Casey Luskin: Intelligent Design Isn’t Creationism

That video (we have another for you later on) features our favorite creationist, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. He’s claiming that intelligent design isn’t creationism. For Casey, it’s as if Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District never happened. The video is only a minute and a half long.

But that’s not all! To add to your weekend pleasure, we’re also showing you a video of Louisiana state Senator Elbert L. Guillory – District 24 (Democrat), speaking when Senate Committee on Education voted last month to reject repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). As you know, the LSEA was drafted by the Discoveroids and it represents their greatest achievement.

We posted about the Discoveroids’ legislative triumph in Louisiana Victory for Creationism and Voodoo, but now you can see Senator Guillory in action. The committee voted 3-2 to kill the repeal bill, which means that Guillory’s vote was decisive. Here’s a video of the great legislator’s presentation — it’s only two minutes long:

So while Casey is claiming that the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design isn’t creationism, the Louisiana law which allows it to be taught in the state’s schools was saved by a Senator who was favorably impressed by a voodoo witch doctor. The Discoveroids aren’t embarrassed — a victory is a victory.

Copyright © 2013. 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

25 responses to “Casey Luskin: Intelligent Design Isn’t Creationism

  1. anevilmeme

    Okay, I’ll play, if ID isn’t creationism what is it? It isn’t science so what is it?

  2. Is that a blue screen background behind Luskin like Ann Gauger’s lab?

    Okay, here’s the question. The U.S. flag is clearly visible on the LHS, but there is a second flag next to it. What is that flag, what does it represent? Luskin clearly wants it as a prop, but it’s a mystery.

  3. Maybe I’m just naive, but I’ve never seen real scientists make little videos to claim their work really is, honest-to-god, genuine science. To my knowledge, that never happens.

    So why, if they want to appear like real scientists, do Discoveroids make videos like this?

    Also, since almost all of their public activity is defensive in nature – either bashing critics, lying about evolution and other science, or attempting to legislate criticism of evolution into classrooms, how to they qualify for tax-exempt status. Don’t they have to do some positive public good? Defending one’s views is not doing a public service.

  4. waldteufel

    “So why, if they want to appear like real scientists, do Discoveroids make videos like this?”

    Because their target audience is normally scientifically ignorant and have no clue about how science works or even what it is. Curmy is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the DI being nothing more than purveyors of cargo cult “science”.

  5. waldteufel says: “Because their target audience is normally scientifically ignorant and have no clue about how science works or even what it is.”

    Once someone is out of school, where science classes aren’t all that great, his exposure to science is very limited (unless he’s actually working in a science field). The lay public has little access to news. There are some science magazines (Scientific American, etc.), but I don’t know how large their circulation is. It’s nothing like Sports Illustrated. Press coverage of science is terrible. They mostly mention problems, like pollution. The only other science they write about is some medical news, some NASA launches (not many these days), some climate change stuff (often highly politicized), and not much else. The public gets most of their information about science from their preachers, from creationist websites, and that’s about it.

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    SC says re Luskin’s 2013 video: “For Casey, it’s as if Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District never happened.”

    Actually, Casey Luskin’s present video script was pretty much written by John G West for a December 1 2002 CSC article titled “Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same”.

    In West’s CSC article, he credits Washington Post writer “Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002” for the line

    “University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of “The Creationists,” agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, its “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.”

    Numbers was proved right, when three years later the “Cdesign Proponentsists” themselves provided the evidence that nailed judicial notice of their ID scam to the Dover court house door.

    Oddly, the CSC had already reiterated variations of the West article several times in the last decade. Must be that 2013 was Luskin’s turn to commemorate Ron Number’s prophecy.

  7. Oy, when does this end? Don’t you people get it that they only say “ID is not creationism” to see how many of you take the bait and react with “Is too creationism!”

    The fact is that it depends on the definition. And ID peddlers deliberately bait-and-switch the definitions as they do with everything else. You and I may define “creationism” as a “any pseudoscience that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution.” But like it or not, most people define it as “honest belief in a recent 6-day creation (literal ‘day’ optional).”

    ID is the former, not the latter. Case closed.

