Phillip Johnson wiki

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept and
refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to all of
these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I thought I'd leave
it a month and then fix it.

Post by RonO
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which a
major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent design
creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught in
the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy. It was
one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but 20/20
hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the science,
and did not understand that the ID perps never had any legitimate ID
science worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not understand
scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by Nancey Murphy,
an associate professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller Theological
Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as "dogmatic and
unconvincing", primarily because "he does not adequately understand
scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been convinced by the other ID
perps that the ID science existed, and could be taught in the public
schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then Senator
Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic
"amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was submitted
by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that legislation. Both
Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion of the "amendment"
supported teaching intelligent design in the public schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were invited
to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School board the ID
perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam where they would
just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an obfuscation and denial
swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the creationist rubes had
nothing to do with ID. It does not look like the ID perps bothered to
inform Santorum and Johnson of what they planned to do because both
Johnson and Santorum came out in support of teaching ID in the public
schools in Ohio before the bait and switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait and
switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson would
hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait and switch
scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for Santorum to have
written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait and switch was going
down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift for
the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach ID scam
as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any creationist rubes
that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch had
gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
controversy about the issue.(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.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary.
In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of
the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve
scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-minded examination of
the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every
instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported
the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public schools
in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip flop on the
issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as it may seem some
of his republican opponents in the primary questioned his religious
convictions due changing his mind about teaching intelligent design in
the Pennsylvania public schools. Santorum was not reelected, and when
he ran for president he no longer claimed to support intelligent
design, but instead claimed to support creationism. It would take some
willful ignorance of what the ID perps were doing by running the bait
and switch, but the ID perps still called the switch scam "Teach the
Controversy" and if you look at the old propaganda produced by the
Discovery Institute teaching ID was part of the controversy that they
wanted to teach. You can see ID included in the conclusion of the
teach ID booklet quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with
the video that they had produced as one of the goals listed in the
Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous thread
I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to
be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because
of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it. They
never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal court
failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller. After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange that
Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had likely
already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

RonO

2024-08-29 13:28:14 UTC

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again? What
were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and Johnson's
admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted what he had said.

In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including Ken
Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow back from
Johnson.

As I noted this is the booklet that the ID perps used to give out with
their Wedge video. The booklet was published in 1999 and the link that
I give above is what was available in 2005. If you click on the
download link you get a 2004 pdf copy of the booklet. It is no secret
that teaching ID in the public schools was one of the 5 year goals
listed in the Wedge document.

This booklet is also infamous for being used by the Thomas More lawyer
defending the Dover rubes when an ID perp tried to lie about the
Discovery Institute selling the teach ID scam to school boards. The
lawyer pulled the booklet out of his pocket and quoted from it. Meyer
the director of the ID scam unit was one of the authors of that booklet
along with DeWolf head of legal for the Discovery Institute, and a law
professor (DeForrest) from Gonzaga that claimed to have been a Discovery
Institute fellow on his web site.

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

Ron Okimoto

Post by RonO
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every
instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported
the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public
schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip
flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as it
may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary questioned
his religious convictions due changing his mind about teaching
intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools. Santorum was
not reelected, and when he ran for president he no longer claimed to
support intelligent design, but instead claimed to support
creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what the ID
perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID perps
still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if you look
at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute teaching ID
was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach. You can see ID
included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet quoted above that
the ID perps used to give out with the video that they had produced as
one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for them to proveâ€¦No
product is
ready for competition in the educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might
contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design
theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for
them to proveâ€¦No product is ready for competition in the educational
world.
For his part, Johnson agrees: â€œI think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schoolsâ€¦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
accomplish anythingâ€¦I donâ€™t think that means the end of the issue
at all.â€
â€œIn some respects,â€ he later goes on, â€œIâ€™m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. Itâ€™s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isnâ€™t to me where the action really is and ought to
be.â€
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because
of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it. They
never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal
court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange
that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had
likely already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science
Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

RonO

2024-08-29 21:21:32 UTC

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again? What
were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and Johnson's
admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including Ken
Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow back from
Johnson.

As I noted this is the booklet that the ID perps used to give out with
their Wedge video. The booklet was published in 1999 and the link that
I give above is what was available in 2005. If you click on the
download link you get a 2004 pdf copy of the booklet. It is no secret
that teaching ID in the public schools was one of the 5 year goals
listed in the Wedge document.
This booklet is also infamous for being used by the Thomas More lawyer
defending the Dover rubes when an ID perp tried to lie about the
Discovery Institute selling the teach ID scam to school boards. The
lawyer pulled the booklet out of his pocket and quoted from it. Meyer
the director of the ID scam unit was one of the authors of that booklet
along with DeWolf head of legal for the Discovery Institute, and a law
professor (DeForrest) from Gonzaga that claimed to have been a Discovery
Institute fellow on his web site.
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-
squabble-aei-foru-00704

The More lawyer describes the bait and switch that the Discovery
Institute ID perps had been running on the creationist rubes, but he
called it a "strategy" instead of the bait and switch scam that it has been.

QUOTE:
Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present
END QUOTE:

What the intelligent design wiki should note is the events surrounding
the defection of the ID perp expert witnesses that the More lawyer
claims occurred at a time when they could not be replaced. Things were
not going well for the ID perps in terms of their depositions, and they
began requesting that they have their own lawyers (Why would an expert
witness need a lawyer?). Dembski was wise cracking as usual, but he
panicked and withdrew from the case after sitting in on Forrest's
deposition. Half of the ID perps withdrew including Meyer after
Forrest's deposition. Forrest had laid out the name change in Of Pandas
and People from creationism to intelligent design that had occurred
after the Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism in the
public schools. At that time Meyer had been known to have written the
teachers notes for that book, and Behe would admit to having written
some of it, but he had not been credited. Dembski was editing the
update of Of Pandas and People. The drafts of Dembski's book had also
been subpoenaed, but the subpoena was dropped after Dembski's defection.
No one ever hears about that book, but it was eventually published.
Nothing associated with Dover will ever see use in the public schools.
As the More lawyer states Meyer had no reason to withdraw at that time
because they had agreed that he could have his own lawyer, but Meyer
decided that having his own lawyer wasn't going to do him any good.

It should be noted that in the teach ID scam propaganda cited above, and
the conclusions that the More lawyer quoted from that booklet, that
Meyer was one of the authors of that booklet, and that booklet had
recommended using Of Pandas and People to teach ID in the public
schools. The Dover creationist rubes had taken them up on it, and had
bought Of Pandas and People to use in their public schools. Wiki claims
that the Dover School board was contacted by a Discovery Institute rep
who's job it was to run the bait and switch, and that he had tried to
get the Dover rubes to bend over for the obfuscation and denial switch
scam, but he failed to follow up, and the Dover rubes disregarded his
advice and tried to teach ID anyway. The bait and switch had gone down
on all the creationist rubes that had bought into the ID perp's teach ID
Wedge strategy for 3 years, and it had likely become routine, and Cooper
did not bother to follow up. He did not realize that the Dover rubes
were so ignorant and incompetent that they did not know that the
Discovery Institute was responsible for selling them the teach ID Wedge
scam, so his advice was disregarded. Only a complete incompetent would
not back down after having the guys that sold you the scam tells you not
to do it, and in nearly every case the rubes have dropped the issue
instead of bend over for the ID perp's switch scam.

