Casey Defends Intelligent Design

There’s some good weekend entertainment at the blog of 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).

The Discoveroids’ article is Personal Attacks Against ID Proponents Say More About the Attackers than the Abused, and it’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. He’s a Curmudgeon fellow and a follower of the Knights of Uranus. Casey says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:

Recently an e-mail correspondent asked whether I recommend Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial, which had a seminal influence in the early days of the intelligent-design movement.

For some reason we always find Casey’s tales of his email correspondence to be utterly unbelievable. Who would ask him for an objective opinion about Johnson’s book? Last year Casey wrote gushingly about Johnson and his work (see Discovery Institute Praises Phillip Johnson). Anyway, let’s continue with what Casey says is an email he received:

The e-mailer said he had heard people saying that Johnson is “dishonest and deceiving,” and wanted to know if that was true. Here was my reply:

Casey then quotes extensively from his “reply,” but there’s way too much of it for us to copy here. A sampling will be sufficient. First, as expected, he recommends Johnson’s book. Then he says:

Here’s a fact you might ponder: Virtually every single major person who has criticized the Darwinian viewpoint has faced personal attacks on his or her character. It happens to everyone, myself included.

Gasp! Even Casey has faced personal attacks. If you doubt that, just Google on this, using our exact wording and punctuation: “Casey Luskin” + idiot. We get 14,400 hits. Let’s read on:

So one of two things are true: Either (1) virtually every single critic of Darwinism (of which there are many) is “dishonest” and “deceiving,” or (2) evolutionists habitually respond to scientific challenges with personal attacks.

We like #1 and Casey likes #2. There are numerous other possibilities, but we won’t bother with that. Casey continues:

Even scholars with no sympathy for ID have been amazed to observe the nasty and uncivil treatment to which evolutionists subject their critics.… So the fact that Phillip Johnson’s character and integrity have been impugned by critics says more about how evolutionists behave than it does about the man Johnson himself.

Yes, it’s amazing — especially considering how sweet the Discoveroids always are when criticizing Darwin. Then Casey gets to the next part of his possibly imaginary email:

The e-mailer also asked if it was true that intelligent design is “losing credibility in the scientific community and the media.” Here was my reply:

Losing credibility? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What credibility? Anyway here’s a bit of Casey’s rather long reply to that:

First, how do you measure an idea’s “credibility?” I judge scientific “credibility” based mainly upon whether a claim is supported by the evidence. I don’t gauge “credibility” by how many people have signed up for a particular position. That said, there are plenty of highly credible scientists, with PhDs, and at credible institutions, who support ID.

Casey doesn’t mention any evidence. Instead he links to the Discoveroids’ sad little list who signed their Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.. We’ve discussed it here: NCSE’s “Project Steve” Now Has 1,200 Steves. He goes on:

When there’s a credible mass of scientific dissent you can’t just dismiss because it represents a minority in the scientific field. What we see here is a genuine scientific debate — a debate whose existence many evolutionists would like to deny. But it does exist, and you have to look at the evidence to decide who is right. Science is decided by the evidence, not by vote-counts.

We agree with Casey’s last sentence. Too bad the evidence cuts against his position, but maybe that’s why he never gets around to mentioning any.

This has gone on long enough, so we’ll just pluck a few more sentences from the remainder of Casey’s alleged email reply:

So there is a credible mass of ID-friendly scientists, and they are doing and publishing credible research supporting their views. In reply, ID critics rarely engage ID arguments directly, but prefer to attack ID proponents in personal terms. … Meanwhile the scientific debate goes on — and just by observing how people behave, you can get a sense of which side is more confident about the evidence.

That’s it, dear reader. If you’re a fan of Casey’s prose, you can click over there to read the whole thing. It’s possible that you might find it persuasive. Anything’s possible, right?