  8. If the word “creationism” is interpreted according to its etymology, how can ID possibly fail to qualify as a near-synonym of creationism? The whole point of Intelligent Design is the claim that biology has been deliberately designed by an intelligent, purposeful agent. Hence said agent has created biology and is a creator, with or without a capital C. Belief in such an intelligent-designer agent can very properly be termed creationism.

    Apparently they try to argue that “as long as explicit Biblical references are omitted and we don’t mention that the Designer is God, it is ID instead of creationism”.

  9. Etymology is a poor guide to the meaning of a word. By the etymology, a “wardrobe” is a guard for something stolen, to “leave” is to “stay”, and “foerign”, “forest” and “forfeit” share the root meaning “out of doors”.
    The earlier meaning of “creationism” referred to a belief about the origin of souls. Theodosius Dobzhinsky, in his famous essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” referred to himself as a “creationist” because he believed in God the Creator.
    And I don’t want to get into the muddled thinking that identifies “design” with “make”, and both of those with “create”.

  10. Eddie Janssen

    I still don’t understand how the copy paste error occurred.
    If you replace creationist with design proponent, the only way to get cdesign proponentsists is to find this non-word ccreationistsists.
    That according to the example below did not happen. (From http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html)

    Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
    “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

    Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
    “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

  11. H. K. Fauskanger: “The whole point of Intelligent Design is the claim that biology has been deliberately designed by an intelligent, purposeful agent.”

    That’s half the point of ID, and 1/3 of the point of “creationism” as most people define it. ID adds the non-sequitur that “It’s not evolution,” and “creationism” (definition 2) adds that plus “This alternate chronology of events happened instead.”

    The pre-ID versions of creationism came in mutually-contradictory versions (young earth, old earth young life, old earth old life, etc.), so even before Edwards v. Aguillard forced the comical “cdesign proponentsists,” part of the anti-evolution movement had already begun the retreat into “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when, just promote unreasonable doubt of evolution.

  12. @TomS:

    I’m counting on you more than ever to stop letting the scam artists avoid stating their position on “what happened when.” I have been fighting a loss of interest caused by all the bait taking, and how trolls are allowed to hijack any board on which they’re not outright banned.

    As you know, most “Darwinists” say “why bother asking, they’ll just evade the questions.” And that’s true in most cases, but it’s much more important to show how they run away than just give them a free pass.

  13. Eddie Janssen says: “I still don’t understand how the copy paste error occurred.”

    Apparently it wasn’t an automated search-and-replace. That’s too sophisticated for creationist publishers. Some wretch was probably doing a “search” for the word “creationists” and when he got a hit, he’d use his mouse to highlight it, then he’d delete it, and with his cursor still at that location he’d do a Ctrl-V (or the equivalent) and dump “design proponents” in its place. The error occurred because in that one instance the highlighting was sloppily done, and therefore the whole word wasn’t deleted.

  14. SC: “The error occurred because in that one instance the highlighting was sloppily done, and therefore the whole word wasn’t deleted.”

    That makes sense. Just think — if the publisher had employed a good copy editor/proofreader, the IDers may not have lost the case at Dover, and it would be a whole different story today. One tiny slip changed history.

  15. waldteufel

    For sure, “cdesign proponentsists” was the missing link . . . . . 🙂

  16. I think Casey here is giving us a particularly explicit sample of the kind of sophistry our Curmudgeon recently likened to that of ‘Tax Protestors’ (Creationists and Tax Protesters, Part 2).

    A fault common to both groups is their adherence to the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicality:

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

  17. They can easily get away with the “agnostic” claim when they talk to their rubes in the church talks because the rubes know what they really mean, and the DI folks always participate in the before/after church prayers and amens. It’s when the DI tries to confront the general public that they try to argue that their claims of “scientific” and “freedom of speech” and “fairness” are legitimate. Apparently the general media hasn’t a clue and doesn’t question their motives, and certainly Fox openly supports their views, and (1) the general public is poorly educated in science to begin with, and (2) much of the general public sides with the religious argument to begin with.

