From Newsgroup: talk.origins

I wanted to determine if ChatGPT could provide a straight forward
analysis of the ID creationist scam so I fed in the following statement
and got the ChatGPT response. It still suffers from repeating what the
ID perps have claimed over the years without noting that the claims were bogus, such as the claims for producing ID inspired research, and
limited technical publications without noting that none of it can be considered to be scientific support for their theory of intelligent
design. If any real science had ever been produced it would already be
taught in the public schools. The rubes still take the bait and want to
teach the junk, so any real science could have been taught if it had
actually existed.

QUOTE:
There have been claims from Discovery Institute fellows since the 1990's
that they have produced what they call the scientific theory of
intelligent design, but is there any evidence that such a scientific
theory ever existed? No scientific theory seems to exist, and there
have been no intelligent design hypotheses that have been proposed and scientifically verified. What have intelligent design advocates
actually produced?


Short answer: they have produced arguments, concepts, and advocacyrConot a scientific theory in the standard sense used in science.

HererCOs a careful breakdown of what actually exists versus what is
typically claimed.

1) What intelligent design advocates say they have produced

Organizations like the Discovery Institute explicitly describe
intelligent design (ID) as a scientific theory. Their core claims center
on ideas like:

rCLSpecified complexityrCY / rCLcomplex specified informationrCY (CSI) rCLIrreducible complexityrCY (associated with biochemist Michael Behe)
The claim that biological systems are best explained by an rCLintelligent causerCY rather than natural processes

They also point to:

A small number of peer-reviewed papers (dozens, by their count)
Books (e.g., The Design Inference)
Conceptual arguments about the origin of biological information (e.g.,
by Stephen C. Meyer)

So in terms of output, they have produced:

Books and popular science writing
Philosophical arguments
A limited set of technical papers
Public policy and education advocacy

2) What is missing for a scientific theory

In mainstream science, a scientific theory is not just an idearCoit must include:

Clearly defined mechanisms
Testable, falsifiable hypotheses
Predictive power
Empirical validation through repeated experiments/observations
Integration into ongoing research programs

Intelligent design, as it stands, generally does not provide these elements:

No mechanism

ID posits an rCLintelligent causerCY but does not specify how, when, or by what process the design occurs.

No predictive framework

It does not generate clear predictions like:

rCLIf ID is true, we should observe X pattern in genetics or fossils.rCY

No experimental research program

There is no sustained body of lab or field research testing ID-specific hypotheses.

Negative rather than positive structure

Most arguments take the form:

Evolution cannot explain X
raA therefore design

This is not considered a valid scientific inference unless accompanied
by independent positive evidence for the alternative mechanism.

3) What the scholarly and scientific consensus says

Across biology, physics, and philosophy of science, the consensus is:

ID is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical or religious argument framed in scientific language
It lacks empirical testability and research productivity

Even critics within technical literature have argued that ID methods
(like DembskirCOs design inference) are mathematically or conceptually
flawed and do not yield testable results

4) The key historical test: did it generate science?

A useful way to evaluate the claim is:

Did intelligent design lead to new discoveries, experiments, or
technologies?

So far, the answer is essentially no.

Compare that to real scientific theories:

Evolutionary theory raA genetics, medicine, antibiotic resistance research
Germ theory raA microbiology, vaccines
Quantum mechanics raA semiconductors, lasers

ID has not produced comparable outcomes.

5) What they have actually produced (plainly stated)

What exists:

Conceptual critiques of evolution
Probability-based arguments about complexity
Philosophical arguments about causation and information
Popular books and policy advocacy

What does not exist:

A working scientific model of the rCLdesignerrCY
Testable hypotheses uniquely derived from ID
A cumulative research program generating new empirical results
Bottom line

Intelligent design is best understood as:

A set of philosophical and theological arguments about nature, not a
developed scientific theory.

It uses scientific language and selectively engages scientific topics,
but it has not produced the defining features of a scientific theory: mechanisms, predictions, and verified empirical research.