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:

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

Post by RonO
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are
frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding
biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy
of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine
scientific controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of
alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are
based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious
concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather
than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in
every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum
supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover
public schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to
flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as
it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary
questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about
teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.
Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no
longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed to
support creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what
the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID
perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if you
look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute
teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach.
You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet
quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the video that
they had produced as one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for them to proveâ€¦No
product is
ready for competition in the educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might
contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design
theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for
them to proveâ€¦No product is ready for competition in the educational
world.
For his part, Johnson agrees: â€œI think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schoolsâ€¦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
accomplish anythingâ€¦I donâ€™t think that means the end of the issue
at all.â€
â€œIn some respects,â€ he later goes on, â€œIâ€™m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. Itâ€™s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isnâ€™t to me where the action really is and ought to
be.â€
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism
because of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow
it. They never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous
Federal court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange
that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had
likely already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science
Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-08-30 07:43:32 UTC

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again? What
were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and Johnson's
admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow back
from Johnson.

As I noted this is the booklet that the ID perps used to give out with
their Wedge video. The booklet was published in 1999 and the link that
I give above is what was available in 2005. If you click on the
download link you get a 2004 pdf copy of the booklet. It is no secret
that teaching ID in the public schools was one of the 5 year goals
listed in the Wedge document.
This booklet is also infamous for being used by the Thomas More lawyer
defending the Dover rubes when an ID perp tried to lie about the
Discovery Institute selling the teach ID scam to school boards. The
lawyer pulled the booklet out of his pocket and quoted from it. Meyer
the director of the ID scam unit was one of the authors of that booklet
along with DeWolf head of legal for the Discovery Institute, and a law
professor (DeForrest) from Gonzaga that claimed to have been a
Discovery Institute fellow on his web site.
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-
squabble-aei-foru-00704

The More lawyer describes the bait and switch that the Discovery
Institute ID perps had been running on the creationist rubes, but he
called it a "strategy" instead of the bait and switch scam that it has been.
Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.
So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present
What the intelligent design wiki should note is the events surrounding
the defection of the ID perp expert witnesses that the More lawyer
claims occurred at a time when they could not be replaced. Things were
not going well for the ID perps in terms of their depositions, and they
began requesting that they have their own lawyers (Why would an expert
witness need a lawyer?). Dembski was wise cracking as usual, but he
panicked and withdrew from the case after sitting in on Forrest's
deposition. Half of the ID perps withdrew including Meyer after
Forrest's deposition. Forrest had laid out the name change in Of
Pandas and People from creationism to intelligent design that had
occurred after the Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism in
the public schools. At that time Meyer had been known to have written
the teachers notes for that book, and Behe would admit to having
written some of it, but he had not been credited. Dembski was editing
the update of Of Pandas and People. The drafts of Dembski's book had
also been subpoenaed, but the subpoena was dropped after Dembski's
defection. No one ever hears about that book, but it was eventually
published. Nothing associated with Dover will ever see use in the
public schools. As the More lawyer states Meyer had no reason to
withdraw at that time because they had agreed that he could have his
own lawyer, but Meyer decided that having his own lawyer wasn't going
to do him any good.
It should be noted that in the teach ID scam propaganda cited above,
and the conclusions that the More lawyer quoted from that booklet, that
Meyer was one of the authors of that booklet, and that booklet had
recommended using Of Pandas and People to teach ID in the public
schools. The Dover creationist rubes had taken them up on it, and had
bought Of Pandas and People to use in their public schools. Wiki
claims that the Dover School board was contacted by a Discovery
Institute rep who's job it was to run the bait and switch, and that he
had tried to get the Dover rubes to bend over for the obfuscation and
denial switch scam, but he failed to follow up, and the Dover rubes
disregarded his advice and tried to teach ID anyway. The bait and
switch had gone down on all the creationist rubes that had bought into
the ID perp's teach ID Wedge strategy for 3 years, and it had likely
become routine, and Cooper did not bother to follow up. He did not
realize that the Dover rubes were so ignorant and incompetent that they
did not know that the Discovery Institute was responsible for selling
them the teach ID Wedge scam, so his advice was disregarded. Only a
complete incompetent would not back down after having the guys that
sold you the scam tells you not to do it, and in nearly every case the
rubes have dropped the issue instead of bend over for the ID perp's
switch scam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
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.
Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

Post by RonO
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary.
In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of
the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve
scientific controversies--by a careful and fair- minded examination of
the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every
instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported
the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public schools
in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip flop on the
issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as it may seem some
of his republican opponents in the primary questioned his religious
convictions due changing his mind about teaching intelligent design in
the Pennsylvania public schools. Santorum was not reelected, and when
he ran for president he no longer claimed to support intelligent
design, but instead claimed to support creationism. It would take some
willful ignorance of what the ID perps were doing by running the bait
and switch, but the ID perps still called the switch scam "Teach the
Controversy" and if you look at the old propaganda produced by the
Discovery Institute teaching ID was part of the controversy that they
wanted to teach. You can see ID included in the conclusion of the
teach ID booklet quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with
the video that they had produced as one of the goals listed in the
Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous thread
I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for them to proveâ€¦No product is
ready for competition in the educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might
contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design
theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for
them to proveâ€¦No product is ready for competition in the educational
world.
For his part, Johnson agrees: â€œI think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schoolsâ€¦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
accomplish anythingâ€¦I donâ€™t think that means the end of the issue
at all.â€
â€œIn some respects,â€ he later goes on, â€œIâ€™m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. Itâ€™s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isnâ€™t to me where the action really is and ought to
be.â€
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because
of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it. They
never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal court
failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange that
Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had likely
already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

On checking my discussion with GuardianH (the editor in question) I see
that he did send a reply on 13th August that I had failed to see. In
it, he says "WP:NOR states that verifiability should be explicit,
rather than implicit. So its necessary to have a secondary source to
support this. GuardianH (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)". Is there a
good secondary source to confirm that Johnson really did say this, in a
serious newspaper, for example?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

RonO

2024-08-30 12:44:09 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to all
of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I thought I'd
leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow
back from Johnson.

As I noted this is the booklet that the ID perps used to give out
with their Wedge video. The booklet was published in 1999 and the
link that I give above is what was available in 2005. If you click
on the download link you get a 2004 pdf copy of the booklet. It is
no secret that teaching ID in the public schools was one of the 5
year goals listed in the Wedge document.
This booklet is also infamous for being used by the Thomas More
lawyer defending the Dover rubes when an ID perp tried to lie about
the Discovery Institute selling the teach ID scam to school boards.
The lawyer pulled the booklet out of his pocket and quoted from it.
Meyer the director of the ID scam unit was one of the authors of that
booklet along with DeWolf head of legal for the Discovery Institute,
and a law professor (DeForrest) from Gonzaga that claimed to have
been a Discovery Institute fellow on his web site.
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-
center- squabble-aei-foru-00704

