Casey Luskin is no Christian

Luskin is one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design (ID), and he claims to be Christian.

Read his attack on Judge Jones, who ruled against ID in the Dover case last year.

Note two of Luskin’s hypothetical questions:

8) When will you be releasing pre-publication, unpublished drafts of your decision so we can decide who really wrote your published decision?

1) If you had not ruled that ID is unconstitutional, do you think your picture would be on the cover of Time Magazine this week?

In other words, he accuses Judge Jones of plagiarism and of making a ruling for personal gain. Luskin has not one scintilla of evidence to support this slander and he knows it to be a lie.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Casey, you lying SOB, are you familiar with that commandment? I think not. Exactly what part of Luskin’s piece is Christian?

Casey’s not much of a Christian. Not much of a gun expert either. He concocts a ludicrous gun analogy for irreducible complexity. (I took a screen print, just in case.) Read it:
cartridge17.jpg

A “cartridge” that can hold 17 rounds? Sorry, Casey, a cartridge is a single round. A magazine could hold 17 rounds. Moron.

This is all the IDiots have to offer: propaganda, character assasination, and ignorance (in a surprisingly large number of fields).
Mene mene tekel upharsin.*

Clenched fist salute: Ed Brayton

Comments

  1. John the Marine wrote:

    “This is all the IDiots have to offer: propaganda, character assasination, and ignorance”

    Sounds like they’re borrowing the traditional methods of the “Left”. Or, another way to say it is,”They (ID advocates) sound desperate”.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 2:00 pm

  2. Casey Luskin wrote:

    Thanks for the tip on the mistake regarding the word cartridge. I appreciate that, and have no problem fixing mistakes, and I just fixed it, with a noted edit at the bottom.

    This post was a parody. My intent was not to imply that Judge Jones actually plagiarized. The point was that his arguments resembled those of the plaintiffs so much that it seems like he uncritically accepted anything they said–even demonstrably false statements like “ID has published no peer-reviewed literature”–a claim which he mande over 5 times in the decision, and is easily refuted by the existence of various papers. If the plaintiffs said it, then it went uncritically into the decision. The “pre-publication” drafts part was simply a take off of all the big deal made about pre-publication drafts of Pandas. Of course I do not think Judge Jones plagiarized–this was simply a parody.

    Question #1 is simply a provocative question–I’m sure Judge Jones believed what he wrote. No accusations of plagiarism there.

    In conclusion, thanks again for the correction on the gun terminology. Take care all.

    Casey Luskin

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 2:20 pm

  3. j.d. wrote:

    You’re a parody, all right.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 2:31 pm

  4. commissar wrote:

    Casey,

    You accuse a federal judge of gross improprieties, and then try to beg off with “just kidding?”

    As far as peer-reviewed papers —

    On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 2:36 pm

  5. dorkafork wrote:

    if a different system can still function though it lacks 2 parts normally found in the more complicated system, then the more complicated system is not irreducibly complex. (emphasis added)

    But the example Luskin gave would not function. That doesn’t seem to be a very good example.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 3:26 pm

  6. dorkafork wrote:

    Some of those questions, don’t sound like parody to me:

    5) Did Of Pandas and People say that intelligent design requires a supernatural agent?

    Maybe I’m just missing it. But when you mix what appear to be serious questions with “parodic” ones you run the risk of people taking the “parodic” ones seriously. I’d add that one of the reasons #8 sounds serious is because the drafts of his decision could be considered evidence of authorship/bias/etc.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 3:39 pm

  7. commissar wrote:

    The Discovery Institute offers the following list to support its claim of peer-reviewed scientific literature. First, they try to expand the definition to include publications of any sort. By their claim, ID proponents have published:

    7 Featured Articles – Not peer-reviewed. These are just articles.

    4 Peer-Reviewed Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses - Not peer-reviewed by scientists.

    3 Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses - Not peer-reviewed. There are books on astrology published in “prominent trade presses.”

    6 Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals - Not very convincincing. I will comment on each.

    7 Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Edited Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings - Not peer-reviewed.

    5 Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals – Nice try. Admittedly not even in scientific journals.

    By their own admission, they are claiming six peer-reviewed scientific articles. How many peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals are produced every month by evolutionary biologists?

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 3:50 pm

  8. dorkafork wrote:

    Of the three examples Luskin gave:
    The first was repudiated by the publisher.
    The second was a book, not a peer-reviewed journal.
    I have not been able to find the full text of the third. According to talkorigins.org it does not discuss “design”.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:03 pm

  9. Casey Luskin wrote:

    commissar and all: I couldn’t resist posting again and I’m feeling too under-the-weather to do much of any other type of work today: I find commissar’s reply to my post incredibly revealing and the lack of response to my claims indicates a tacit admission that I was correct to imply that Judge Jones was wrong to say the following?:

    “[ID] has not generated peer-reviewed publications” (pg. 64), “the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory” (pg. 87), “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications” (pg. 87), “failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals” (pg. 88), “it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals” (pg. 89)

    commissar might not agree with the conclusions of those publications I cited, but each is indeed a peer-reviewed publication supporting ID. So if we frame the question simply, “Has ID failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals?” the answer is unquestionably, “No.”

