.
> If one examines recent christian history, I think it could properly be said
> that christianity shares some distinct terroristic tendencies with other
> contemporary religions.
>
In my view, there is absolutely _no_ justification for any terrorism
regardless of who's the perpetrator or whatever is the cause. I made
this clear: so, why do you bring this up?
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm
> https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
> https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
>

Ron Dean wrote:

> Dexter wrote:
> > Ron Dean wrote:
> >
> > > vallor wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
> > > >
> > > > > RonO wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
> > > > intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
> > > > e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
> > > > > > "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
> > > > > > recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be
> > > > > > since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools
> > > > > > isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to
> > > > > > what it is in any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators
> > > > > > believe otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and
> > > > > > they should have been more honest as to what they were doing.
> >>>> >
> > > > > Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> > > > > designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
> > > > > know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
> > > >
> > > > The answer to the question is "mu".
> > > >
> > > > (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
> > > > that it is "right".)
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
> > > > a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
> > > > "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
> > > > hmmm?
> > > >
> > > My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
> > > question that you love terrorist. But what other reason for challenging
> > > my view?
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this thread.
> > If one examines recent christian history, I think it could properly be said
> > that christianity shares some distinct terroristic tendencies with other
> > contemporary religions.
> >
> In my view, there is absolutely no justification for any terrorism regardless
> of who's the perpetrator or whatever is the cause. I made this clear: so, why
> do you bring this up?
> >
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
> >
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm
> >
https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
> > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
> >
https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
> >
-------------------------------------

You're the one who noted your bigotry was towards terror and terrorists.
Aren't the actions noted in these links those of terrorists who's motives are
based on their religious beliefs? It seems I may have found your blind spot.

Dexter wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>
>> Dexter wrote:
>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
>>>>> intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
>>>>> e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>>>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>>>>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be
>>>>>>> since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools
>>>>>>> isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to
>>>>>>> what it is in any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators
>>>>>>> believe otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and
>>>>>>> they should have been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>>>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>>>>>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer to the question is "mu".
>>>>>
>>>>> (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
>>>>> that it is "right".)
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
>>>>> a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
>>>>> "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
>>>>> hmmm?
>>>>>
>>>> My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
>>>> question that you love terrorist. But what other reason for challenging
>>>> my view?
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this thread.
>>> If one examines recent christian history, I think it could properly be said
>>> that christianity shares some distinct terroristic tendencies with other
>>> contemporary religions.
>>>
>> In my view, there is absolutely no justification for any terrorism regardless
>> of who's the perpetrator or whatever is the cause. I made this clear: so, why
>> do you bring this up?
>>>
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
>>>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm
>>>
> https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
>>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
>>>
> https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
>>>
> -------------------------------------
>
> You're the one who noted your bigotry was towards terror and terrorists.
> Aren't the actions noted in these links those of terrorists who's motives are
> based on their religious beliefs?
>
Whatever the cause. This certainly does _not_ exclude their religious
beliefs.

It seems I may have found your blind spot.
>

On 3/30/2024 11:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>
>>
>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been
>> more honest as to what they were doing.
> >
> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
> why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
The creationist ID scam has always conflated the common notion of theory
as equivalent to some type of guess, with what a scientific theory
actually is. The creationists do this because they need to lie to
themselves about what the theory of biological evolution is. Behe and
Denton have told the rubes for decades that biological evolution is more
than just a theory in the creationists sense of theory, and have told
them that biological evolution is just a fact of nature that any
intelligent design explanation would have to incorporate in order to
reflect reality.

Intelligent design has never been a scientific theory. The ID perps
have known this since they started the ID scam. Behe knew that ID wasn't
a scientific theory, and even claimed that ID was equivalent to the type
of theories around when intelligent design advocates were still burning
heretics at the stake. He claimed that ID was an equivalent theory to
astrology as practiced in the middle ages when astronomers of the time
were casting horoscopes to pay the bills.