The More lawyer describes the bait and switch that the Discovery
Institute ID perps had been running on the creationist rubes, but he
called it a "strategy" instead of the bait and switch scam that it has been.
Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.
So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present
What the intelligent design wiki should note is the events surrounding
the defection of the ID perp expert witnesses that the More lawyer
claims occurred at a time when they could not be replaced. Things
were not going well for the ID perps in terms of their depositions,
and they began requesting that they have their own lawyers (Why would
an expert witness need a lawyer?). Dembski was wise cracking as
usual, but he panicked and withdrew from the case after sitting in on
Forrest's deposition. Half of the ID perps withdrew including Meyer
after Forrest's deposition. Forrest had laid out the name change in
Of Pandas and People from creationism to intelligent design that had
occurred after the Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism
in the public schools. At that time Meyer had been known to have
written the teachers notes for that book, and Behe would admit to
having written some of it, but he had not been credited. Dembski was
editing the update of Of Pandas and People. The drafts of Dembski's
book had also been subpoenaed, but the subpoena was dropped after
Dembski's defection. No one ever hears about that book, but it was
eventually published. Nothing associated with Dover will ever see use
in the public schools. As the More lawyer states Meyer had no reason
to withdraw at that time because they had agreed that he could have
his own lawyer, but Meyer decided that having his own lawyer wasn't
going to do him any good.
It should be noted that in the teach ID scam propaganda cited above,
and the conclusions that the More lawyer quoted from that booklet,
that Meyer was one of the authors of that booklet, and that booklet
had recommended using Of Pandas and People to teach ID in the public
schools. The Dover creationist rubes had taken them up on it, and had
bought Of Pandas and People to use in their public schools. Wiki
claims that the Dover School board was contacted by a Discovery
Institute rep who's job it was to run the bait and switch, and that he
had tried to get the Dover rubes to bend over for the obfuscation and
denial switch scam, but he failed to follow up, and the Dover rubes
disregarded his advice and tried to teach ID anyway. The bait and
switch had gone down on all the creationist rubes that had bought into
the ID perp's teach ID Wedge strategy for 3 years, and it had likely
become routine, and Cooper did not bother to follow up. He did not
realize that the Dover rubes were so ignorant and incompetent that
they did not know that the Discovery Institute was responsible for
selling them the teach ID Wedge scam, so his advice was disregarded.
Only a complete incompetent would not back down after having the guys
that sold you the scam tells you not to do it, and in nearly every
case the rubes have dropped the issue instead of bend over for the ID
perp's switch scam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
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.
Ron Okimoto

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by RonO
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are
frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding
biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National
Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any
genuine scientific controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of
alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives
are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly
religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific
evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this
test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum
thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather
than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an
important demonstration of the best way for them as future
scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a
careful and fair- minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in
every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum
supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover
public schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had
to flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As
sad as it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary
questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about
teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.
Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no
longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed
to support creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of
what the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but
the ID perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy"
and if you look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery
Institute teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted
to teach. You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach
ID booklet quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the
video that they had produced as one of the goals listed in the
Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson
claimed that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public
schools. Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and
changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for them to proveâ€¦No
product is
ready for competition in the educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to
quote two parts of the interview.
I also donâ€™t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might
contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design
theory thatâ€™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 itâ€™s doable, but thatâ€™s for
them to proveâ€¦No product is ready for competition in the educational
world.
For his part, Johnson agrees: â€œI think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schoolsâ€¦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
accomplish anythingâ€¦I donâ€™t think that means the end of the
issue at all.â€
â€œIn some respects,â€ he later goes on, â€œIâ€™m almost relieved,
and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. Itâ€™s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isnâ€™t to me where the action really is and ought
to be.â€
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also
admitting that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical
creationism because of his claim that "the courts are just not
going to allow it. They never have." Only Biblical creationism
had, had previous Federal court failures and one failure in the
Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I
did not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was
strange that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but
Johnson had likely already given the interview published in the
Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

On checking my discussion with GuardianH (the editor in question) I see
that he did send a reply on 13th August that I had failed to see. In it,
he says "WP:NOR states that verifiability should be explicit, rather
than implicit. So its necessary to have a secondary source to support
this. GuardianH (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)". Is there a good
secondary source to confirm that Johnson really did say this, in a
serious newspaper, for example?

It is stupid to require that in this case. The link given provides the
entire article, and is a Berkeley Science Review link that was backed up
by Wayback. Does the editor think that Wayback made up the article and
the Berkeley Science Review address?

The original link worked for years, but around 2013 Berkeley science
review reformated their web site and access to the article was lost.
After reformatting access to multiple back issues was lost.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150703060254/http:/berkeleysciencereview.com/read/past-issues/

From the above Wayback link you can see that the Spring and Fall 2003,
Spring 2004, Spring 2005, Spring and Fall 2006, and Spring 2007 issues
were lost after the reformat of the web site. So it wasn't just a
Spring 2006 mess up.

The current site seems to be broken, and you can no longer access the
magazine or back issues.

https://www.berkeleysciencereview.com/

Google gives you this address when you search "Berkeley Science Review".
It is the same address used by Wayback to bring up past content of the
web site.

This is where I, probably, first got the quote.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/intelligent-des-43.html

Ken Miller used the quote in one of his presentations.

https://www.toxicology.org/groups/rc/nesot/docs/09Miller.pdf

I put up these links in the previous thread.

Ron Okimoto

Chris Thompson

2024-08-30 02:39:01 UTC

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again? What
were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and Johnson's
admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including Ken
Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow back from
Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a ream
of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted Moran's
work and put his own back up. They went around a few times but of course
Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's seniority at Wikipedia
meant everything.

If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

Chris

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-08-30 07:50:27 UTC

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again? What
were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and Johnson's
admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow back
from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a ream
of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted
Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few times but
of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's seniority
at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

In his User Page, GuardianH describes himself as follows:

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a passion
in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional interest
pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and edit
primarily on topics concerning constitutional law and legal
scholarship."

No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has been
a very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to Wikipedia.
I'm not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck his heels in.

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

RonO

2024-08-30 13:17:44 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to all
of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I thought I'd
leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow
back from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a ream
of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted
Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few times but
of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's seniority
at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a passion
in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional interest
pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and edit primarily
on topics concerning constitutional law and legal scholarship."
No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has been a
very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to Wikipedia. I'm
not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck his heels in.

Get the reviewer to understand that the quote has been used publicly,
and that Phillip Johnson never retracted his statements, nor supported
teaching ID in the public schools after publication of the article.
Even though the ID perps at the Discovery Institute continued to claim
that ID could be taught in the public schools, Phillip Johnson never
came out in support of that effort after Dover. There is absolutely no
doubt that Johnson was the lead cheerleader for getting intelligent
design taught in the public schools before Dover, but he sat in the
courtroom every day of testimony and changed his mind.

After Dover the ID perps put out their Educator's Briefing Packet
telling the educators that the Dover decision was wrong, and that ID
could still be taught in the public schools, but Phillip Johnson never
supported that effort. The ID perps last updated the teach ID scam
propaganda in 2021, but subsequently reformated the web site and seem to
have reverted to their 2018 edition of the propaganda. They have had it
up on their web site since 2007.

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

Ron Okimoto

RonO

2024-08-30 15:34:48 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to all
of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I thought I'd
leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow
back from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a ream
of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted
Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few times but
of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's seniority
at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

In the transcript of Judgement day intelligent design on trial Johnson
admits something similar in that he admits that change isn't going to
happen in his lifetime, and the "force of the counter-attack" is a
reference to the real science and supporting biological evolution. This
force just made him admit that nothing that they had was comparable.
Johnson sat through every day of testimony to come to his conclusion.
There was no comparison between the scientific theory of biological
evolution, and the untestable hypothesis that was intelligent design.