Copyright © 2012. 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

20 responses to “Casey Defends Intelligent Design

  1. Phillip Johnson was Luskin’s idol from the git-go.

  2. retiredsciguy

    Luskin laments, “…the nasty and uncivil treatment to which evolutionists subject their critics.

    So Casey — are you implying that the more you are subjected to “personal” attack, the less true evolution is? Sorry, old chap, it doesn’t work that way. Even if I were to call you the nastiest, foulest, lecherous, scab-picking, drooling, dim-witted fool, it wouldn’t change the mountain of evidence supporting evolution one whit.

    And just what do you consider a “personal attack”? Someone calling you dim-witted because you don’t seem able to grasp the significance of that evidence? Well, you are either dim-witted, or you are a liar, because if you are bright enough to understand the evidence but refuse to take it into account in your writing, then you are prevaricating. In case you are dim-witted, “prevaricating” means lying. Either way, it’s not a personal attack, but a statement of fact.

    Admit it, Casey. You are a paid shill of the creationists. I don’t know who it is specifically that’s putting up the money, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is how you are making a living. It’s really a shame that you feel it’s necessary to lie in order to defend someone’s faith.

  3. docbill1351

    This is a classic case of projection by rhetorical question. Everything Luskin writes is a deliberate lie. Of course Luskin has no credibility and it is only politeness that causes us to refer to the little creep as an Attack Gerbil, although the notion of a helpless, furry little rodent with delusions of grandeur squeaking his protests from behind his fortress website is more than laughable. Hey, Luskin, you don’t get attacked because your ideas are so strong that the only weapon is ad hominem, you get attacked because you behave like a pathetic, lying goofball.

    But, I digress.

    Luskin gets email? No, he doesn’t. He makes up these stories so he can stand among his cedar chips and squeak. Notice the weasel words. “Virtually every single major person.” Virtually? Major? Followed by, “It happens to everyone, ” What are you talking about Gerb? It’s either virtually or it’s everyone. Can’t be both. Don’t you even read your own lies?

    So, let’s reflect on what happened just last week. Some credible people got into a debate on the Disco Tute’s Facebook page and what did they do? They shut down the debate, deleted comments they didn’t like and banned commenters. So much for academic freedom. So much for the argument that “Darwinists” run away from debate. So much for honesty. So much for civility. Carl Zimmer from National Geographic opened up his website for discussion but did a single Disco Tute fellow engage the discussion? Nope. Not a peep.

    Squeak all you want, Attack Gerb, it doesn’t change the fact that nobody cares. And on a sad note, Luskin, does it weigh on you that your entire career is worth less than a bucket of warm spit?

  4. So if you disagree with ID it says more about you than it does about ID? B*llsh*t. Casey is admitting here that the DI will never acknowledge criticism of ID. What is left unsaid is that ID is not subject to any sort of critical analysis since it is only a tool to promote an agenda, and was not created to be an actual scientific argument. It is a box of religion in sciencey looking wrapping paper.

  5. In talks on the fallacy of ID, I like to quote the godfather of ID, Philip Johnson, a formulator of ‘The Wedge’ movement:

    “This isn’t really and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.” World Magazine (1996).

    We don’t see the IDiots quoting this!

  6. vhutchison says: “I like to quote the godfather of ID, Philip Johnson, a formulator of ‘The Wedge’ movement”

    If Einstein had someone like Johnson promoting his theory, then he coulda been a contender.

  7. Give thanks to god, Casey, that when he made you a fool, he gave you a fool’s face.

  8. docbill1351

    The Discovery Institute is like the Westboro Baptist Church of science. Rational discussion is not possible. The Disco Tute and all their jolly bad fellows need to be treated with contempt, derision and shunned from polite society just as any sane person would treat the WBC. The Disco Tute is outside of society. The Disco Tute only exists because it is funded by rich nuts and absent of that would dissolve into the slime they are. Hey, Gerb, want to discuss Tute funding? I didn’t think so.