If you want, I can break down specific ID concepts like rCLirreducible complexityrCY or rCLspecified complexityrCY and show exactly why they fail as scientific hypotheses.
END QUOTE:

The above ChatGPT response is fairly comprehensive and indicates that
when asked for a direct analysis of intelligent design that it can sift through the ID perp scam notions and clearly put forward what the ID
perps have been unable to accomplish. It is pretty conclusive that the
ID scam does not qualify as a scientific effort. What should be noted
that ChatGPT generally does not acknowledge when the ID perps are lying
about something. It makes allusions that they make such claims, but
doesn't give examples. ID perps have claimed "predictions" but they
have always been bogus, and could not be considered to be any type of
viable prediction that the ID scam could make. The ID perps keep
claiming that ID predicted the demise of junk DNA when it did no such
thing. Why would ID predict the fact that a lot of the junk DNA was
made up of parasitic transposons that still retained some
transcriptional activity that allowed them to move around the genome?
Most of the single copy non coding DNA are just ancient non functional transposon and retroviral sequences that lost function and started to degenerate so long ago that they have become random sequence that can no longer be associated with functional transposons. Why would this be
predicted by intelligent design?

ChatGPT left out any mention of the Wedge goals and the use of ID as the
Wedge to further the ID perp's religious and political agenda so I put
in the following statement and got a response that ChatGPT is fully
aware of the religious and political use that the ID perps have for the
ID scam. It should be noted that ChatGPT was fully aware of the post
Dover teach ID scam propaganda put out by the ID perps claiming that it
was still legal to teach ID elsewhere in the US.

QUOTE:
In the section about what the intelligent design advocates claim that
they have produced, why is there no mention of their desire to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the public schools? Their
"Wedge" document that they claim was a fund raising document claims that
they wanted to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the
public schools, and it had one of it's 5 year goals as getting
intelligent design taught in 10 states. They produced their educators
briefing packet after their loss in the Kitzmiller court case claiming
that the Kitzmiller decision was wrong and that even though intelligent
design was found to be no science that could be taught in the public
schools that it remained legal to teach intelligent design in the public schools outside of the middle federal court district of PA. The summary
makes no mention of their claims to be able to teach intelligent design
in the public schools since the 1990's.

YourCOre right to point out that education policy and public-school
strategy are a central part of what intelligent design (ID) advocates
have actually produced and pursued. That omission in the earlier summary wasnrCOt because itrCOs unimportantrCoitrCOs because I was narrowly focusing on
scientific output. But if the question is broadened to rCLwhat have they produced overall,rCY then their education campaigns are essential.

HererCOs how that fits in more precisely.

1) The rCLWedge StrategyrCY and explicit education goals

The internal Discovery Institute document commonly called the rCLWedge DocumentrCY (late 1990s) lays out a long-term strategy. It includes:

Reframing science to allow for rCLdesignrCY explanations
Influencing public opinion, culture, and education
A stated goal of introducing intelligent design into school curricula

It explicitly mentions:

Five-year goals including influencing science education policy
Longer-term goals of broader cultural and institutional change

So yesrCoteaching ID in public schools was not incidental; it was a
strategic objective from early on.

2) KrCo12 education efforts (1990srCo2000s)

ID advocates have produced a range of education-oriented materials and initiatives, including:

Curriculum supplements and lesson plans
Teacher guides and rCLcritical analysis of evolutionrCY frameworks
Public campaigns encouraging schools to rCLteach the controversyrCY

After the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, these
efforts shifted in wording but continued in substance.

3) The Kitzmiller decision and its impact

In Kitzmiller (2005), a U.S. federal court found that:

Intelligent design is not science
It is religiously motivated
Teaching it in public school science classes violates the Establishment
Clause

This ruling was significant because it directly evaluated IDrCOs claims to
be science and rejected them in a legal context.