What you should be wondering is what type of theories this act allows to
be discussed because there are no scientific alternatives worth
discussing at this time. The ID perps understand this. That is why, if
you read the article, that the ID perps do not want ID to be taught in
the public schools. They may use ID as bait, but that is all ID has
ever been for the ID scam. All the ID perps have ever given the rubes
to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell
the rubes, has nothing to do with ID. Really, read the article that I
linked to above. The ID perps have been running the bait and switch on
the creationist rubes for 22 years, and that is what they are doing now
in West Virginia. They really do not want ID to be taught in the public
schools. They know that it will only end up like Kitzmiller. The ID
perps were asleep at the switch. It looks like they never refilled the
staff position responsible for making sure that the bait and switch
always went down, and they were not able to stop this legislation from
passing, as they had done in years past in other states. So they have
to try to keep the rubes from teaching the junk and exposing the ID scam
for what it has always been, again. Dover was the last time that they
failed to run the bait and switch, and the creationist rubes tried to
teach ID anyway. They have failed again, and the only thing that they
can do is tell the rubes not to teach the junk.

When I wrote the 3/29 post in this thread the ID perps had removed their
education policy claiming to be able to teach ID in the public schools
from their web site, but now it is back up on the web site. For a few
years after they had to run the bait and switch on both Louisiana and
Texas the ID perps had removed the "required" paragraph from their
education policy because both Louisiana and Texas were claiming that
they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID perps did not want
ID to be taught, period. The ID perps had to go back to using ID as
bait and rewrote their education policy. The creationist rubes just do
not like the switch scam because they do not want to teach their kids
enough science for them to know what they have to deny.

https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/

The current education policy, likely, should be enough to deter the
rubes from trying to teach the junk in the public schools, but the ID
perps still claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools in
their educator's briefing packet. Instead the current education policy
runs the bait and switch, and puts ID out as bait, but wants the rubes
to teach the obfuscation and denial switch scam, instead of ID.

https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

Using ID as bait is all the ID perps have done for over two decades.
Not a single creationist rube legislator or school board has gotten any
ID science to teach from the ID perps, all they have ever gotten is the
obfuscation and denial switch scam. Read the article linked to in the
original post, and note that Luskin is one of the authors of the
briefing packet putting ID out as bait, but what is Luskin giving the
West Virginia creationist rubes instead?

Ron Okimoto

RonO wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 11:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
>>> been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>  >
>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
> The creationist ID scam has always conflated the common notion of theory
> as equivalent to some type of guess, with what a scientific theory
> actually is.  The creationists do this because they need to lie to
> themselves about what the theory of biological evolution is.  Behe and
> Denton have told the rubes for decades that biological evolution is more
> than just a theory in the creationists sense of theory, and have told
> them that biological evolution is just a fact of nature that any
> intelligent design explanation would have to incorporate in order to
> reflect reality.
>
> Intelligent design has never been a scientific theory.  The ID perps
> have known this since they started the ID scam. Behe knew that ID wasn't
