Sunday, May 4, 2014

Ron Okimoto on some of the legal history of the ID movement.

I think what Ron says here and have said many times before is very relevant.
Anyone intending to believe or defend the concept of Intelligent Design as the 
last word on the origins of species should be aware of the sad history of how
ID has been hyped up and sold to a gullible audience as "the future", a stopper
to the evil conspiracy of atheist science:

Snipped from the talk origins news group:

On 5/3/2014 11:27 AM, TomS wrote:
> Helping Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design
> Casy Luskin
> Evolution News and Views, May 3, 2014
> <>
> My observations:
> This *not* help for defending "Intelligent Design".
> This is help for *attacking* evolution.

Luskin knows that there is no defense of intelligent design.  If there
were he would be putting up the scientific evidence.  Instead he has to
try ti justify the bait and switch.  Every state that adopted the teach
the controversy scam had the bait and switch run on them.  How could
anyone including Luskin put up the examples of creationists that bent
over and took the switch scam from the guys that lied to them about
intelligent design as something that would support his position?  These
creationist rubes wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but
they found out that there wasn't any to teach from the guys that sold
them the scam and pay Luskin's salary.

Recently there was a poster that requested the link to the old colloquy
discussion on teaching intelligent design in response to the Ohio fiasco
back in 2001 and 2002.  The Ohio State board of education wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design in the Ohio public schools and
there were objections from educators and scientists.  Luskin
participated in that discussion and never let on that the ID perps at
the Discovery Institute were going to run the bait and switch.  DeWolf
(head of legal for the Discovery Institute at the time) participated and
didn't let on that the bait and switch was going to go down and Jay
Richards (director of programs at the Discovery Institute) participated.
  None of them let on that the bait and switch was going to go down.

The Ohio board invited the ID perps to present their case and had a
couple of real scientists represent the science side.  Wells and Meyer
represented the IDiots.  The president of the Discovery Institute
attended the fiasco along with half a dozen other Discovery Institute
IDiots.  It all came to nothing.  Instead of any ID science to teach all
the Discovery Institute gave the creationist rubes on the Ohio board was
the switch scam that did not mention that ID had ever existed.  This was
two years before the IDiots lost in court in Dover, so they knew that
they had nothing over ten years ago.  If you read the Colloquy
discussion you would see that Luskin believed that there was some ID
science that was going to be put forward, but he had the bait and switch
run on him like all the others or he was just blowing smoke.  What is he
doing now when he knows for a fact that every single IDiot rube that
wanted to teach the ID science in the public schools has had the bait
and switch run on them by the guys that pay Luskin's salary?

Reality is that bad for the Discovery Institute and any IDiot that still
thinks that there is any ID science worth discussing.  Just go to the
Discovery Institute and ask for the ID science.  You will find that
there is nothing that they are willing to put up and defend in public.
Whenever it has been time to put up or shut up they run.  Anyone that
claims otherwise just has to demonstrate that any IDiot ever got the ID
science to teach in the public schools.

There has never been a single example where the science of intelligent
design was provided to any school board or legislator that claimed to be
able to teach the junk.  Why can't Luskin put up any examples where the
ID science was put up to be taught in the public schools?  Why can he
only put up examples of the creationist rubes that bent over for the
switch scam?  So what about Intelligent Design is worth defending when
the guys that sold the scam won't put up the science when they need it?

Ron Okimoto


No comments:

Post a Comment