QUOTE:
PHILLIP JOHNSON: I had thought, at one point, that we would make a
breakthrough on this issue and change the scientific community in my
lifetime. Now I'm somewhat sobered by the force of the counter-attack
that we have received. And I see that it's going to be a longer process
than that.
END QUOTE:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial/

I usually use two quotes from the Berkeley Science Review article

QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”

“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:

Johnson never retracted these statements, and I do not recall him
supporting the teach ID scam after Dover. What your editor needs to do
is find some retraction or later statement where Johnson changed his mind.

Johnson did make the claim that the judge should not have ruled about
whether ID was science or not (though he admitted that ID was not
comparable to the science backing biological evolution) but that was a
stupid claim since both sides requested that the Judge rule on the
matter. The creationists wanted the ruling because the Supreme court
had already stated that any valid science supporting creationism could
be taught in the public schools, but what was then available was not
considered to be valid science. Intelligent design was just warmed over
creationist stupidity. The Top Six best evidences for ID were all
god-of-the-gaps denial used by the scientific creationists, and the
Supreme Court had stated that just because there was no current
scientific explanation for something, that was not evidence for creationism.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

2024-08-31 13:06:11 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to all
of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I thought
I'd leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow
back from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a
ream of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted
Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few times
but of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's
seniority at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a passion
in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional interest
pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and edit
primarily on topics concerning constitutional law and legal scholarship."
No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has been
a very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to Wikipedia.
I'm not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck his heels in.

In the transcript of Judgement day intelligent design on trial Johnson
admits something similar in that he admits that change isn't going to
happen in his lifetime, and the "force of the counter-attack" is a
reference to the real science and supporting biological evolution. This
force just made him admit that nothing that they had was comparable.
Johnson sat through every day of testimony to come to his conclusion.
There was no comparison between the scientific theory of biological
evolution, and the untestable hypothesis that was intelligent design.
PHILLIP JOHNSON: I had thought, at one point, that we would make a
breakthrough on this issue and change the scientific community in my
lifetime. Now I'm somewhat sobered by the force of the counter-attack
that we have received. And I see that it's going to be a longer process
than that.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-
trial/
I usually use two quotes from the Berkeley Science Review article
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Johnson never retracted these statements, and I do not recall him
supporting the teach ID scam after Dover. What your editor needs to do
is find some retraction or later statement where Johnson changed his mind.
Johnson did make the claim that the judge should not have ruled about
whether ID was science or not (though he admitted that ID was not
comparable to the science backing biological evolution) but that was a
stupid claim since both sides requested that the Judge rule on the
matter. The creationists wanted the ruling because the Supreme court
had already stated that any valid science supporting creationism could
be taught in the public schools, but what was then available was not
considered to be valid science. Intelligent design was just warmed over
creationist stupidity. The Top Six best evidences for ID were all god-
of-the-gaps denial used by the scientific creationists, and the Supreme
Court had stated that just because there was no current scientific
explanation for something, that was not evidence for creationism.
Ron Okimoto

Maybe you could word the entry something like this:

Kitxmiller v. Dover Area School District changed Johnson's mind about
the viability of the Wedge strategy of teaching intelligent design in
the public schools within his lifetime. Johnson attended every day of
courtroom testimony. In the PBS video Judgement Day: Intellgent Design
on Trial Johnson states "I had thought, at one point, that we would make
a breakthrough on this issue and change the scientific community in my
lifetime. Now I'm somewhat sobered by the force of the counter-attack
that we have received. And I see that it's going to be a longer process
than that." [Transcript link above for reference]. In another interview
post Kitzmiller Johnson elaborated admitting that no comparable
intelligent design science existed that could be taught, and that this
likely was not going to change within his lifetime.

QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”

“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:

[Wayback link as referece]

RonO

2024-08-31 13:26:42 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to
all of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I
thought I'd leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote
including Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall
any blow back from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a
ream of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor
deleted Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few
times but of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the
buffoon's seniority at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's
probably useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a
passion in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional
interest pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and
edit primarily on topics concerning constitutional law and legal
scholarship."
No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has
been a very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to
Wikipedia. I'm not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck
his heels in.

In the transcript of Judgement day intelligent design on trial Johnson
admits something similar in that he admits that change isn't going to
happen in his lifetime, and the "force of the counter-attack" is a
reference to the real science and supporting biological evolution.
This force just made him admit that nothing that they had was
comparable. Johnson sat through every day of testimony to come to his
conclusion. There was no comparison between the scientific theory of
biological evolution, and the untestable hypothesis that was
intelligent design.
PHILLIP JOHNSON: I had thought, at one point, that we would make a
breakthrough on this issue and change the scientific community in my
lifetime. Now I'm somewhat sobered by the force of the counter-attack
that we have received. And I see that it's going to be a longer
process than that.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/judgment-day-intelligent-design-
on- trial/
I usually use two quotes from the Berkeley Science Review article
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Johnson never retracted these statements, and I do not recall him
supporting the teach ID scam after Dover. What your editor needs to
do is find some retraction or later statement where Johnson changed
his mind.
Johnson did make the claim that the judge should not have ruled about
whether ID was science or not (though he admitted that ID was not
comparable to the science backing biological evolution) but that was a
stupid claim since both sides requested that the Judge rule on the
matter. The creationists wanted the ruling because the Supreme court
had already stated that any valid science supporting creationism could
be taught in the public schools, but what was then available was not
considered to be valid science. Intelligent design was just warmed
over creationist stupidity. The Top Six best evidences for ID were
all god- of-the-gaps denial used by the scientific creationists, and
the Supreme Court had stated that just because there was no current
scientific explanation for something, that was not evidence for creationism.
Ron Okimoto

Kitxmiller v. Dover Area School District changed Johnson's mind about
the viability of the Wedge strategy of teaching intelligent design in
the public schools within his lifetime. Johnson attended every day of
courtroom testimony. In the PBS video Judgement Day: Intellgent Design
on Trial Johnson states "I had thought, at one point, that we would make
a breakthrough on this issue and change the scientific community in my
lifetime. Now I'm somewhat sobered by the force of the counter-attack
that we have received. And I see that it's going to be a longer process
than that." [Transcript link above for reference]. In another interview
post Kitzmiller Johnson elaborated admitting that no comparable
intelligent design science existed that could be taught, and that this
likely was not going to change within his lifetime.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
[Wayback link as referece]

The NOVA video is no longer available for streaming from the NOVA site,
but there is a YouTube video that could likely be used as a reference.
Johnson comes in at the very end as with his realization that they had
more to do than he had thought and the creationist efforts would not
prevail within his lifetime.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-09-03 09:18:42 UTC

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again? What
were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and Johnson's
admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow back
from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a ream
of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted
Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few times but
of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's seniority
at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a passion
in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional interest
pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and edit
primarily on topics concerning constitutional law and legal
scholarship."
No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has been
a very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to Wikipedia.
I'm not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck his heels in.

I have found one suitable secondary source that refers to Johnson's retreat:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-intelligent-design-fails

However, it would e nice to have two. It surely must have been
mentioned in reputable newpapers: New York Times, Washington Post,
Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, etc., but I haven't found
anything. Any suggestions? Maybe something in Nature or Science?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

RonO

2024-09-03 13:51:23 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to all
of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I thought
I'd leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote including
Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall any blow
back from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a
ream of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor deleted
Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few times
but of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the buffoon's
seniority at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's probably
useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a passion
in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional interest
pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and edit
primarily on topics concerning constitutional law and legal scholarship."
No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has been
a very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to Wikipedia.
I'm not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck his heels in.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-intelligent-
design-fails
However, it would e nice to have two. It surely must have been mentioned
in reputable newpapers: New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago
Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, etc., but I haven't found anything.
Any suggestions? Maybe something in Nature or Science?

