We just spotted an extra-ordinary article by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite creationist among the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
Casey has been on a number of crusades, none of which has accomplished anything other than to fulfill his blogging quota. For a few examples of his hopeless campaigns, there’s his endless war on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (see Casey and Kitzmiller — the Case He “Forgot”), and also his war on the meaning of science: Intelligent Designer or Zeus?, and also his war on junk DNA: Junk DNA Dismay, and also his war on the Miller-Urey experiment: Casey and the Miller-Urey Experiment, #2, and also his war against Tiktaalik: Tiktaalik — a “Fraudulent” Transitional Fossil, and also his war against Nature magazine’s 15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS (see Casey Luskin vs. Reality: The Thundering Climax).
There have been more crusades, but that’s enough to give you the general idea. Casey is at war with literally everything that demonstrates evolution, and now he’s taken on a new foe. At the Discoveroids’ blog we read Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change.
Casey’s post, by the way, was originally adorned with an illustration of Noah’s Ark. It’s presence wasn’t explained, but we understood it quite well. It’s a natural part of the Discoveroids’ worldview. But upon performing a pre-publishing check of our links, we observed that Noah’s Ark has been replaced with a bumblebee. There’s no explanation of that either, but the sudden take-down of the Ark is most amusing. This is Casey’s lost ark (he used the same illustration that accompanies Wikipedia’s article on Noah’s Ark):
Noah's Ark (by Edward Hicks, 1846)
Anyway, with or without the Ark, here are some excerpts from Casey’s latest, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:
For years, Internet Darwin activists have cited the TalkOrigins Speciation FAQ, titled “Observed Instances of Speciation,” citing its claim that it “discusses several instances where speciation has been observed.” This Speciation FAQ (for “Frequently Asked Questions”) has long been a cornerstone citation for many pro-Darwin internet debaters, who claim it demonstrates that Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change.
Casey is talking about Observed Instances of Speciation. Your Curmudgeon is one of those “Internet Darwin activists” who have cited that article from time to time. It’s excellent, albeit somewhat dated, but Casey doesn’t like it. On with his article:
Over the last few months, I’ve received a few of inquiries about this FAQ [the TalkOrigins article] and decided to write a response (the full response can be found here) [link in the original]. After analyzing a large portion of the technical literature cited in the FAQ, my review finds that the FAQ’s claims are incorrect.
We know you’re thrilled to learn of Casey’s monumental work, so you’ll undoubtedly be clicking over to Casey’s post to find the link to his world-shaking article. We’ll ignore it, however, just as the educated world has ignored Casey’s other crusades. Let’s continue with his latest post, as he gives a few examples from his glorious refutation:
NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. [Caps and underlining by Casey.]
Large scale? Like from sponge to mammal? Good point, Casey! But the TalkOrigins article only speaks of speciation, not “large scale” change, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Let’s read another of Casey’s examples:
The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a “species” is defined by the standard definition of a “reproductively isolated population.”
The TalkOrigins article explains at great length the various definitions of “species,” and it doesn’t use Casey’s simplistic definition. Further, TalkOrigins explains that as speciation is occurring, there is not necessarily a barrier to interbreeding. We continue, as Casey says:
I should note from the outset that my purpose is not to deny that speciation can occur in nature, especially when it is defined merely as a reproductively isolated population. When trying to assess the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism, that definition is trivial.
It sounds like Casey is falling back on the micro-macro maneuver — a favorite among creationists. Sorry, that won’t work (see Common Creationist Claims Confuted). Casey concludes his post with this:
People who believe this FAQ [the TalkOrigins article] demonstrates that Darwinian processes can produce large-scale biological change have been badly misled. As we’ll see in some subsequent articles, the examples in the FAQ are ultimately used to make inaccurate claims, and the FAQ’s title, “Observed Instances of Speciation,” is unwarranted.
Oh goodie — Casey says there will be “subsequent articles” on this topic. We plan to ignore them.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
What we need from the Discovery Institute is the same kind of careful, serious attempts to define “Genesis kind” that regular taxonomists are working on to define “species,” “genus,” “family,” and so forth. Which taxonomic tier corresponds most closely to “Genesis kind”? In other words, they need to specify exactly how large “large-scale” biological change is. Do we measure it by morphological differences, as we must in fossils, or should we also include differences in the genome of living animals?
Armed with careful definitions, the DI should be able, with enough work taking measurements of whichever kind(s) work(s) best, to make a complete inventory of genesis kinds. Ken Ham needs this information to make his full-scale Ark model accurate. Does the boat house both okapis and giraffes, or do they count as the same kind? If one kind, which animal better represents the kind as a whole? What about pythons, anacondas, and boas? I have a book that catalogs dozens of species of grasshoppers. Do they all belong to the same Genesis kind? Are they separate from crickets and katydids?
These are the kinds of questions that should be within the DI’s scope. Even if they cannot answer them all now, their researchers should have developed a framework for answering them, and they should now be doing rigorously disciplined research within that framework, if they expect to fulfill their role as scientists.
Casey seems to think speciation at the level described in the FAQ is trivial, but at the same time he plans to attempt a refutation of the examples in future articles. What is his point? Does he actually intend to argue that speciation in fact does not occur, or is he spending his time simply attacking a popular source of information on evolution?
Doesn’t Casey have any Intelligent Design research to work on? Oh, right….
