Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 7)


That graphic adorns a whole series of our posts about articles 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).

If you’re wondering how the series started, here’s some background information:

Back in February of 2009, Casey was speaking at some creationist revival meeting or something. During a heated exchange with Abbie Smith, which she later described here: Casey Luskin, Abbie flipped a bird at Casey, as we reported in this post.

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 has become our subtle commemoration of that event. (The picture isn’t Abbie, who is lovely; it’s one of your Curmudgeon’s cousins.)

That wasn’t the first time Casey let his kinder, gentler nature be known. Back in April of 2008 when we were first starting this blog, we posted Want a Creationist Physician? Casey had written about a friend was “studying hard to take the medical school entrance examination,” and who was offended and emotionally distracted by encountering some “evolution indoctrination” passages in his study materials which were “extremely emotionally charged.” We commended Casey for his empathic ability to share the distress of his friend.

Not only is Casey a sensitive lad, he seems to be the only Discoveroid who isn’t a “fellow,” so last year your Curmudgeon compassionately remedied that cruel insult (see: Casey Luskin Is Named a Curmudgeon Fellow).

Okay, now you know why we’re using that graphic. Today’s post by Casey is The Uncivil Style of Intelligent Design Critics, in which he again reveals his extreme sensitivity. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and Casey’s links omitted:

I’m going to let ENV [the Discoveroid’s creationist “think tank”] readers in on a little secret: When many of us in the intelligent design (ID) movement read the arguments coming from our critics, we’re surprised at their low quality and style. We don’t rejoice at this — we’d much rather see a robust, civil, and fruitful scientific debate over the relevant questions. But the incivility, basic inaccuracy, and unserious tone characteristic of so many criticisms of ID all make you wonder: If the critics had stronger rebuttals to offer, wouldn’t we be hearing them?

What rebuttals are needed? The Discoveroids have no evidence for their magical, mystical designer. Their wedge strategy openly declares their intent to suppress science and replace it with mysticism. All they ever do is claim that Darwin’s theory is responsible for Marx, Hitler, and all the other evils in the world. They are the barbarians at the gates. To what courtesy are they entitled? Anyway, Casey continues:

[M]ost critiques of ID look more like attempts to dismiss ID’s arguments than to engage them. In particular, many critics try to dismiss ID by harping on alleged religious associations with ID, while ignoring ID’s scientific merits, accomplishments, and arguments.

“Ignoring ID’s scientific merits, accomplishments, and arguments”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What is there to ignore? We do consider the Discoveroids’ claims that such exist, and we analyze such claims — giving them all the respect that is appropriate. See Intelligent Designer or Zeus?

Casey then babbles on quite a bit, giving examples of uncivility. No doubt he has a large universe of material from which to select. After that he says:

This tendency of ID critics to replace sound scientific arguments with uncivil rhetoric goes back for years. It has even attracted the notice of academics, who aren’t pro-ID, and who study the rhetoric of science.

A few months back, I discovered a 2009 paper published in the Journal of Science Communication which evaluated the discourse adopted by evolution-defenders on blogs. It found that the frequency of uncivil attacks at the blog Pandas Thumb in particular “undermines the goals of rational debate and criticism.”

Then he quotes large portions of what his selected “scholars of scientific communication” have written — as if that meant anything about the merits of the Discoveroids’ “science.” After all that, he wraps it up like this:

Keeping [the communication scholars’] evaluation schema in mind, I’m going to post a few short articles here at ENV looking at some recent examples of ID critics who use “mockery,” “ridicule,” “emotional and insulting evaluations,” and “public scorn in displays of derision” in order to “demonstrate not only their rightness, but also to distinguish their group of reasonable and worthy individuals from others, who are wrong, unintelligent, and overall worthless” and “de-authorize publications that could be perceived as dangerous to the community.”

We can’t wait. Until then, however, we shall continue to use mockery, ridicule, sarcasm, and scorn when discussing the mystical “science” of the Discoveroids. It’s exactly what they deserve.

Copyright © 2011. 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

14 responses to “Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 7)

  1. What about linking “darwinism” with Hitler?

  2. How would Casey expect any rational person to engage their ‘argument’? All they’ve ever proposed boils down to the argument from personal incredulity, which is utterly uncompelling. Maybe if someday some IDiot ever could do some honest science: you know, formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, design and conduct an actual research program to test the hypothesis, and then publish the results in a legitimate journal (not just one of their vanity ‘journals’), it might be worthwhile to engage them on a scientific level, but not before. Unless an IDiot does some actual science, scorn, mockery, disdain, and the like, are all they deserve.