4) Post-Kitzmiller response: rebranding, not retreat

After the decision, Discovery Institute and affiliated advocates:

Argued the ruling was limited in scope (only binding in that federal
district)
Continued to claim that teaching ID (or its critiques of evolution)
could still be legal elsewhere
Produced materials like educator briefings and policy guides

However, their strategy largely shifted toward:

rCLTeach the controversyrCY
rCLAcademic freedomrCY bills
Encouraging critical analysis of evolution rather than explicitly naming ID

This is widely interpreted by critics as a legal adaptation rather than
a scientific advancement.

5) Why this matters for your original question

Including education efforts changes the answer in an important way:

What ID advocates have produced expands to include:
Public policy strategy documents (e.g., the Wedge)
Legal and political arguments about curriculum
Educational materials and lobbying efforts
Continued claims about legality of teaching ID in schools

But this actually reinforces the earlier conclusion:

Their most substantial and sustained outputs have been cultural, legal,
and educational advocacyrConot scientific theory development.

6) Key distinction

ItrCOs important to separate two different claims:

rCLID is a scientific theoryrCY raA requires evidence, mechanisms, predictions rCLID should be taught in schoolsrCY raA a legal, political, and cultural claim

ID advocates have invested heavily in the secondrCoeven as the first
remains unfulfilled by scientific standards.

Bottom line

YourCOre correct that any complete account of what intelligent design proponents have done should include:

A long-running, explicit effort to influence public school science educationrCobefore and after Kitzmiller.

That effort is well-documented and central to the movement. But it also underscores a key point:

They have produced extensive advocacy infrastructure for teaching ID
They have not produced a corresponding body of scientific theory to
justify it as science
END QUOTE:

From above:
"rCLID is a scientific theoryrCY raA requires evidence, mechanisms, predictions rCLID should be taught in schoolsrCY raA a legal, political, and cultural claim

ID advocates have invested heavily in the secondrCoeven as the first
remains unfulfilled by scientific standards."

"Their most substantial and sustained outputs have been cultural, legal,
and educational advocacyrConot scientific theory development."

ChatGPT seems to be fully aware that all ID has ever been, is a stupid
bait and switch scam where the ID perps have only used ID as bait for political purposes of influencing public education, and never developed
any real ID science.

ChatGPT is wrong about lesson plans. The IDNetwork had to help the Ohio
rubes write their switch scam lesson plan that did not mention that ID
had ever existed because the ID perps just ran away after running the
bait and switch. The ID perps have never produced a public school
intelligent design lesson plan nor a public school switch scam lesson
plan, so no one knows what they really want to teach in the public
schools, nor how they think that it can be taught.

ChatGPT does not note that the Bait and switch has gone down in every
instance that public officials have wanted to teach ID in their public schools. So I asked it why that was not a factor in the summary. I specifically used the term "bait" at the end to see what ChatGPT would
do with it.

QUOTE:
So it is understood that teaching intelligent design in the public
schools is an important aspect of what the intelligent design advocates
want to do. Why did the summary not include the fact that in every case,
for over two decades, where public school boards or legislators have
wanted to teach ID in their public schools that in every case the
Discovery Institute intelligent design advocates have told the school
boards and legislators not to teach intelligent design, but to teach the controversy instead. Nearly all public officials have dropped the issue instead of try to teach the controversy. The Discovery Institute told
the Dover school board not to teach intelligent design, and gave them
their Teach the Controversy materials, but the Dover board did not want
to teach the controversy and tried to teach intelligent design anyway.
Why did you leave out the fact that the Discovery Institute advocates
teaching intelligent design in the public schools, but never delivers on
that claim when someone takes the bait?

YourCOre pointing to a real and important pattern in how the Discovery Institute has operated, especially since the early 2000s. The earlier
summary didnrCOt include it simply because it was scoped to rCLwhat have
they producedrCY (outputs), not the strategic gap between public claims
and actual recommendations. But your point highlights something
essential about that strategy.