> a scientific theory, and even claimed that ID was equivalent to the type
> of theories around when intelligent design advocates were still burning
> heretics at the stake.  He claimed that ID was an equivalent theory to
> astrology as practiced in the middle ages when astronomers of the time
> were casting horoscopes to pay the bills.
>
> What you should be wondering is what type of theories this act allows to
> be discussed because there are no scientific alternatives worth
> discussing at this time.  The ID perps understand this.  That is why, if
> you read the article, that the ID perps do not want ID to be taught in
> the public schools.  They may use ID as bait, but that is all ID has
> ever been for the ID scam.  All the ID perps have ever given the rubes
> to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell
> the rubes, has nothing to do with ID.  Really, read the article that I
> linked to above.  The ID perps have been running the bait and switch on
> the creationist rubes for 22 years, and that is what they are doing now
> in West Virginia.  They really do not want ID to be taught in the public
> schools.  They know that it will only end up like Kitzmiller.  The ID
> perps were asleep at the switch.  It looks like they never refilled the
> staff position responsible for making sure that the bait and switch
> always went down, and they were not able to stop this legislation from
> passing, as they had done in years past in other states.  So they have
> to try to keep the rubes from teaching the junk and exposing the ID scam
> for what it has always been, again.  Dover was the last time that they
> failed to run the bait and switch, and the creationist rubes tried to
> teach ID anyway.  They have failed again, and the only thing that they
> can do is tell the rubes not to teach the junk.
>
> When I wrote the 3/29 post in this thread the ID perps had removed their
> education policy claiming to be able to teach ID in the public schools
> from their web site, but now it is back up on the web site.  For a few
> years after they had to run the bait and switch on both Louisiana and
> Texas the ID perps had removed the "required" paragraph from their
> education policy because both Louisiana and Texas were claiming that
> they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID perps did not want
> ID to be taught, period.  The ID perps had to go back to using ID as
> bait and rewrote their education policy.  The creationist rubes just do
> not like the switch scam because they do not want to teach their kids
> enough science for them to know what they have to deny.
>
> https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/
>
> The current education policy, likely, should be enough to deter the
> rubes from trying to teach the junk in the public schools, but the ID
> perps still claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools in
> their educator's briefing packet.  Instead the current education policy
> runs the bait and switch, and puts ID out as bait, but wants the rubes
> to teach the obfuscation and denial switch scam, instead of ID.
>
> https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>
> Using ID as bait is all the ID perps have done for over two decades. Not
> a single creationist rube legislator or school board has gotten any ID
> science to teach from the ID perps, all they have ever gotten is the
> obfuscation and denial switch scam.  Read the article linked to in the
> original post, and note that Luskin is one of the authors of the
> briefing packet putting ID out as bait, but what is Luskin giving the
> West Virginia creationist rubes instead?
>
The problem I have with this scenario is the fact that Intelligent
design is identified with Genesis Creationism with no distinctions
drawn. This I think is dishonest and underhanded. There is a
difference.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>
>>
>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been
>> more honest as to what they were doing.
> >
> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
> why Intellignet Design is wrong,