  18. Frank J says:

    Oy, when does this end? Don’t you people get it that they only say “ID is not creationism” to see how many of you take the bait and react with “Is too creationism!”

    We’ve been through this before, and by now you know that it doesn’t end. I’m well aware of the professed differences between the Genesis squad and the Discoveroids, but they’re all anti-science reality deniers, and I find it convenient to lump them all together. It makes the Discoveroids squirm, and that’s more fun than focusing on their artificial differences with people like Ken Ham. Besides, the Discoveroids are creationists, albeit deeply closeted “cdesign proponentsists”.

    The potential for a multitude of creationist denominations is limitless, and I see no reason to get worked up over their sectarian details. Their followers don’t care much about the different flavors of creationism, and neither do I. They’ll all start caring and fighting among themselves if one of their factions achieves political power, but that’s not in the foreseeable future.

  19. docbill1351

    If you go to the YouTube site you can read Gerb’s transcript.

    It’s amazing!

    In nine sentences Luskin tells nine lies! Perfect score! Comments blocked on the video, of course.

    Luskin knows full well that there are different kinds of creationism but he is always careful to frame the “debate” as one between ID creationism and Biblical literal (or young earth) creationism and, of course, they’re not the same. What a dishonest jerk.

    I laughed out loud that the Gerb brought Roland Numbers into the discussion with a quote mined from the Associated Press. I wonder why Gerbils didn’t quote from Numbers’ book, “The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design?” Could it be that Numbers wrote a book documenting ID as creationism?

    Keep that gravy train on the tracks, Gerb, baby needs a new pair of shoes!

  20. docbill1351

    One of my favorite videos.

    Dembski admitting creationism.

    Dembski is slippery, very slippery. He is evasive, will duck, dodge and weave but if you can pin him down he doesn’t actually come out and lie. That character trait is what got him fired from the Southwest seminary (or wherever) by writing that Teh Flood may have been a local event.

    The money quote is at the 3:18 mark where Stewart asks Dembski, “Which came first, religious conversion or the evidence?”

    Now, remember, the Tute is FOREVER touting “follow the evidence wherever it leads” and here is their leading “theorist” making a surprising admission. Enjoy!

  21. Minor point of clarification: Elbert Guillory is now, once again, a Republican. Keep fighting the good fight!

  22. Ceteris Paribus

    DocBill asks: ” I wonder why Gerbils didn’t quote from Numbers’ book, “The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design?” Could it be that Numbers wrote a book documenting ID as creationism?”

    The 2002 CSC script stating that Ron Numbers “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement” would have to have been originally found or quote mined from Numbers earlier 1992 edition of “The Creationists”

    But in 2013 iteration, the DI could have updated their script. On Page 5 of his intro to the expanded 2006 edition of “The Creationists “, now adding the sub-title “From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design”, Numbers specifically notes that he did not rewrite the 1992 text to include a significant amount of newer material that he and others have published “on the changing meanings of the term ‘creationism’ ”

    Numbers certainly does complain on page 380 that journalists and other non-scholars do mistakenly conflate the terms intelligent-design theory and creationism. But from the context and his notes it is evident that Numbers is speaking from the frame of a scholar whose business it is to keep track of fine differences. And of course publish articles about those differences in scholarly journals .

    So Numbers’ actual complaint in the 2006 book does not appear to be that the two terms are categorically distinct as Casey now implies; but simply that creation science requires “a recent special creation and a geologically significant flood”, while intelligent-design theory does not.

    But I will happily continue to lump ID and Creationism together under the simple term “anti-evolution” and not lose any sleep over it.

    In any case, it is a legitimate opportunity to point to the DI’s mention of Numbers complaint as just one more example of their intentionally misleading quote mining.

  23. I’ll point out that the first response, from anevilmeme, says it.

    Once again, all we get from ID is a negative.

  24. That guy is so hard to listen to.
    I have to wonder why the Discovery Institute pulled their expert witnesses from the Dover trial if they had such a good case. It seems they had their chance to prove what Luskin is blubbering about here and they didn’t take it.

  25. In the transcript at YouTube, the word “Darwinists” is replaced by “Terrorists”. The transcriber is a creationist!