What yourCOre describing: a consistent tactical pattern

Across multiple controversies, critics have observed the same sequence:

Public framing
ID is described as a legitimate scientific theory
Advocates suggest it deserves a place in science education
When policy action becomes concrete
School boards or legislators propose explicitly teaching intelligent design Discovery Institute response
They advise against teaching ID directly
They instead promote:
rCLTeach the controversyrCY
rCLCritical analysis of evolutionrCY
rCLAcademic freedomrCY approaches
Outcome
Policies often soften, stall, or get dropped
Or (as in Dover) proceed and end in legal defeat
The Dover case as the clearest example

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

The Dover school board chose to introduce intelligent design explicitly
The Discovery Institute:
Did not support that policy
Recommended a rCLteach the controversyrCY approach instead
After the policy went forward, the court ruled:
ID is not science
Teaching it in public school science classes is unconstitutional

This case became a turning point for strategy.

Why this pattern exists (mainstream interpretation)

Most historians, legal scholars, and science educators interpret this
not as accidental, but strategic:

1) Legal risk management

After earlier rulings on creationism (and especially after Kitzmiller), explicitly teaching ID is legally vulnerable under the Establishment Clause.

So:

Direct ID instruction raA high litigation risk
rCLTeach the controversyrCY raA more legally defensible framing
2) Maintaining the rCLscientificrCY claim without testing it

By avoiding formal inclusion in curricula:

ID is not subjected to classroom standards, testing frameworks, or
scientific scrutiny
Advocates can continue to claim it is viable science without needing it
to function as one in practice
3) A messaging vs. implementation gap

This leads to the tension yourCOre highlighting:

Messaging:
rCLID is a scientific theory that should be taughtrCY
Operational advice:
rCLDo not try to teach ID directlyrCouse alternative languagerCY

That gap is widely seen by critics as evidence that:

The movement prioritizes cultural influence and legal survivability over scientific implementation

Has this happened rCLin every caserCY?

Your phrasing (rCLin every caserCY) captures a strong trend, but itrCOs safer to state it precisely:

In multiple prominent cases (including Dover and various state-level
debates), the Discovery Institute has:
Opposed mandates to teach ID directly
Promoted rCLteach the controversyrCY instead

There may be variation in lesser-known local situations, but the overall pattern you describe is well-documented and widely discussed.

Why it wasnrCOt in the earlier summary

The omission comes down to scope:

The earlier answer focused on:
Scientific outputs (theories, hypotheses, research)
Your point concerns:
Strategic behavior in education policy
The disconnect between claims and implementation

ThatrCOs a different (but crucial) dimensionrCoand including it gives a more complete picture of what the movement has actually done.

Bottom line

What yourCOre highlighting can be summarized like this:

Intelligent design advocatesrCoespecially the Discovery InstituterCohave consistently promoted the idea that ID belongs in science education,
while advising against actually implementing it directly when
policymakers try, favoring legally safer alternatives like rCLteach the controversy.rCY

That pattern is central to understanding the movementrConot just as a set
of ideas, but as a long-term legal, cultural, and educational strategy.
END QUOTE:

From above:
"The movement prioritizes cultural influence and legal survivability
over scientific implementation."

ChatGPT words their summary in such a way as to allude to the
possibility that ID perps may be running the bait and switch in order to maintain ID's scientific viability (they do not want it to be exposed to
be a scam again), but ignores the fact that if the ID perps lose again
they would probably be unable to keep using ID as bait as their main
strategy to drive the Wedge goals forward.

ChatGPT frames it as a typical bait and switch scam, but calls it a
"tactic", and admits that, that is what ID is being used for by the ID
perps. The Bait and Switch is a political tactic, but it is considered
to be dishonest and immoral. When the ID perp tried to lie about the Discovery Institute never wanting ID to be taught in the public schools,
in a discussion about the Kitzmiller court case, the More lawyer pulled
out the Discovery Institute's teach ID scam propaganda booklet
coauthored by Meyer and quoted part of the conclusion that ID could be
taught in the public schools and that the book Of Pandas and People
could be used to teach the junk. The More lawyer described the ID scam
as a bait and switch scam, but also called it a "strategic tactic".
Even though Meyer had been director of the ID scam from the beginning
the ID perp still tried to lie about the Discovery Institute not selling
the teach ID scam. Ken Miller's comment was that the ID perp's effort
was typical of what the prevarications of Discovery Institute were at
that time.