The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities; second, that it
requires multiple designers, some of which work at cross-purposes and
some of which are inimical to humans; and third, that past explanations
of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
of failure.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 3/31/2024 12:06 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>
>>>
>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
>>> been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>  >
>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>
> The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
> students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
> in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities; second, that it
> requires multiple designers, some of which work at cross-purposes and
> some of which are inimical to humans; and third, that past explanations
> of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
> of failure.
>

The fact is that the Intelligent design hypothesis is not any type of
scientific theory that can be taught as some type of legitimate
alternative. That is what any honest and informed teacher would have to
convey to the students. The ID perps understand that what they have was
never a legitimate alternative or they would not have started to run the
bait and switch scam over 20 years ago, and wouldn't be trying to run it
on the West Virginia rubes after the fact if that wasn't the case.

Ron Okimoto

On 3/31/2024 10:55 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> On 3/30/2024 11:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be
>>>> since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools
>>>> isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what
>>>> it is in any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe
>>>> otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and they
>>>> should have been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>>  >
>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>> The creationist ID scam has always conflated the common notion of
>> theory as equivalent to some type of guess, with what a scientific
>> theory actually is.  The creationists do this because they need to lie
>> to themselves about what the theory of biological evolution is.  Behe
>> and Denton have told the rubes for decades that biological evolution
>> is more than just a theory in the creationists sense of theory, and
>> have told them that biological evolution is just a fact of nature that
>> any intelligent design explanation would have to incorporate in order
>> to reflect reality.
>>
>> Intelligent design has never been a scientific theory.  The ID perps
>> have known this since they started the ID scam. Behe knew that ID
>> wasn't a scientific theory, and even claimed that ID was equivalent to
>> the type of theories around when intelligent design advocates were
>> still burning heretics at the stake.  He claimed that ID was an
>> equivalent theory to astrology as practiced in the middle ages when
>> astronomers of the time were casting horoscopes to pay the bills.
>>
>> What you should be wondering is what type of theories this act allows
>> to be discussed because there are no scientific alternatives worth
>> discussing at this time.  The ID perps understand this.  That is why,
>> if you read the article, that the ID perps do not want ID to be taught
>> in the public schools.  They may use ID as bait, but that is all ID
>> has ever been for the ID scam.  All the ID perps have ever given the
>> rubes to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID
>> perps tell the rubes, has nothing to do with ID.  Really, read the
>> article that I linked to above.  The ID perps have been running the
>> bait and switch on the creationist rubes for 22 years, and that is
>> what they are doing now in West Virginia.  They really do not want ID
>> to be taught in the public schools.  They know that it will only end
>> up like Kitzmiller.  The ID perps were asleep at the switch.  It looks
>> like they never refilled the staff position responsible for making
>> sure that the bait and switch always went down, and they were not able
>> to stop this legislation from passing, as they had done in years past
>> in other states.  So they have to try to keep the rubes from teaching
>> the junk and exposing the ID scam for what it has always been, again.
>> Dover was the last time that they failed to run the bait and switch,
>> and the creationist rubes tried to teach ID anyway.  They have failed
>> again, and the only thing that they can do is tell the rubes not to
>> teach the junk.
>>
>> When I wrote the 3/29 post in this thread the ID perps had removed
>> their education policy claiming to be able to teach ID in the public
>> schools from their web site, but now it is back up on the web site.
>> For a few years after they had to run the bait and switch on both
>> Louisiana and Texas the ID perps had removed the "required" paragraph
>> from their education policy because both Louisiana and Texas were
>> claiming that they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID
>> perps did not want ID to be taught, period.  The ID perps had to go
>> back to using ID as bait and rewrote their education policy.  The
>> creationist rubes just do not like the switch scam because they do not
>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to know what they
>> have to deny.
>>
>> https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/
>>
>> The current education policy, likely, should be enough to deter the
>> rubes from trying to teach the junk in the public schools, but the ID
>> perps still claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools
>> in their educator's briefing packet.  Instead the current education
>> policy runs the bait and switch, and puts ID out as bait, but wants
>> the rubes to teach the obfuscation and denial switch scam, instead of ID.
>>
>> https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>>
>> Using ID as bait is all the ID perps have done for over two decades.
>> Not a single creationist rube legislator or school board has gotten
>> any ID science to teach from the ID perps, all they have ever gotten
>> is the obfuscation and denial switch scam.  Read the article linked to
>> in the original post, and note that Luskin is one of the authors of
>> the briefing packet putting ID out as bait, but what is Luskin giving
>> the West Virginia creationist rubes instead?
> >
> The problem I have with this scenario is the fact that Intelligent
> design is identified with Genesis Creationism with no distinctions
> drawn. This I think is dishonest and underhanded. There is a
> difference.

That should not be a problem at this time because all the ID perps that
I know of that pushed the ID scam onto other Biblical creationist rubes
have come clean and admitted that they are all Biblical creationists.
Do you know of an exception to this fact? Denton had claimed to be an
agnostic, but the ID perps put out an article a few years ago where they
made fun of Denton's claims and in the article Denton was supposed to
have a "sly twinkle" in his eye when he discussed the issue, and
admitted that me may just be a back sliding Christian. Denton was only
agnostic about other people's belief in some god. He has his own
deistic Biblcial beliefs.

There is only the claim that ID is different from what Biblical
creationists believe, but it is obviously something that Biblical
creationists do believe, because all the creationists involved in
creating the ID scam still are Biblical creationists, except for the
ones like Philip Johnson who have passed on who were Biblical
creationists when they were involved in pushing the creationist scam.

Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
creationists? To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes, there
isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical creationism to
worry about. If you do not understand that, you are not competent
enough to discuss the issue.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

Ron Dean wrote:

> Dexter wrote:
> > Ron Dean wrote:
> >
> > > Dexter wrote:
> > > > Ron Dean wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > vallor wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean
> > > > > > <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > RonO wrote:
> > > > > > > >
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
> > > > > > intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
> > > > > > e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some
> > > > > > > > alternative "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but
> > > > > > > > there is no recommendation on what an honest and acceptable
> > > > > > > > answer would be since the "theory" that they want to get into
> > > > > > > > the public schools isn't a scientific theory, and should
> > > > > > > > probably be labeled as to what it is in any discussion on the
> > > > > > > > topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they should have
> > > > > > > > made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
> > > > > > > > honest as to what they were doing.
> >>>>>> >
> > > > > > > Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> > > > > > > designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted
> > > > > > > to know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The answer to the question is "mu".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
> > > > > > that it is "right".)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
> > > > > > a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell
> > > > > > checker "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your
> > > > > > bigoted statement, hmmm?
> > > > > >
> > > > > My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
> > > > > question that you love terrorist. But what other reason for
> > > > > challenging my view?
> > > > -------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this
> > > > thread. If one examines recent christian history, I think it could
> > > > properly be said that christianity shares some distinct terroristic
> > > > tendencies with other contemporary religions.
> > > >
> > > In my view, there is absolutely no justification for any terrorism
> > > regardless of who's the perpetrator or whatever is the cause. I made this
> > > clear: so, why do you bring this up?
> > > >
> > > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
> > > >
> >
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm
> > > >
> >
https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
> > > > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
> > > >
> >
https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
> > > >
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > You're the one who noted your bigotry was towards terror and terrorists.
> > Aren't the actions noted in these links those of terrorists who's motives
> > are based on their religious beliefs?
> >
> Whatever the cause. This certainly does not exclude their religious beliefs.
>
> It seems I may have found your blind spot.
> >
-------------------------------------

The cause is specifically their religious belief. Of course you brushed
that aside.

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
>>> been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>  >
>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>
> The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
> students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
> in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities;
>
What entities does ID posit?

second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at
cross-purposes and
> some of which are inimical to humans;
>
Where did you multiple designer? You provided no examples regarding
cross-postoing and inimical to humans.

and third, that past explanations
> of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
> of failure.
>
Really the origin of life, itself could very well be the work of God.
The appearance of the complex unicellular animals of the Cambrian
explosion. And the abrupt appearance and of most species in the strata
could be explained as a act of God. And the origin of the universe
called the Big Bang everything from nothing. Only God could create
everything out or nothing. Of course, it comes down to anyone who denies
the existence of God, has no alternative, but to try finding natural
explanations for what is observed and known. But where did these natural
laws, mathematics, and natural processes come from - IOW what is the
origin of nature? For decades, I thought that agnosticism was the most
rational point of view to have, but I recently come much closer to think
there is evidence pointing to a strong possibility that there must be
some thing out there beyond our universe called God calling the shots.
But I don't pretend to know! But I think the evidence poijnting to God
is there, and no contrary evidence.
>