The National Geo ref uses the link that no longer works. The Wayback
link that works is the archived copy of the article. You shouldn't even
need a secondary citation. The link that the Nat Geo article uses is
also broken just like the link used by the Panda's Thumb article.

As I indicated the quote was used on Panda's Thumb and by Kenneth Miller.

This is where I, probably, first got the quote.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/intelligent-des-43.html

At that time the Berkeley Science Review linked worked, but access was
lost when they reformated their web site around 2013, and I had to find
the Wayback copy because Nyikos kept lying about what Johnson had
admitted. In a rare instance Nyikos eventually accepted reality, and
acknowledged that Johnson had really given up and had made those claims
but it took around 3 years after his initial denials. Nyikos' last uses
of the Johnson quote were as if he had agreed with Johnson from the
beginning. Nyikos' initial denial was due to the fact that he was then
lying about Johnson ever wanting to teach the ID scam junk in the public
schools, and he was in denial that Johnson had ever given up on doing it.

Ken Miller used the quote in one of his presentations.

https://www.toxicology.org/groups/rc/nesot/docs/09Miller.pdf

I put up these links in the previous thread.

A pdf copy of the article is still accessible through Wayback. There
should be no verification needed for the existence of the original
journal article. The Journal used to be available in hard copy, and
those should exist somewhere. The wayback comes from their copy of the
Berkeley Science Review web site. Wayback doesn't copy everything, but
it did copy that pdf. It is a Berkeley Science Review link that was
copied and archived.

It looks like the Berkeley Science Review lost electronic copies of many
of their back issues, but they likely have hard copy magazines unless
they also lost those (I recall that they claimed to be physically moving
when the web links went broken).

Ron Okimoto

RonO

2024-09-03 14:27:43 UTC

No. I had a back-and-forth discussion with the editor in question,
mainly consisting of me suggesting a wording that he would accept
and refrain from editing it back to what it was. He objected to
all of these, except the last, which he hasn't replied to. I
thought I'd leave it a month and then fix it.

If you do not get this guys buy in, can he just remove it again?
What were his reasons for removing a perfectly valid quote, and
Johnson's admission about the ID scam when Johnson never retracted
what he had said.
In the previous thread I note other people using the quote
including Ken Miller in a public presentation, and I do not recall
any blow back from Johnson.

It's instructive to look at Laurence Moran's attempts to correct
Wikipedia on the subject of junk DNA. A long-term editor/contributor
(who is not a biologist/chemist/biochemist) to Wikipedia put up a
ream of garbage on the topic and Larry rewrote it. The editor
deleted Moran's work and put his own back up. They went around a few
times but of course Larry's expertise meant nothing and the
buffoon's seniority at Wikipedia meant everything.
If the person who changed the Johnson page is someone with an ax to
grind and has been at Wikipedia for any length of time, it's
probably useless to try to present anything (s)he doesn't like.

"I'm an American high school student from Massachusetts with a
passion in history, philosophy, and law along with an additional
interest pertaining to sociology and higher education. I write and
edit primarily on topics concerning constitutional law and legal
scholarship."
No obvious expertise in Intelligent Design, therefore, but he has
been a very active editor, with more than 40000 contributions to
Wikipedia. I'm not sure he has an axe to grind, but he's just stuck
his heels in.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-intelligent-
design-fails
However, it would e nice to have two. It surely must have been
mentioned in reputable newpapers: New York Times, Washington Post,
Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, etc., but I haven't found
anything. Any suggestions? Maybe something in Nature or Science?

The National Geo ref uses the link that no longer works. The Wayback
link that works is the archived copy of the article. You shouldn't even
need a secondary citation. The link that the Nat Geo article uses is
also broken just like the link used by the Panda's Thumb article.
As I indicated the quote was used on Panda's Thumb and by Kenneth Miller.
This is where I, probably, first got the quote.
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/intelligent-des-43.html
At that time the Berkeley Science Review linked worked, but access was
lost when they reformated their web site around 2013, and I had to find
the Wayback copy because Nyikos kept lying about what Johnson had
admitted. In a rare instance Nyikos eventually accepted reality, and
acknowledged that Johnson had really given up and had made those claims
but it took around 3 years after his initial denials. Nyikos' last uses
of the Johnson quote were as if he had agreed with Johnson from the
beginning. Nyikos' initial denial was due to the fact that he was then
lying about Johnson ever wanting to teach the ID scam junk in the public
schools, and he was in denial that Johnson had ever given up on doing it.
Ken Miller used the quote in one of his presentations.
https://www.toxicology.org/groups/rc/nesot/docs/09Miller.pdf
I put up these links in the previous thread.
A pdf copy of the article is still accessible through Wayback. There
should be no verification needed for the existence of the original
journal article. The Journal used to be available in hard copy, and
those should exist somewhere. The wayback comes from their copy of the
Berkeley Science Review web site. Wayback doesn't copy everything, but
it did copy that pdf. It is a Berkeley Science Review link that was
copied and archived.
It looks like the Berkeley Science Review lost electronic copies of many
of their back issues, but they likely have hard copy magazines unless
they also lost those (I recall that they claimed to be physically moving
when the web links went broken).
Ron Okimoto

I went back to the WayBack link and that "capture" of the Berkeley
Science review is actually a copy of the Science Review's archive of all
issues that had been published up to issue 12 (Spring 2007). Using that
WayBack link you can access the full Spring 2006 issue of which the
Johnson article is only one pdf. You can click on the pull down menu
for any issue listed (1 - 12) and get the entire magazine. When the
initial link went broken many of the issues that can be accessed from
this wayback link were no longer available on the Berkeley Science
review web site. It wasn't just issue 10. Something happened when they
reformated their site, and they seem to have lost archive copies of
multiple past issues. At the present time you can't access any past
issues on the current Berkeley Science Review web site, but it looks
like they could recover back issues 1 - 12 using this wayback link.

It looks like WayBack downloaded the whole site including previously
published material. The journal was always open access, but is this
some type of copyright issue? WayBack now has the only access to the
open access past material.

Ron Okimoto

2024-08-31 20:36:22 UTC

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson
capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki. There seems to be no valid
reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had emailed the
editor that made the edit to see what was going on. I guess nothing has
come of the request.
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which a
major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent design
creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught in
the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy. It was
one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but 20/20
hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the science, and
did not understand that the ID perps never had any legitimate ID science
worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not understand
scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by Nancey Murphy,
an associate professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller Theological
Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as "dogmatic and
unconvincing", primarily because "he does not adequately understand
scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been convinced by the other ID
perps that the ID science existed, and could be taught in the public
schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then Senator
Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic "amendment"
to the no child left behind legislation that was submitted by Santorum
and ended up in the appendix of that legislation. Both Santorum and
Johnson claimed that the inclusion of the "amendment" supported teaching
intelligent design in the public schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were invited
to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School board the ID
perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam where they would
just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an obfuscation and denial
swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the creationist rubes had
nothing to do with ID. It does not look like the ID perps bothered to
inform Santorum and Johnson of what they planned to do because both
Johnson and Santorum came out in support of teaching ID in the public
schools in Ohio before the bait and switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait and
switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson would
hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait and switch
scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for Santorum to have
written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait and switch was going
down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift for
the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach ID scam
as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any creationist rubes
that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch had
gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue.(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.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies--by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every
instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported
the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public schools
in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip flop on the
issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as it may seem some of
his republican opponents in the primary questioned his religious
convictions due changing his mind about teaching intelligent design in
the Pennsylvania public schools. Santorum was not reelected, and when
he ran for president he no longer claimed to support intelligent design,
but instead claimed to support creationism. It would take some willful
ignorance of what the ID perps were doing by running the bait and
switch, but the ID perps still called the switch scam "Teach the
Controversy" and if you look at the old propaganda produced by the
Discovery Institute teaching ID was part of the controversy that they
wanted to teach. You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach
ID booklet quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the
video that they had produced as one of the goals listed in the Wedge
document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools. Johnson
sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous thread
I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because
of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it. They
never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal court
failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after Kitzmiller.
After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary celebration of the
publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did not know of Johnson's
defection, and I thought that it was strange that Johnson did not
participate in the celebration, but Johnson had likely already given the
interview published in the Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.