It should be noted that ChatGPT seems to be under the impression that
the switch scam is just a means to get ID taught in a way that would circumvent previous losses. Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia have all claimed that the switch scam could be used to teach ID in the public
schools even though the ID perps tell the rubes that the switch scam has nothing to do with ID nor creationism, and have run the bait and switch
on the rubes again when they have tried to use the switch scam to teach
ID. The draft of the Ohio model lesson plan initially had creationist
web links and even linked to ARN. ARN was the sales arm of the ID perps
and all the members of the ARN board of directors were ID perps. Those
web links had to be removed from the lesson plan final document. Nearly
all the rubes that have taken the bait have dropped the issue. The only
rubes that have bent over for the switch scam seem to have done it in
order to teach creationism in the public schools. The ID perps used to
have a list of rubes that they claimed were still considering the switch
scam (they all had, had the bait and switch run on them). There were
well over 20 instances on that list, but I can't recall the exact
number. Only Ohio had implemented the switch scam when Dover had hit
the fan, and nearly all of them eventually dropped the issue. Louisiana
would not adopt their switch scam legislation until 2008 and Texas would
not adopt their switch scam school board nonsense until 2010.

So the ChatGPT conclusion is that the ID perps have never produced any
viable ID science, and their major aim was political instead of
scientific, and their main use of ID has been as bait to influence
science education. They keep selling the creationist rubes that they
have the scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools, but all
the rubes ever get is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID
perps claim has nothing to do with ID.

Ron Okimoto





--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 4/14/2026 4:56 PM, RonO wrote:
SNIP:

ChatGPT does not note that the Bait and switch has gone down in every instance that public officials have wanted to teach ID in their public schools.-a So I asked it why that was not a factor in the summary.-a I specifically used the term "bait" at the end to see what ChatGPT would
do with it.

QUOTE:
So it is understood that teaching intelligent design in the public
schools is an important aspect of what the intelligent design advocates
want to do. Why did the summary not include the fact that in every case,
for over two decades, where public school boards or legislators have
wanted to teach ID in their public schools that in every case the
Discovery Institute intelligent design advocates have told the school
boards and legislators not to teach intelligent design, but to teach the controversy instead. Nearly all public officials have dropped the issue instead of try to teach the controversy. The Discovery Institute told
the Dover school board not to teach intelligent design, and gave them
their Teach the Controversy materials, but the Dover board did not want
to teach the controversy and tried to teach intelligent design anyway.
Why did you leave out the fact that the Discovery Institute advocates teaching intelligent design in the public schools, but never delivers on that claim when someone takes the bait?

YourCOre pointing to a real and important pattern in how the Discovery Institute has operated, especially since the early 2000s. The earlier summary didnrCOt include it simply because it was scoped to rCLwhat have they producedrCY (outputs), not the strategic gap between public claims
and actual recommendations. But your point highlights something
essential about that strategy.

What yourCOre describing: a consistent tactical pattern

Across multiple controversies, critics have observed the same sequence:

Public framing
ID is described as a legitimate scientific theory
Advocates suggest it deserves a place in science education
When policy action becomes concrete
School boards or legislators propose explicitly teaching intelligent design Discovery Institute response
They advise against teaching ID directly
They instead promote:
rCLTeach the controversyrCY
rCLCritical analysis of evolutionrCY
rCLAcademic freedomrCY approaches
Outcome
Policies often soften, stall, or get dropped
Or (as in Dover) proceed and end in legal defeat
The Dover case as the clearest example

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

The Dover school board chose to introduce intelligent design explicitly
The Discovery Institute:
Did not support that policy
Recommended a rCLteach the controversyrCY approach instead
After the policy went forward, the court ruled:
ID is not science
Teaching it in public school science classes is unconstitutional

This case became a turning point for strategy.