Casey is using the pathological liar and Moony “darwin destroyer” Jon Wells as a reference. That’s like using Woody Woodpecker as a reference for the effects of caffeine.
How about Casey refute Coyne and Orr’s book, Speciation. Or Valentine’s book, Origin of Phyla.
What? Not a peep? Not surprising because not only are these two books a difficult read, they are very detailed and supported by evidence and research. Surprise, surprise.
The Disco Tute is flailing. Now, they are claiming that Shermer has conceded that Wallace is an ID-ist. Path-the-tic.
Prof, they’ve done their best.
“Baraminology” http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology
Try not to laugh too hard.
@b_sharp: I’ve gone to that link and followed the links to find our who are the “baraminologists”. The “Executive Council” of “baraminologists” are:
- Todd Wood, Bryan College (president)
- Roger Sanders, Bryan College (executive editor)
- Tim Brophy, Liberty University (treasurer)
- Joe Francis, The Master’s College (secretary)
- David Cavanaugh, independent scholar
- Gordon Wilson, New St. Andrews College
- Tom Hennigan, independent scholar
- Georgia Purdom, Answers in Genesis
Purdom sounds familiar (probably because SC keeps us well-informed of AiG’s shenanigans). I have no idea who the rest of these people are.
Gary, all of those people fit into a clown car.
Srsly.
b_sharp, thanks for that link. I see that at least some creationists understand that they need to at least go through the motions of scientific rigor, even though the result (as you noted) is risible.
Before I retired, one of my tasks was to teach composition students to devise classification systems without the inconsistencies we see here. I get the feeling that budding baraminologists would not have let those lessons sink in.
Retired Prof: “What we need from the Discovery Institute is the same kind of careful, serious attempts to define “Genesis kind” that regular taxonomists are working on to define “species,” “genus,” “family,” and so forth.”
You are absolutely right, and I’m sure you know it’s not going to happen. DI is a scam outfit; they know they are a scam outfit; they are being paid to churn out anti-evolution propaganda, and have no intention of performing any such “research” as you have proposed. The fact that they have not done this research is proof of their scam.
The first two pictures a search for “Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change” results in are the bumblebee and the ark. The later is still available at ENV:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/Noahs_Ark.jpg
Thanks, sparc. If I knew that picture was in the public domain, I’d add it to the post.
Ah, I found it — it’s the illustration in the Wikipedia article on Noah’s Ark.
First, I have to wonder why a lawyer thinks he has what it takes to “review” meaningfully the technical literature of a field waaaay outside his area of expertise. Is he looking for legal mistakes?
Then, I wonder, if he is willing to admit to speciation (even his specious definition), is he also willing to stipulate (legal term, heh heh) to the time it must have taken to achieve that speciation; and how will he square it with the only 4000 or so years since Noah’s Ark allowed by his model? Without, I mean, invoking magical thinking- oh, ok, never mind. It’s only science up to the point that the facts start to interfere with the assumption that is both the basis and the conclusion of the theory.
Perhaps Noah’s Ark was removed because of the creationist insistence on rapid speciation after the Ark landed. The recognition that there wouldn’t be enough room on the Ark for all species led to the concept of baramin (or created kind), sometimes regarded as something rather on the level of a taxonomic family.
Doc Bill writes> “That’s like using Woody Woodpecker as a reference for the effects of caffeine.”
I think you are on to something here: Looney Tunes as a metaphor to The Controversy.
Intelligent Design = Wile E. Coyote (Cdesignus Proponituses)
Evolutionary Theory = Roadrunner (Veritas Velocitus)
Hilarity ensues.
Retired Prof: “What we need from the Discovery Institute is the same kind of careful, serious attempts to define “Genesis kind” that regular taxonomists are working on to define “species,” “genus,” “family,” and so forth. Which taxonomic tier corresponds most closely to “Genesis kind”?:
Adding to Retired Sci Guy’s answer:
Note also that the only DI fellow to take a clear position on common descent (behe), conceded it, and he diidn’t even rule out a Darwinian mechanism for the speciation nearest to the hearts of rhe Biblical literalist – that of modern humans from their common ancestors with other apes.
Part of the DI’s “big tent” scam is to get the other fellows to spin more Genesis-friendly sound bites to the less sophisticated subset of their audience. But note that none of those other spin artists have ever challenged Behe, which makes it reasonable to suspect that they don’t necessarily deny common descent either. You might also notice how rarely they say “when” any event occurred, and when they do, either concede mainstream chronology, or qualify it with a “scientists say.” That of course is to make sure their audience does not notice the irreconcilable differences among several YEC and OEC positions.
So not only won’t they do the research, theyare unlikely to play even the “baraminology” word games like the YECs and OEC do.
To a creationist/IDer “Darwinian Speciation” is when, for example, a fish egg hatches and produces a dog. By that standard, of course there is “No Evidence of Darwinian Speciation”.
Also, they will never ever say what evidence, if presented to them, would convince them that evolutionary theory is reasonable, rational, sound, and solid — other than maybe an elephant giving birth to a whale, or a horse giving birth to a monkey, etc.
“People who believe this FAQ [the TalkOrigins article] demonstrates that Darwinian processes can produce large-scale biological change have been badly misled.”
Right! We’ve never found the crock-a-duck. Casey channels Ray Comfort.
But ID is about “science” …