  3. Unless an IDiot does some actual science, scorn, mockery, disdain, and the like, are all they deserve.

    The IDiots will NEVER be able to do actual science because IDiotism is political propaganda and nothing more.

    Luskin sold his ticket to civility long ago when he threw his lot in with the mendacious intellectual pornographers that are the Disco Tute. As a real scientist I can tell you that what Luskin does is like fingernails on a blackboard, like putting a turd in a punchbowl, like passing a kidney stone; very, very painful. Luskin has made a career out of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy and, yet, he expects to be treated as an adult in a society he has rejected.

    I’d like to see a list of where Luskin has been unjustly criticized. I’m sure it’s a very short list. Meanwhile, Luskin, squeak my little Attack Gerbil, we need entertainment.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    I can’t help noticing the shared attribute of thin skins exhibited by Casey Luskin and today’s news of Sam Brownback, governor of Kansas.

    Brownback couldn’t even handle a twitter comment made by a female high school student to her friends, while Luskin at least melted down at the actual bird flipped at him by a female graduate student.

    Makes one wonder if their thin skins are just randomly acquired cultural artifacts, or quite possibly the phenotypic expression of some single gene that along with thin skin codes for the fundamentalism, creationism, misogyny, and desire for theocracy which they also share.

  5. Hey, try leading by example- you know produce some science that actually supports your position!

    That would be a change but it obviously ain’t happenin’- why is that? What is holding all of you evotards back?

    Seriously if you chumps had the science then there wouldn’t be any ID but you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis.

    Come on Pete Moulton- ante up a testable hypothjesis for your sorry position so we can compare.

  6. Well, Joe G, I could give you a reading list full of such examples, but since you won’t read any of those books, I’ll just refer you to the right sideboard where Curmy’s helpfully posted a link to his previous post “The Lessons of Tiktaalik”. I don’t guess you’ll read that either, but I’ve done my bit.

  7. Hey Joe G
    Try getting an education yourself, that’s not why we are here.
    The tonnes of evidence is out there, try Google to start and then follow the trail.

  8. …we’d much rather see a robust, civil, and fruitful scientific debate over the relevant questions.

    Dear Casey,

    I’m looking forward to DI Senior Fellows debating prominent YECs on the age of the earth and the relevant “good” and “bad” science. When will the DI be sponsoring this debate?

  9. Don’t worry about Joe G. He won’t be back.

  10. Curmie, I hope your blog makes Casey’s list. That would be an honor, perhaps even a “thank-you” for promoting Casey to honorary fellow-hood.

    The DI routinely lies about science, history, current events, scientific papers and other writings, and scientists themselves. They label scientists who study evolution “darwinists”, atheists, members of the “darwin lobby”, and link them to a plethora of social evils. (Even in his rant on uncivil style, Casey dismisses Dr.’s Myers, Coyne, and Moran – actual working scientists and professors – as “the usual Internet suspects”.) Like other creationists, exude a combination of persecution and self-righteousness, as though they are working against vast evil conspiracies of scientists and scientific institutions. Their avowed purpose is to overthrow modern science.

    All this, and they expect scientists to treat them with civility and respect.

    It should be a requirement that someone be present at every DI speaking engagement, to fish-slap (ala Monty Python) the speakers, or walk to the podium in uniform to announce that this is “entirely too silly” and time to move on to the next skit, or pass out foil hats to audience members. The DI absolutely merits complete ridicule, and treating such liars with respect only legitimizes them. I suspect articles like Casey’s will simply bring on even more laughter and humorous incivility…especially use of the term IDiot, which seems to especially get under Casey’s skin.

  11. Ed says: “Curmie, I hope your blog makes Casey’s list.”

    That would be amusing, but it’s not likely to happen. Part of their fantasy world is that their “science” will save the world from the leftists and the atheists. This blog is neither of those, so in their bizarro world I don’t exist.

  12. Curmie, they read you though. You can be sure of it.

  13. Luskin is such a twit; and he knows damned well that ID/creationists deliberately taunt until they get slapped down just so they can whine about the “incivility” of “Darwinists,” “materialists,” and “god haters.”

    Want to see some snark and bitterness? Just go over to the website of AiG and look at the videos over there.

    And anybody who has been in the presence of Duane Gish knows what taunting and insults are all about.

    Thomas Kindell is a protégé of that school.

  14. Doc Bill: “… what Luskin does is like fingernails on a blackboard, like putting a turd in a punchbowl, like passing a kidney stone …”

    To which we might add: “…like farting in a crowded elevator, like incessantly whistling off-key in the next cubicle, or worst yet, just being himself.”