Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 15 2018,12:50)|
|[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.|
As N.Wells reveals, it appears your "real-science theory" is once again "doing well" at Reddit.
I'm curious, please tell us who are these "people behind the theory" you are "developing"?
Remember...imaginary friends don't count.
I can start off with an Atheist named John Gorecki who graduated from UMASS with honors in physics who around 1990 starting helping word what was in the book, especially grammar. With our having cable TV he spent so much time at where we then lived and we were so loud my wife was going crazy. He's like an N.Wells of physics, but was OK with the 3 levels explained as I still do. You can be sure he does NOT want to be seen as a puppet of the Discovery Institute.
The theory I had was later called into action in response to the Kansas public hearing, which led to "creationist" Kathy Martin becoming an inspiration that added a NSTA published self-assembly demonstration to the theory base. I still focused on what (both John and) Kathy would be OK with and somehow impressed by, instead of seeing it as a battle against all in "creationism". Look for the positive things to say, instead of negative. And for an elected school board official it's vital to not get stereotyped as a big-tent puppet controlled by some guys from Seattle. It's a basic politics thing. In the second term election she brilliantly answered the KCFS questionnaire question asking who she more or less listens to by answering with all who wanted her attention like KCFS, NSTA,,, as well as the Discovery Institute. As an elected official she's supposed to take input from everywhere then fairly judge. The NSTA worthy fun times of the ID experience going on in Kansas gave her loose-cannon type power that I sensed made the DI nervous, they never mentioned/bothered her even for (as far as I know) the "Expelled" movie.
All public school officials have to avoid being seen as a puppet of someone else including Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who were easily oppositely stereotyped as following an Atheist doctrine instead of scientific evidence. I in that forum realized that the ID premise was achievable. Regardless of how DI puppet that might have made me seem I did not get kicked out for it, which helped KCFS avoid being stereotyped as an organization that by "censorship" was "suppressing" a scientific theory. Problem was that the DI did not have a scientific theory, only nice sounding premise for one.
What I develop is and will always be on Kathy's and other's behalf. Not the DI who in my opinion only got many way over ther head in unexpected turmoil. The people who were there at the time most wanted to see what happens where someone at least tries to scientifically follow the premise to wherever else in science it leads. As was shown real scientific theory results in things that make a life long public school educator proud to have been a part of, not later dread. All in Kansas who had faith in her giving "the theory of intelligent design" a "fair hearing" ended up with one that's this way still going strong on in 2018.
It's important to understand how in the world of state level politics and especially the ID issue its best for all concerned to never be wrongly stereotyped as puppets of outside interests by giving credit where due regardless of possible bad reputation for mixing science and religion. Otherwise the DI gains power from what then became of a fair public hearing on behalf of Kansas taxpayers, that ended in chaos. This way it's a compliment for the DI to be made scientifically powerless (but not destroyed) by a Darwinian-free theory that came from them instead. It's not saying the DI is totally on the wrong track, just that they have no real scientific theory for "intelligent cause" yet and why. It's then easy for all concerned to not care what happens to the institute that legally demanded their issues with education standards be heard, then got more than they bargained for by having done so in Kansas. Jack Krebs and board members established excellent communications with world scientists. It was the best incubator for new ideas on the internet.
As in the public hearing days there is the same one sentence premise sometimes being drilled into your/our mind. You must (regardless of source) fairly judge its scientific merit. It's then very useful to have a fair metric showing what is potentially scientifically true. There is no other way of ruling out that it is scientifically possible but the DI does not have that. It's purpose has always been to help prevent others from becoming a puppet.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.