This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.

There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

Kestrel Clayton

2024-08-31 21:17:52 UTC

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson
capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki. There seems to be no valid
reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had emailed
the editor that made the edit to see what was going on. I guess
nothing has come of the request.
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which a
major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent design
creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught in
the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy. It
was one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but 20/20
hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the science,
and did not understand that the ID perps never had any legitimate ID
science worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not understand
scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by Nancey
Murphy, an associate professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller
Theological Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as "dogmatic
and unconvincing", primarily because "he does not adequately
understand scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been convinced by the
other ID perps that the ID science existed, and could be taught in the
public schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then Senator
Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic
"amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was submitted
by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that legislation. Both
Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion of the "amendment"
supported teaching intelligent design in the public schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were invited
to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School board the ID
perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam where they would
just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an obfuscation and denial
swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the creationist rubes had
nothing to do with ID. It does not look like the ID perps bothered to
inform Santorum and Johnson of what they planned to do because both
Johnson and Santorum came out in support of teaching ID in the public
schools in Ohio before the bait and switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait and
switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson would
hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait and
switch scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for Santorum
to have written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait and switch
was going down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift for
the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach ID scam
as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any creationist rubes
that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch had
gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/
scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every
instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported
the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public
schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip
flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as it
may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary questioned
his religious convictions due changing his mind about teaching
intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools. Santorum was
not reelected, and when he ran for president he no longer claimed to
support intelligent design, but instead claimed to support
creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what the ID
perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID perps
still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if you look
at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute teaching ID
was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach. You can see ID
included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet quoted above that
the ID perps used to give out with the video that they had produced as
one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because
of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it. They
never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal
court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange
that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had
likely already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science
Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

That's an interesting claim. Is it your position that all educational
standards are "totalitarian"? Would the United States be in better hands
if it didn't try to give kids a basic grounding in reading, writing,
mathematics, science, art, and history?

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Kestrel Clayton
I used to have a Kipling quote here,
but I'm not so fond of him any more.

2024-08-31 21:34:26 UTC

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson
capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki. There seems to be no valid
reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had emailed
the editor that made the edit to see what was going on. I guess
nothing has come of the request.
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which a
major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent design
creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught in
the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy. It
was one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but 20/20
hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the science,
and did not understand that the ID perps never had any legitimate ID
science worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not
understand scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by
Nancey Murphy, an associate professor of Christian philosophy at
Fuller Theological Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as
"dogmatic and unconvincing", primarily because "he does not
adequately understand scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been
convinced by the other ID perps that the ID science existed, and
could be taught in the public schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then
Senator Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic
"amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was
submitted by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that
legislation. Both Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion of
the "amendment" supported teaching intelligent design in the public
schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were
invited to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School
board the ID perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam
where they would just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an
obfuscation and denial swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the
creationist rubes had nothing to do with ID. It does not look like
the ID perps bothered to inform Santorum and Johnson of what they
planned to do because both Johnson and Santorum came out in support
of teaching ID in the public schools in Ohio before the bait and
switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait and
switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson would
hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait and
switch scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for Santorum
to have written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait and switch
was going down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift for
the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach ID
scam as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any creationist
rubes that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch
had gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/
scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are
frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding
biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy
of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine
scientific controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of
alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are
based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious
concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather
than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in
every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum
supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover
public schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to
flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as
it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary
questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about
teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.
Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no
longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed to
support creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what
the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID
perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if you
look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute
teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach.
You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet
quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the video that
they had produced as one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism
because of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow
it. They never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous
Federal court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange
that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had
likely already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science
Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

There are also generally educational requirements for teaching
positions.

I am thinking that a bachelor's degree is often required to
be a substitute teacher, and those often have general education
requirements as well.

The general idea is that the other degree requirements to go
into teaching at different levels would expose the potential
teachers into the subtleties of the subjects in these areas.

I am thinking it is at lowest a masters for some low level
subjects in college. They often have general education
requirements that go into those degrees. They also some
times have 'peer review' for who does what, and grade
schools and high schools have school boards.

2024-08-31 21:47:43 UTC

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson
capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki. There seems to be no
valid reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had
emailed the editor that made the edit to see what was going on. I
guess nothing has come of the request.
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which
a major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent
design creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught
in the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy.
It was one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but
20/20 hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the
science, and did not understand that the ID perps never had any
legitimate ID science worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not
understand scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by
Nancey Murphy, an associate professor of Christian philosophy at
Fuller Theological Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as
"dogmatic and unconvincing", primarily because "he does not
adequately understand scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been
convinced by the other ID perps that the ID science existed, and
could be taught in the public schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then
Senator Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic
"amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was
submitted by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that
legislation. Both Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion
of the "amendment" supported teaching intelligent design in the
public schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were
invited to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School
board the ID perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam
where they would just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an
obfuscation and denial swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the
creationist rubes had nothing to do with ID. It does not look like
the ID perps bothered to inform Santorum and Johnson of what they
planned to do because both Johnson and Santorum came out in support
of teaching ID in the public schools in Ohio before the bait and
switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait
and switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson
would hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait
and switch scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for
Santorum to have written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait
and switch was going down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift
for the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach
ID scam as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any
creationist rubes that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch
had gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/
scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are
frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding
biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National
Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any
genuine scientific controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of
alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives
are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly
religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific
evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this
test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus
serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in
every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum
supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover
public schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to
flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad
as it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary
questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about
teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.
Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no
longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed to
support creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what
the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID
perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if
you look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute
teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach.
You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet
quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the video that
they had produced as one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson
claimed that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public
schools. Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and
changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to
quote two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism
because of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow
it. They never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous
Federal court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I
did not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was
strange that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but
Johnson had likely already given the interview published in the
Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

That's an interesting claim. Is it your position that all educational
standards are "totalitarian"? Would the United States be in better
hands if it didn't try to give kids a basic grounding in reading,
writing, mathematics, science, art, and history?

There are also generally educational requirements for teaching
positions.
I am thinking that a bachelor's degree is often required to
be a substitute teacher, and those often have general education
requirements as well.
The general idea is that the other degree requirements to go
into teaching at different levels would expose the potential
teachers into the subtleties of the subjects in these areas.
I am thinking it is at lowest a masters for some low level
subjects in college. They often have general education
requirements that go into those degrees. They also some
times have 'peer review' for who does what, and grade
schools and high schools have school boards.