RonO wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 10:55 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2024 11:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some
>>>>> alternative "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but
>>>>> there is no recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer
>>>>> would be since the "theory" that they want to get into the public
>>>>> schools isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled
>>>>> as to what it is in any discussion on the topic.  If the
>>>>> legislators believe otherwise they should have made that clear in
>>>>> the act, and they should have been more honest as to what they were
>>>>> doing.
>>>>  >
>>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>>>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> The creationist ID scam has always conflated the common notion of
>>> theory as equivalent to some type of guess, with what a scientific
>>> theory actually is.  The creationists do this because they need to
>>> lie to themselves about what the theory of biological evolution is.
>>> Behe and Denton have told the rubes for decades that biological
>>> evolution is more than just a theory in the creationists sense of
>>> theory, and have told them that biological evolution is just a fact
>>> of nature that any intelligent design explanation would have to
>>> incorporate in order to reflect reality.
>>>
>>> Intelligent design has never been a scientific theory.  The ID perps
>>> have known this since they started the ID scam. Behe knew that ID
>>> wasn't a scientific theory, and even claimed that ID was equivalent
>>> to the type of theories around when intelligent design advocates were
>>> still burning heretics at the stake.  He claimed that ID was an
>>> equivalent theory to astrology as practiced in the middle ages when
>>> astronomers of the time were casting horoscopes to pay the bills.
>>>
>>> What you should be wondering is what type of theories this act allows
>>> to be discussed because there are no scientific alternatives worth
>>> discussing at this time.  The ID perps understand this.  That is why,
>>> if you read the article, that the ID perps do not want ID to be
>>> taught in the public schools.  They may use ID as bait, but that is
>>> all ID has ever been for the ID scam.  All the ID perps have ever
>>> given the rubes to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam
>>> that the ID perps tell the rubes, has nothing to do with ID.  Really,
>>> read the article that I linked to above.  The ID perps have been
>>> running the bait and switch on the creationist rubes for 22 years,
>>> and that is what they are doing now in West Virginia.  They really do
>>> not want ID to be taught in the public schools.  They know that it
>>> will only end up like Kitzmiller.  The ID perps were asleep at the
>>> switch.  It looks like they never refilled the staff position
>>> responsible for making sure that the bait and switch always went
>>> down, and they were not able to stop this legislation from passing,
>>> as they had done in years past in other states.  So they have to try
>>> to keep the rubes from teaching the junk and exposing the ID scam for
>>> what it has always been, again. Dover was the last time that they
>>> failed to run the bait and switch, and the creationist rubes tried to
>>> teach ID anyway.  They have failed again, and the only thing that
>>> they can do is tell the rubes not to teach the junk.
>>>
>>> When I wrote the 3/29 post in this thread the ID perps had removed
>>> their education policy claiming to be able to teach ID in the public
>>> schools from their web site, but now it is back up on the web site.
>>> For a few years after they had to run the bait and switch on both
>>> Louisiana and Texas the ID perps had removed the "required" paragraph
>>> from their education policy because both Louisiana and Texas were
>>> claiming that they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID
>>> perps did not want ID to be taught, period.  The ID perps had to go
>>> back to using ID as bait and rewrote their education policy.  The
>>> creationist rubes just do not like the switch scam because they do
>>> not want to teach their kids enough science for them to know what
>>> they have to deny.
>>>
>>> https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/
>>>
>>> The current education policy, likely, should be enough to deter the
>>> rubes from trying to teach the junk in the public schools, but the ID
>>> perps still claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools
>>> in their educator's briefing packet.  Instead the current education
>>> policy runs the bait and switch, and puts ID out as bait, but wants
>>> the rubes to teach the obfuscation and denial switch scam, instead of
>>> ID.
>>>
>>> https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>>>
>>> Using ID as bait is all the ID perps have done for over two decades.
>>> Not a single creationist rube legislator or school board has gotten
>>> any ID science to teach from the ID perps, all they have ever gotten
>>> is the obfuscation and denial switch scam.  Read the article linked
>>> to in the original post, and note that Luskin is one of the authors
>>> of the briefing packet putting ID out as bait, but what is Luskin
>>> giving the West Virginia creationist rubes instead?
>>  >
>> The problem I have with this scenario is the fact that Intelligent
>> design is identified with Genesis Creationism with no distinctions
>> drawn. This I think is dishonest and underhanded. There is a
>> difference.
>
> That should not be a problem at this time because all the ID perps that
> I know of that pushed the ID scam onto other Biblical creationist rubes
> have come clean and admitted that they are all Biblical creationists. Do
> you know of an exception to this fact?  Denton had claimed to be an
> agnostic, but the ID perps put out an article a few years ago where they
> made fun of Denton's claims and in the article Denton was supposed to
> have a "sly twinkle" in his eye when he discussed the issue, and
> admitted that me may just be a back sliding Christian.  Denton was only
> agnostic about other people's belief in some god.  He has his own
> deistic Biblcial beliefs.
>
> There is only the claim that ID is different from what Biblical
> creationists believe, but it is obviously something that Biblical
> creationists do believe, because all the creationists involved in
> creating the ID scam still are Biblical creationists, except for the
> ones like Philip Johnson who have passed on who were Biblical
> creationists when they were involved in pushing the creationist scam.
>
> Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
> creationists?  To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes, there
> isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical creationism to
> worry about.  If you do not understand that, you are not competent
> enough to discuss the issue.
>
This is so typical of the disinformation, misrepresentation and
deliberate lies regarding intelligent design which has been widely
published by antagonist from the beginning. This dishonesty, deceit ad
treachery was used at the Dover Trials even deceiving the judge. So
cock-sure are these antagonist that they go to the extent to create
false information which the attribute to advocates of intelligent
design. The are unrepentant liars and deliberate deceivers, with no
conscience and no sense of moral right and wrong. And you sir are a
gdamn master of it all!
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
>