Why this pattern exists (mainstream interpretation)

Most historians, legal scholars, and science educators interpret this
not as accidental, but strategic:

1) Legal risk management

After earlier rulings on creationism (and especially after Kitzmiller), explicitly teaching ID is legally vulnerable under the Establishment
Clause.

So:

Direct ID instruction raA high litigation risk
rCLTeach the controversyrCY raA more legally defensible framing
2) Maintaining the rCLscientificrCY claim without testing it

By avoiding formal inclusion in curricula:

ID is not subjected to classroom standards, testing frameworks, or scientific scrutiny
Advocates can continue to claim it is viable science without needing it
to function as one in practice
3) A messaging vs. implementation gap

This leads to the tension yourCOre highlighting:

Messaging:
rCLID is a scientific theory that should be taughtrCY
Operational advice:
rCLDo not try to teach ID directlyrCouse alternative languagerCY

That gap is widely seen by critics as evidence that:

The movement prioritizes cultural influence and legal survivability over scientific implementation

Has this happened rCLin every caserCY?

Your phrasing (rCLin every caserCY) captures a strong trend, but itrCOs safer
to state it precisely:

In multiple prominent cases (including Dover and various state-level debates), the Discovery Institute has:
Opposed mandates to teach ID directly
Promoted rCLteach the controversyrCY instead

There may be variation in lesser-known local situations, but the overall pattern you describe is well-documented and widely discussed.

Why it wasnrCOt in the earlier summary

The omission comes down to scope:

The earlier answer focused on:
Scientific outputs (theories, hypotheses, research)
Your point concerns:
Strategic behavior in education policy
The disconnect between claims and implementation

ThatrCOs a different (but crucial) dimensionrCoand including it gives a more complete picture of what the movement has actually done.

Bottom line

What yourCOre highlighting can be summarized like this:

Intelligent design advocatesrCoespecially the Discovery InstituterCohave consistently promoted the idea that ID belongs in science education,
while advising against actually implementing it directly when
policymakers try, favoring legally safer alternatives like rCLteach the controversy.rCY

That pattern is central to understanding the movementrConot just as a set
of ideas, but as a long-term legal, cultural, and educational strategy.
END QUOTE:

From above:
"The movement prioritizes cultural influence and legal survivability
over scientific implementation."

ChatGPT words their summary in such a way as to allude to the
possibility that ID perps may be running the bait and switch in order to maintain ID's scientific viability (they do not want it to be exposed to
be a scam again), but ignores the fact that if the ID perps lose again
they would probably be unable to keep using ID as bait as their main strategy to drive the Wedge goals forward.

ChatGPT frames it as a typical bait and switch scam, but calls it a "tactic", and admits that, that is what ID is being used for by the ID perps.-a The Bait and Switch is a political tactic, but it is considered
to be dishonest and immoral.-a When the ID perp tried to lie about the Discovery Institute never wanting ID to be taught in the public schools,
in a discussion about the Kitzmiller court case, the More lawyer pulled
out the Discovery Institute's teach ID scam propaganda booklet
coauthored by Meyer and quoted part of the conclusion that ID could be taught in the public schools and that the book Of Pandas and People
could be used to teach the junk.-a The More lawyer described the ID scam
as a bait and switch scam, but also called it a "strategic tactic". Even though Meyer had been director of the ID scam from the beginning the ID
perp still tried to lie about the Discovery Institute not selling the
teach ID scam.-a Ken Miller's comment was that the ID perp's effort was typical of what the prevarications of Discovery Institute were at that
time.

