Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 4)


A bit of background is required here. Everyone’s favorite creationist, Casey Luskin, was recently speaking at some creationist event. During a heated exchange with Abbie Smith, which she later described here: Casey Luskin, Abbie flipped a bird at Casey.

Upon experiencing this “Darwinist” atrocity, Casey did the blogging equivalent of bursting into tears and collapsing on the fainting couch. He produced an amazing narrative which appeared on the Discoveroid blog: Civility of Darwinists Lacking at Academic Freedom on Evolution Event in Oklahoma. The picture which adorns this post is our subtle commemoration of that event.

It’s Casey Luskin again. At the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids), we find his latest offering: A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 1). Casey says, with bold font added by us:

Evolutionists often claim that universal common ancestry and the “tree of life” are established facts. One recent opinion article in argued, “The evidence that all life, plants and animals, humans and fruit flies, evolved from a common ancestor by mutation and natural selection is beyond theory. It is a fact. Anyone who takes the time to read the evidence with an open mind will join scientists and the well-educated.”

We left out the link and a footnote from that paragraph. Casey continues:

The take-home message is that if you doubt Darwin’s tree of life, you’re ignorant. No one wants to be ridiculed, so it’s a lot easier to buy the rhetoric and “join scientists and the well-educated.”

We agree with that first sentence, but the second isn’t quite true. Casey, for example, doesn’t mind being ridiculed. We continue:

But what is the evidence for their claim, and how much of it is based upon assumptions? The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.

That’s Casey’s standard line — scientific conclusions are all a matter of assumptions. But wait! Casey mentions data that contradicts those expectations. Perhaps we’re finally going to learn about the long-suppressed anti-Darwin evidence to which the creationists so often allude, but somehow never produce. Let us read on:

Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified.

You gotta love Casey! The theory of evolution has already been falsified! Who knew? Let’s read some more:

Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data.

Okay, we can’t take any more. Casey hints that he’s going to be posting a Part 2, and perhaps — finally — the data that contradicts evolution will be presented. But even if it is, remember Casey’s dictum: It’s all based upon one’s assumptions.

For another view of things — the Curmudgeon’s own — consider an earlier post of ours: Where Are The Anachronistic Fossils? One brief excerpt:

I want to see something that had to be specially created — perhaps a Pegasus — a species that can’t fit into the tree of life. In other words, if evolution theory is wrong and species exist that couldn’t possibly have evolved, then show me the evidence!

Anyway, we breathlessly await Casey’s Part 2 — the thundering conclusion to his brilliant creationist research. We promise to keep an open mind.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 4)

  1. Pliny-the-in-Between

    You’d think that the Dover case would have been the perfect venue for this earth shattering evidence they claim to have (refuting evolutionary theory). Strange that the Discovery Institute shied away. I’d have thought they’d have jumped at the chance.

  2. Pliny says: “You’d think that the Dover case would have been the perfect venue for this earth shattering evidence they claim to have …”

    Well, the Discoveroids did send in Behe and his magic flagellum. They gave it their best shot.

  3. And the alternative explanation for common descent is….? Oh wait, never mind, it’s the Discovery Institute. “It’s not exactly the same as Darwin’s theory in 1859, therefore, creationism!”

  4. James says: “And the alternative explanation for common descent is….?”

    Oh, the evidence is the same. The trick is in one’s assumptions. They assume that the magical mystery designer is responsible for everything. Therefore, no evolution. QED.

  5. megalonyx

    Curmy wrote: we breathlessly await Casey’s Part 2 — the thundering conclusion to his brilliant creationist research. We promise to keep an open mind.

    OK, I’m trying to do the same. In fact, thinking about it, I can suddenly see that dear old Casey has a valid point about Swine Flu. It’s too dreadful to think that lethal microbes might have the ability to evolve, in Darwinian fashion, into ever-greater perils. It is much more comforting to think that we are all in the Loving Hands of The Intelligent Designer, who patiently and omnipotently tweaks things along day by day and magiciking up a little extra virulence for the poor little ole flu bug!

    Thank you, Jebus! — er, Mr. Intelligent Designer!

    Moral of Story: You can’t open your mind enough to grasp the Discoveroids’ flat-out crazy spiel without your brains falling out…

  6. Great Claw, you must be tolerant of Casey. He’s a sensitive lad, so be gentle with him. He’s a sincere believer in Behe and ID (which is by no means a compliment, merely an observation).

  7. “…….The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption…..”

    What…..Ok im a christian but i believe in evolution why?

    1) my faith isnt held together on the unfoulability of a book coppied a thousand times or changed a thousand time.

    2) the evidence of evolution is literaly FREAKING EVERYWHERE! see the kitty see the cute kitty….evolution. See the Whale…evolution…bird…yep evolution…its called palentology….

    God i dont get it…

    If you dont have the ability to say hey you know what maybe god uses evolution like a painter does a brush or to atleast say hey i have no freakin clue what god is then i pitty you.
    If your ever forced from your small small place you will shatter.

  8. If Luskin has a problem with common descent (CD) why doesn’t he just take it up with fellow DI guy Michael Behe?

    Or does Behe consider (nonscientist) Luskin one of those IDers who, according to an embarassingly pathetic disclaimer he made in the years between his endorsement of CD in “Darwin’s Black Box” and the even stronger endorsement in “Edge of Evolution,” denies CD and “is more familiar with the relevant science”?

  9. JamesinTN: “1) my faith isnt held together on the unfoulability of a book coppied a thousand times or changed a thousand time.”

    Well then. Recently an evolutionary algorithm reconstructed a pseudo-pristine version of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales from many different copies. I see a research opportunity here, James. Hop to it.