    Judge Jones got this easy binary question wrong. If he can get the easy stuff wrong, perhaps there’s bigger problems with the decision. If you want a more extensive critique documenting a lot of other stuff Judge Jones got wrong, check out Traipsing Into Evolution.

    Thanks again, keep up the great work all, and take care. I have nothing but respect for you.

    –Casey

    p.s. to avoid any future confusion about my intended meaning for question 8 of my original blog post, I’ve posted a note at the bottom of the original blog post. Sorry for any initial confusion but now that there is an unambiguous explanatory note on the orignal post, there’s really no more room to claim there is any ambiguity about my intended meaning of question 8.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:13 pm

  10. John the Marine wrote:

    When I read the full statement (via the above link) I come away with the impression that Luskin has made a poor argument, plain and simple. However, since I’ve not read Judge Jones’ decision I do have a question for him. Did the court rule ID is unconstitutional? or, was it that teaching ID in a public school Biology class unconstitutional?

    After all Mr. Luskin’s # 1 question is:

    “If you had not ruled that ID is unconstitutional, do you think your picture would be on the cover of Time Magazine this week?”

    Perhaps the above question is just more parody. Or perhaps Mr. Luskin should be more precise with his statements.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:18 pm

  11. Casey Luskin wrote:

    Of the 3 examples I cited, no evidence has been submitted that (#1) did not undergo the normal peer review process — allegations that the article did not undergo normal peer-review is a pure fabrications (and the “repudiation” was a sham: it was a post-hoc political move in obedience to a AAAS edict about ID); (#2) was peer reviewed and is a peer-reviewed “publication” supporting ID–contradicting some of Jones’s statements I cited above; and (3) explicitly supports irreducible complexity and cites to Darwin’s Black Box — a book explicitly supportive of ID. OK, this is really the end!

    –Casey

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:20 pm

  12. commissar wrote:

    Let’s talk about the three you cited:

    Meyer (2004) - Repudiated by the BSW. ” Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council …would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.”

    Demski (1998) - reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.

    Lönnig and Saedler (2002) - mention Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word “design” used.

    These are your best three. You didn’t come here to post your three weakest items. You’re a law student; of course you offered your best case. One of which was a sneaky, off-topic manuever, and was repudiated by the publishing journal!

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:21 pm

  13. Casey Luskin wrote:

    John the Marine–yes, of course it is a parody–after all, these were questions from a fake, hypothetical interview, where I wrote:

    “I wish I could have been the one to interview Judge Jones for this article. If I could interview Judge Jones, here are the top 10 questions I would ask him:”

    And the interview had all kinds of silly hypothetical questions as well, if you read the whole thing.

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:24 pm

  14. Casey Luskin wrote:

    OK, I guess I’m sucked into this:

    #1:
    Sternberg explains that he sent it out to 4 experts:

    “The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004…  .[edited].…..Thus, any allegations that I somehow rushed the publication process are patently false.”

    #2: This one clearly refutes your argument. How do you know that it was reviewed by philosophers and not biologists? The book contains a lot of math anyways and so I’d presume that at the very least, it was reviewed by mathematicians. If it wwas

    #3: You didn’t respond to my argument. And these authors explicitly support ID in Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004) where they write “According to Behe and several other authors [5-7, 21-23, 53-60, 68, 86] the only adequate hypothesis so far known for the origin of irreducibly complex systems is intelligent design (ID), a hypothesis, whose scientific basis will be further discussed in the following paragraphs in connection with Dembski’s criterion of specified complexity” and then go on to laud ID.

    commissar: you’re fighting an argument you can’t win. Why can’t you just admit that ID has published some peer-reviewed publications, and Jones was wrong to say that they don’t exist? It’s not that big a deal–I’m not claiming ID has outpublished evolution. Just that there is legitimate research and publication going on, contrary to the common Darwinist conspiracy theories! Like I asked in my silly rhetorical question # 10, how many papers were there 10 years after Origin of Species was published supporting evolution by natural selection?

    Take care all and keep up the great work!

    (ed. - Write what you like. Link to what you like. But don’t spam the thread with  protracted cut-and-pastes. Make your own arguments, or link to a reference.)

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:33 pm

  15. commissar wrote:

    Your big three: one was repudiated, another is philosophical (or mathematical), the third just mentions ID.

    Re: Demski (1998) — the DI says “part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. ” - If it had been reviewed by a biologist, they would have said so.