  9. docbill1351

    Let me point all the ad hominem attacks suffered by Dr. Richard Muller as an anthropomorphic climate change skeptic.

    Oh, none.

    So, what did Dr. Muller do? He embarked on a 2-year study, the best ever, using ALL the DATA to FOLLOW the DATA where it went and what did he find.

    Yep, industrialization has, indeed, affected the climate.

    Compare this to ID’s track record, Luskin, which, of course you can’t. Dip wad.

  10. More interesting to know WHY Johnson is considered a liar. So I googled it. Would be nice if Luskin did the research and defended Johnson, rather than whine.

  11. @Doc Bill: Don’t hold back! Tell us how you really feel!

  12. Docbill, I agree and go you one further, applying US Vice President John Nance Gardner’s actual characterization of his own job to Casey’s as ” not worth a bucket of warm plss.”

  13. Doctor Stochastic

    However, the “credibility of the witness” (or investigator or author) is an important point in apologetics.

  14. Casey Defends Intelligent Design

    What defense of ID does he present?

  15. Casey “Fuzzy” Lumpkin is getting a wee bit thin-skinned. Poor, sensitive little parasite. I’ll concede his point when his host organism, Phool Johnson, starts to be compared regularly to Hitler, Stalin and Satan. Until then it’s just a case of pot calling kettle “nasty” and “uncivil.”

  16. Saying the ID people are are “dishonest and deceiving” is not an personal attack, it’s an honest criticism based on much evidence. Has anyone here read this page by Troy Britain (Playing chess with pigeons) – – We can read Casey openly lying to his readers.

  17. We like #1 and Casey likes #2.

    Of course, #1 would, naturally in the course of human affairs, bring on #2. There may be a bit of blending of causes there, you know?

    It may be that of those 14,400 items linking Casey with “idiot,” 14,399 of them were good samaritans trying to alert Casey to a problem he may wish to consult a specialist about. I mean, if someone alerts you to spinach from lunch stuck on your incisor, shouldn’t you thank that person?

  18. Google says: Casey Luskin” + idiot = About 14,500 results

    At this rate we should have Casey over the 15k mark by next week.

  19. So here’s the ID strategy.

    1. Lie about scientific facts. (No transitional fossils. Peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks. Scientists said all non-coding DNA was “junk.” Hyrax is a hyracotherium. No feathers on any dinosaurs. Evidence is against fusion of human chromosome 2. Darwinism in crisis.)

    2. Get caught lying by scientists who have to tediously explain why everything you write is based on lies, which makes you look very dishonest.

    3. When you are proven to be a liar by real scientists, try to make lemons out of lemonade by calling the proof you’re a liar an “ad hominem attack.”

    4. Double down on your lies by next asserting that such “ad hominem attacks” are the only thing scientists have against you, or, as Luskin writes:

    “ID critics rarely engage ID arguments directly, but prefer to attack ID proponents in personal terms”

    Which is an outright lie. When ENV opened comments I attacked Luskin directly on his falsehoods regarding Junk DNA and feathered dinosaurs, and they had to close comments again. Every time scientists get a chance, they go after the IDologues on their factually incorrect statements.

    But let’s always remember:

    A. To creationists, facts are ad hominem attacks. Facts reveal that they lie to their audience, and that feels like an ad hominem attack to them.

    B. To creationists, ad hominem attacks are facts. Thus, they lie about their Darwin-to-Hitler hoax, call scientists Nazis, assert that textbooks “down to the present day” perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud, etc.

    Let’s always remember that Jonathan Wells accused Michael Majerus (peppered moth researcher) of being part of the great conspiracy to suppress the “fact” that peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks (Majerus had photos of live moths doing just that.)

    Luskin is a pathological liar. Without quote mines and ad hominems, creationists have nothing.

  20. To creationists, facts are ad hominem attacks.

    Duh! Wouldn’t you take it personally if God were against you at every turn?