It should be noted that ChatGPT seems to be under the impression that
the switch scam is just a means to get ID taught in a way that would circumvent previous losses.-a Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia have all claimed that the switch scam could be used to teach ID in the public
schools even though the ID perps tell the rubes that the switch scam has nothing to do with ID nor creationism, and have run the bait and switch
on the rubes again when they have tried to use the switch scam to teach ID.-a The draft of the Ohio model lesson plan initially had creationist
web links and even linked to ARN.-a ARN was the sales arm of the ID perps and all the members of the ARN board of directors were ID perps.-a Those
web links had to be removed from the lesson plan final document.-a Nearly all the rubes that have taken the bait have dropped the issue.-a The only rubes that have bent over for the switch scam seem to have done it in
order to teach creationism in the public schools.-a The ID perps used to have a list of rubes that they claimed were still considering the switch scam (they all had, had the bait and switch run on them).-a There were
well over 20 instances on that list, but I can't recall the exact
number.-a Only Ohio had implemented the switch scam when Dover had hit
the fan, and nearly all of them eventually dropped the issue.-a Louisiana would not adopt their switch scam legislation until 2008 and Texas would
not adopt their switch scam school board nonsense until 2010.

So the ChatGPT conclusion is that the ID perps have never produced any viable ID science, and their major aim was political instead of
scientific, and their main use of ID has been as bait to influence
science education.-a They keep selling the creationist rubes that they
have the scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools, but all
the rubes ever get is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps claim has nothing to do with ID.

Ron Okimoto

https://ncse.ngo/discovery-institute-and-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-forum

I looked up the More Lawyer example where the IDiots were fully aware
that the bait and switch had been going down, but the More Lawyer, like ChatGPT, called it a strategy instead of a bait and switch scam. During
a discussion about Kitzmiller, Mark Ryland (then director of the
Discovery Institute's Washington office) tried to lie about the ID perps
ever wanting to teach ID in the public schools, and the lead More Lawyer (Richard Thompson) quickly countered that lie by pulling out the teach
ID scam booklet that the ID perps had initially given out with their ID
scam Wedge video. All the authors of the booklet were Discovery
Institute fellows and Meyer was director of the ID scam unit. Meyer has
been directing the bait and switch scam full time for the last 24 years,
and the bait and switch had gone down on every group of creationist
rubes that had taken the bait from the Discovery Institute, including
Dover, but the Dover rubes tried to teach ID even though the ID perps
had told them not to do it, and to teach the switch scam instead. The
Dover rubes didn't like the switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.

QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert witnesses, which we could have done.

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

It should be noted that the Dover rubes tried to use Of Pandas and
People to teach ID just as the Discovery Institute had recommended in
their propaganda booklet.

https://web.archive.org/web/20021230161955/http:/www.discovery.org:80/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=58

This is a wayback link where you can download the teach ID scam
propgaganda from a Discovery Institute page. Wayback had 10 captures of
this page from April 2001 to Jan 2004, so the ID perps probably removed
the page after Dover hit the fan in 2004. Until then they were still
selling teaching ID as part of their Teach the Controversy ploy in Jan
2004. They had been running the bait and switch since March 2002. No
rubes that took the bait ever got any ID science to teach. The bait and switch scam is a political strategy, but it is considered to be
dishonest and immoral. The ID perps hide behind free speech and freedom
of religion. If they were scam artists selling TV sets, but only had cardboard dioramas to sell, to the rubes that take the bait, they would
be considered to be criminals.

DeWolf was head of legal for the Discovery Institute. Meyer was
director of the ID scam unit of the Discovery Institute, and DeForrest
claimed on his web page that he was a fellow of the Discovery Institute,
but I do not think that he was listed as a fellow on the Discovery
Institute web page. He was one of the fellows like REMINE that was not acknowledged to be a fellow.

Meyer and DeWolf were also involved as authors of the 2001 Utah Law
Review article claiming that it was legal to teach ID in the public
schools. There is no doubt that the ID perps were selling the Teach ID
scam before they started running the bait and switch.

It should be noted that Dembski and Meyer ran and did not testify after Dembski sat in on Forrest's deposition where she disclosed the name
change from creationism to intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People. Dembski was editing the next edition of Pandas and Meyer had
written the public school teachers notes for the existing book. That is
the "all at once" decision to not testify and so leave a hole in the
Dover defense that the More lawyer was talking about in the quote above.

https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2000/iss1/2/

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2