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:43:57 -0400
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> RonO wrote:
> >>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story..html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
> >>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
> >>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
> >>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
> >>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
> >>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
> >>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
> >>> been more honest as to what they were doing.
> >>  >
> >> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
> >> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
> >> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
> >
> > The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
> > students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
> > in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities;
> >
> What entities does ID posit?
>
> second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at
> cross-purposes and
> > some of which are inimical to humans;
> >
> Where did you multiple designer? You provided no examples regarding
> cross-postoing and inimical to humans.
>
> and third, that past explanations
> > of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
> > of failure.
> >
> Really the origin of life, itself could very well be the work of God.
> The appearance of the complex unicellular animals of the Cambrian
> explosion. And the abrupt appearance and of most species in the strata
> could be explained as a act of God. And the origin of the universe
> called the Big Bang everything from nothing. Only God could create
> everything out or nothing. Of course, it comes down to anyone who denies
> the existence of God, has no alternative, but to try finding natural
> explanations for what is observed and known. But where did these natural
> laws, mathematics, and natural processes come from - IOW what is the
> origin of nature? For decades, I thought that agnosticism was the most
> rational point of view to have, but I recently come much closer to think
> there is evidence pointing to a strong possibility that there must be
> some thing out there beyond our universe called God calling the shots.
> But I don't pretend to know! But I think the evidence poijnting to God
> is there, and no contrary evidence.
> >
>

Evidence for evolution has been pointe out to you time and time again.
Yet you just keep reverting to some faith-based "intuition".

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 4/21/24 2:17 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> [...]
>> Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
>> creationists?  To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes, there
>> isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical creationism to
>> worry about.  If you do not understand that, you are not competent
>> enough to discuss the issue.
> >
> This is so typical of the disinformation, misrepresentation and
> deliberate lies regarding intelligent design which has been widely
> published by antagonist from the beginning. This dishonesty, deceit ad
> treachery was used at the Dover Trials even deceiving the judge. So
> cock-sure are these antagonist that they go to the extent to create
> false information which the attribute to advocates of intelligent
> design. The are unrepentant liars and deliberate  deceivers, with no
> conscience and no sense of moral right and wrong. And you sir are a
> gdamn master of it all!

The Dean doth protest too much, methinks.

When the intelligent design proponents in the Dover trial as much as
say, "Look here! We're creationists", what do you expect the judge to
conclude? And why would you conclude otherwise?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:43:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>>>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
>>>> been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>>  >
>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>
>> The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
>> students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
>> in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities;
> >
>What entities does ID posit?
>
>second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at
>cross-purposes and
>> some of which are inimical to humans;
> >
>Where did you multiple designer? You provided no examples regarding
>cross-postoing and inimical to humans.
>
> and third, that past explanations
>> of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
>> of failure.
> >
>Really the origin of life, itself could very well be the work of God.
>The appearance of the complex unicellular animals of the Cambrian
>explosion. And the abrupt appearance and of most species in the strata
>could be explained as a act of God. And the origin of the universe
>called the Big Bang everything from nothing. Only God could create
>everything out or nothing. Of course, it comes down to anyone who denies
>the existence of God, has no alternative, but to try finding natural
>explanations for what is observed and known.

It has been pointed out to you many times that accepting natural
causes is not incompatible with religious belief. I am a religious
believer and have no difficulty in accepting them. I have given you
numerous examples of scientists who are religious believers and not
alone have no problem accepting natural causes, they actually promote
them as explanations for how life including humans have evolved. It
seems from your lack of response that this is yet an area that you
prefer to ignore rather than disturb your comfort zone.

>But where did these natural
>laws, mathematics, and natural processes come from - IOW what is the
>origin of nature? For decades, I thought that agnosticism was the most
>rational point of view to have, but I recently come much closer to think
>there is evidence pointing to a strong possibility that there must be
>some thing out there beyond our universe called God calling the shots.
>But I don't pretend to know! But I think the evidence poijnting to God
>is there, and no contrary evidence.
>>