Sorry, I recognize that the last post could be pretty jarring.

Somewhere, I learned maybe wrongly, that you should close to
never use the same word on a page. Way too many uses of the
word 'general' in the last post.

Kestrel Clayton

2024-09-01 15:57:13 UTC

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson
capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki. There seems to be no
valid reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had
emailed the editor that made the edit to see what was going on. I
guess nothing has come of the request.
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which
a major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent
design creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught
in the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy.
It was one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but
20/20 hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the
science, and did not understand that the ID perps never had any
legitimate ID science worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not
understand scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by
Nancey Murphy, an associate professor of Christian philosophy at
Fuller Theological Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as
"dogmatic and unconvincing", primarily because "he does not
adequately understand scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been
convinced by the other ID perps that the ID science existed, and
could be taught in the public schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then
Senator Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic
"amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was
submitted by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that
legislation. Both Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion
of the "amendment" supported teaching intelligent design in the
public schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were
invited to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School
board the ID perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam
where they would just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an
obfuscation and denial swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the
creationist rubes had nothing to do with ID. It does not look like
the ID perps bothered to inform Santorum and Johnson of what they
planned to do because both Johnson and Santorum came out in support
of teaching ID in the public schools in Ohio before the bait and
switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait
and switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson
would hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait
and switch scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for
Santorum to have written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait
and switch was going down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift
for the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach
ID scam as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any
creationist rubes that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch
had gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/
scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are
frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding
biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National
Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any
genuine scientific controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of
alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives
are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly
religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific
evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this
test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus
serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in
every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum
supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover
public schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to
flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad
as it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary
questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about
teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.
Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no
longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed to
support creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what
the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID
perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if
you look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute
teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach.
You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet
quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the video that
they had produced as one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson
claimed that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public
schools. Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and
changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to
quote two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism
because of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow
it. They never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous
Federal court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I
did not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was
strange that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but
Johnson had likely already given the interview published in the
Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

That's an interesting claim. Is it your position that all educational
standards are "totalitarian"? Would the United States be in better
hands if it didn't try to give kids a basic grounding in reading,
writing, mathematics, science, art, and history?

There are also generally educational requirements for teaching
positions.
I am thinking that a bachelor's degree is often required to
be a substitute teacher, and those often have general education
requirements as well.
The general idea is that the other degree requirements to go
into teaching at different levels would expose the potential
teachers into the subtleties of the subjects in these areas.
I am thinking it is at lowest a masters for some low level
subjects in college. They often have general education
requirements that go into those degrees. They also some
times have 'peer review' for who does what, and grade
schools and high schools have school boards.

I'm still not clear on your point. Is it okay if individual states in
the US have educational standards, or is that also totalitarian? What
about standards at the county or school board level?

Or is it your position that as long as a teacher has a degree and any
necessary official qualifications, it doesn't matter what they actually
teach to kids?

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Kestrel Clayton
I used to have a Kipling quote here,
but I'm not so fond of him any more.

2024-09-03 18:20:47 UTC

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

Post by RonO
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are
frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding
biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National
Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any
genuine scientific controversy about the issue.(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.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of
alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives
are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly
religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific
evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this
test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum
thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather
than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an
important demonstration of the best way for them as future
scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a
careful and fair- minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in
every instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum
supported the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover
public schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had
to flip flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As
sad as it may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary
questioned his religious convictions due changing his mind about
teaching intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools.
Santorum was not reelected, and when he ran for president he no
longer claimed to support intelligent design, but instead claimed
to support creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of
what the ID perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but
the ID perps still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy"
and if you look at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery
Institute teaching ID was part of the controversy that they wanted
to teach. You can see ID included in the conclusion of the teach ID
booklet quoted above that the ID perps used to give out with the
video that they had produced as one of the goals listed in the
Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson
claimed that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public
schools. Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and
changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to
quote two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now
that the public schools are not going to change their line in my
lifetime. That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also
admitting that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical
creationism because of his claim that "the courts are just not
going to allow it. They never have." Only Biblical creationism
had, had previous Federal court failures and one failure in the
Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller. After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I
did not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was
strange that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but
Johnson had likely already given the interview published in the
Berkeley Science Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

That's an interesting claim. Is it your position that all educational
standards are "totalitarian"? Would the United States be in better
hands if it didn't try to give kids a basic grounding in reading,
writing, mathematics, science, art, and history?

There are also generally educational requirements for teaching
positions.
I am thinking that a bachelor's degree is often required to
be a substitute teacher, and those often have general education
requirements as well.
The general idea is that the other degree requirements to go
into teaching at different levels would expose the potential
teachers into the subtleties of the subjects in these areas.
I am thinking it is at lowest a masters for some low level
subjects in college. They often have general education
requirements that go into those degrees. They also some
times have 'peer review' for who does what, and grade
schools and high schools have school boards.

I'm still not clear on your point. Is it okay if individual states in
the US have educational standards, or is that also totalitarian? What
about standards at the county or school board level?

One thing I remember doing a long time ago, is this.

I took the Constitution of NAZI Germany under Hitler.

Then I took the Constitution of the Soviet Union under
Stalin.

And then I took the Constitution of the United States
and the US Bill of Rights.

And then compared all three of them.

I came to the conclusion that all three of them have
wording in them very similar to the wording in the US
Bill of Rights.

Therefore, totalitarianism is something that is
extra-constitutional, or in other words, it is
something that tends to not be explicitly written
into something as general as the written laws or
structure in documents described as such.

I am thinking that the Constitution of Germany
has a lot in it on the family, and a lot of it
did not change from during the time of NAZI Germany
to when it was reformed from the US, French, and UK
occupation zones after WWII. The German Constitution
of 1870 of course says that 'the President of Germany
is the King of Prussia' (to make it explicit that it
is not the king of Austria). To not diverge too much
into 'President' versus 'Chancellor' however I tended
to get the idea that totalitarianism in Germany in the
1930s and early 1940s was the concept of 'martial law',
or more completely, that 'martial law' means that
'there are no laws at all' (except maybe 'obey this
person' who can render his or her decisions based upon
whim, caprice, or random chance).

As far as the Soviet Union, perhaps it could be summarized
as 'laws only exist to favor the rich, so let us do away
with all of the lawyers'.

They had all of those 'show trials' and 'kangaroo courts'
under Stalinism. But the courts may have very well
rubber stamped what the politicians told them to rubber
stamp. 'Due process of law', may very well have not
actually been 'due'. The problem however is that
the term 'due process of law' may very well actually
be very vague.

Then I am thinking there is also the British position
from both the American Revolution and slightly later -
something like - a constitution is not a specific written
document but rather - the people and institutions of a
country and its colonies.

I am not quite sure to what extent they do that in various
law schools throughout the world, and then after they have
the class debate these issues, they end with a debate about
what are 'laws' and how do they differ from things that are
'not laws'.

I tend to think of totalitarianism as an a-legalism that
tends to favor the government at the expense of human freedom.
It is a matter of extremes and may not necessarily have to
do with anything specific.

I am thinking I was comparing one extreme with another in
the past argument. As such, it may very well have not been
valid reasoning.

Post by Kestrel Clayton
Or is it your position that as long as a teacher has a degree and any
necessary official qualifications, it doesn't matter what they actually
teach to kids?