    Judge Jones’ statements (that you provided)
    “[ID] has not generated peer-reviewed publications” (pg. 64), “the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory” (pg. 87), “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications” (pg. 87), “failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals” (pg. 88), “it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals” (pg. 89).

    … I agree.

    “Just that there is legitimate research and publication going on,” .. at one-one-hundredth of the rate of the DI’s press releases (and that credits the DI with all 34 popular press books and non-peer-reviewed articles they claimed).
    Keep up the good work!

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:43 pm

  16. dorkafork wrote:

    How do you know that it was reviewed by philosophers and not biologists? The book contains a lot of math anyways and so I’d presume that at the very least, it was reviewed by mathematicians.

    You “presume”? So you don’t know for sure?

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:43 pm

  17. dorkafork wrote:

    Of the 3 examples I cited, no evidence has been submitted that (#1) did not undergo the normal peer review process — allegations that the article did not undergo normal peer-review is a pure fabrications (and the “repudiation” was a sham:

    So what if it did undergo the normal peer review process? The publisher said it was a mistake and should not have been published. How is that not a repudiation?

    it was a post-hoc political move in obedience to a AAAS edict about ID);

    (parody) I think we’ve found the guys that wrote Judge Jones’ decision! (end parody)

    Posted 05 May 2006 at 4:48 pm

  18. rightwingprof wrote:

    I think the judge was out of line in ruling ID in the schools unconstitutional. However, any school that teaches ID *as science* should lose its accreditation, just as any school that teaches 2+2=6 should.

    It’s not science. It cannot ever be science. It’s find in a philosophy of science course. But never the science classroom.

    Posted 06 May 2006 at 8:18 am

  19. commissar wrote:

    RWP,

    The transparent religious motivation, agenda, background, and purpose of ID is the issue. If you didnt read the decision, you should.

    Posted 06 May 2006 at 10:43 am

  20. Karl Rove wrote:

    Mr Luskin - what do you think of my comments under “Evo Devo” of May 2d about there being no “game plan” to evolution? Also my pointing out, previously, that human brain cells must have evolved at about 30 000 a year.
    How likely is that?

    Good luck to you for remaining calm under the infantile abuse. But then the Darwinists have no alternative.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 4:54 am

  21. commissar wrote:

    Karl,

    “there are 100 billion brain cells. Assuming that as the brain enlarges, the cell total expands roughly uniformly, over 3+ million years, that means an extra 30,000 cells a year. Given that the theory demands random evolution (or there is some kind of design) how likely is that?”

    Australopithecus afarensis, who lived about 3.5 MYA, had a brain of 400 cc. Modern humans have a brain of about 1500 cc (varies widely). The evolution from then to now is well-documented. Here’s one page showing hominid skulls over time (that you have already declined to respond to once).

    Natural selection is not random; it operates on the raw material provided by random mutations in the genome.

    BTW, Karl, since you seem to be a bright guy, not at all the type who enjoys or engages in infantile abuse, I wonder what you make of the similarity between choanoflagellates and choanocyte cells in sponges.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:08 am

  22. Karl Rove wrote:

    I’ve already looked at the skulls. I’m talking brains, not skulls.

    Actually I do rather enjoy abuse, but it tends to be a substitute for logic.

    As for the sponges, I don’t see their connection with the brain cells I’m so obsessed with.

    Natural selection IS random, or the trend to look for alternatives to both evolution & Genesis will continue.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 12:58 pm

  23. commissar wrote:

    Brain size is highly correlated with skull size, within related animals. If we 100 Bn cells, then afarensis had about 30 Bn. We have evolved larger skulls and brains.

    No connection of sponge cells to brain cells.

    The survival of fitter organisms, in response to environmental pressures, is not random, anything but.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 1:27 pm

  24. jt wrote:

    The fact of the matter is, really, that if ID is going to challenge evolution it needs to publish more than six papers in its history, of which two are in academic journals. Evolution papers are published at that rate per day in respected journals, not speculative unread hogwash. The Lonnig paper does mention design, but the journal that published it is a fledgeling journal called Dynamical Genetics, which is a young field and highly speculative. A bit like saying that you are a journalist if you published an article in a newletter that you send to members of your family to tell them about what your kids are up to or the publication of a club that you started for five of your friends. It should also be noted that the first three papers on the list of “peer-reviewed” papers on the DI’s list are all from a journal that DI members edit. Gee, do you think that my paper will pass review in MY OWN JOURNAL?! Ridiculous. That, and the journal itself is NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. So there we are, a lone voice in the wilderness. Even if the Lonnig paper was published in a respected journal, which it is not, and presented vaguely original or cogent research, which it doesn’t, it is only one paper in a blizzard of publications to the contrary.

    Posted 23 Aug 2006 at 1:08 am

« Ethanol
Scandals Left and Right »