You know about 30 years ago, in college I remember there were some
professors in college that were conducting some job interviews for
a potential candidate for a position at the college there. It seemed
to me, that they were acting like the job interview was something like
the defense of a masters or doctoral degree and that they were expecting
something like a class or lecture for each of the candidates.

Sadly, I forgot what the topic of some of those lectures were by now.

At the time, it did not seem to me like they were patting each other
on the back and saying 'we do not need to teach any classes or do
any research any more because we are all such friends of each other'.

There is also the question, does the title of the course reflect the
outline of the course.

RonO

2024-08-31 23:15:33 UTC

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
Earlier this month I noted that someone had remove the Johnson
capitulation quote from the Johnson wiki. There seems to be no valid
reason for removing the quote, and Athel claimed that he had emailed
the editor that made the edit to see what was going on. I guess
nothing has come of the request.
The quote actually brings closure to the entire wiki entry of which a
major part is about Johnson's participation in the intelligent design
creationist scam.
There is absolutely no doubt that Phillip Johnson wanted ID taught in
the public schools. He had made it part of his Wedge strategy. It
was one of the 5 years goals listed in the Wedge document, but 20/20
hindsight indicates that Johnson never fully understood the science,
and did not understand that the ID perps never had any legitimate ID
science worth teaching in the public schools.
The Phillip Johnson wiki has the claim that Johnson did not understand
scientific reasoning "In 1993 the ASA's Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith published a review of Darwin on Trial by Nancey
Murphy, an associate professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller
Theological Seminary, who described Johnson's arguments as "dogmatic
and unconvincing", primarily because "he does not adequately
understand scientific reasoning."" Johnson had been convinced by the
other ID perps that the ID science existed, and could be taught in the
public schools.
Johnson got others involved in the ID scam. Most notably then Senator
Santorum. Johnson supposedly wrote the draft of the IDiotic
"amendment" to the no child left behind legislation that was submitted
by Santorum and ended up in the appendix of that legislation. Both
Santorum and Johnson claimed that the inclusion of the "amendment"
supported teaching intelligent design in the public schools.
By 2002 most of the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute likely
understood that they had nothing worth teaching as ID science in the
public schools, so when Ohio hit the fan and the ID perps were invited
to give their dog and pony show to the Ohio State School board the ID
perps decided to start running a bait and switch scam where they would
just use ID as bait, but only give the rubes an obfuscation and denial
swtich scam that the ID perps would tell the creationist rubes had
nothing to do with ID. It does not look like the ID perps bothered to
inform Santorum and Johnson of what they planned to do because both
Johnson and Santorum came out in support of teaching ID in the public
schools in Ohio before the bait and switch went down.
Johnson put up the Santorum editorial on his ARN blog as the bait and
switch was going down in Ohio. There is no reason why Johnson would
hang Santorum, out to dry like that if he knew that the bait and
switch scam was going to start to go down, and no reason for Santorum
to have written the opinion piece if he knew that the bait and switch
was going down.
https://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"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.
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.
Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.
© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
So neither Santorum nor Johnson likely knew of the strategy shift for
the ID scam. After Ohio 2002 the ID perps only used the teach ID scam
as bait, and never delivered any ID science to any creationist rubes
that wanted to teach it.
You could still download the teach ID scam booklet from a Discovery
Institute web site when Dover hit the fan, but the bait and switch had
gone down in every case for the previous 3 years after Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040921022045/http://www.discovery.org/
scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
9. Conclusion
      Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
controversy about the issue.(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.
      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
For some reason even though the bait and switch had gone down in every
instance for 3 years both Johnson and then Senator Santorum supported
the Dover School boards efforts to teach ID in the Dover public
schools in 2005. Santorum was eventually clued in and had to flip
flop on the issue during his campaign for reelection. As sad as it
may seem some of his republican opponents in the primary questioned
his religious convictions due changing his mind about teaching
intelligent design in the Pennsylvania public schools. Santorum was
not reelected, and when he ran for president he no longer claimed to
support intelligent design, but instead claimed to support
creationism. It would take some willful ignorance of what the ID
perps were doing by running the bait and switch, but the ID perps
still called the switch scam "Teach the Controversy" and if you look
at the old propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute teaching ID
was part of the controversy that they wanted to teach. You can see ID
included in the conclusion of the teach ID booklet quoted above that
the ID perps used to give out with the video that they had produced as
one of the goals listed in the Wedge document.
I recall an interview at the Federal courthouse where Johnson claimed
that ID would prevail and be taught in the Dover public schools.
Johnson sat in the courtroom everyday of testimony, and changed his mind.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http://
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is the quote that was removed. In one post in the previous
thread I quote the use by others like Ken Miller.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative 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 educational world.
As far as I know Johnson never retracted the claims. I used to quote
two parts of the interview.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative
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 educational
world.
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
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.”
“In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
Using the two quotes you get the idea that Johnson is not only
acknowledging the failure of ID as science, but he is also admitting
that what he was trying to get taught was Biblical creationism because
of his claim that "the courts are just not going to allow it. They
never have." Only Biblical creationism had, had previous Federal
court failures and one failure in the Supreme Court.
I do not recall Phillip Johnson supporting the ID scam after
Kitzmiller.   After Dover the ID perps held a 15th anniversary
celebration of the publication of Darwin on Trial. At the time I did
not know of Johnson's defection, and I thought that it was strange
that Johnson did not participate in the celebration, but Johnson had
likely already given the interview published in the Berkeley Science
Review.
These types of historical details should get into the Johnson wiki.
Ron Okimoto

Governments do pay teachers to propagandize to the little
children that governments do constructive things rather than
destructive things.
This doesn't quite work when they build nuclear weapons to
incinerate the little children but they try. It looks cute
when they do the Hitler salute in a graceful manner in a
play or something like that.
There is something pretty totalitarian in the concept of a
state mandated 'lesson plan'.

This is an article on the IDiotic switch scam lesson plan adopted by the
Ohio State Board of education, and their subsequent abandonment and
removal of the state creationist lesson plan after the creationist loss
in Dover. The Ohio State Board of Education tried to present the
obfuscation and denial IDiotic switch scam to the Ohio school kids. The
ID perps would sell the creationist rubes the teach ID scam, but then
once the rubes had taken the bait, the ID perps would run the bait and
switch on them and only offer them their obfuscation and denial switch
scam that the ID perps would tell the rubes had nothing to do with
intelligent design.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496133.pdf

The Ohio creationist rubes were the first ones to bend over for the
switch scam after the bait and switch went down on them. Nearly all the
other creationist rube school boards and legislators that had the bait
and switch run on them have dropped the issue and not bent over for the
switch scam. It looks like only Texas and Louisiana have switch scam
school board junk or switch scam legislation active, and both states
adopted their switch scam junk after the creationist defeat in Dover.
Both states had the bait and switch run on them again when they tried to
use the switch scam junk to teach ID back in 2013. Neither state was
requiring ID to be taught, but the bait and switch went down anyway, and
the ID perps had to remind the creationist rubes that the switch scam
had nothing to do with ID. Both states dropped the issue and did not
follow through with trying to teach intelligent design creationism.
Louisiana had even called what they wanted to teach intelligent design
and also called it creationism in their textbook supplement. It is
pretty obvious why both states bent over and took the switch scam from
the ID perps instead of the "intelligent design science" that they had
claimed to want to teach in their public schools.

Ron Okimoto

2024-09-01 14:05:26 UTC