The last time we explained our use of that graphic was Hey Casey! (Number 7). It’s the only thing we could think of to introduce Casey Luskin’s latest entry at the Discoveroids’ blog.
Casey sometimes posts about the “evidence” for the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design, which they insist is the “best” explanation for the universe, life, and everything. Our most recent post about his doing that was Casey’s Evidence for Intelligent Design. A few years before that we wrote Intelligent Designer or Zeus?, in which we pointed out that Casey’s list of questions doesn’t provide proof, or even evidence, for the existence and alleged activities of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — because the designer is merely one of many supernatural agents who might be responsible. We said:
[C]laiming that the magic designer is the cause of those things is literally no different from claiming that Zeus caused them. If your Curmudgeon presented a long list of Zeus’ alleged accomplishments, it wouldn’t mean that our list is scientific evidence for the role of Zeus in our world. … [T]he Curmudgeon’s “Zeus theory” is every bit as good as ID. Better, really, because ol’ Zeus had an eye for the ladies. That’s a very good quality in a deity.
And sometimes Casey writes about the alleged “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution — for example, see Discoveroids’ Top Ten Problems with Evolution. In that post we discussed the first three of Casey’s “problems” and easily dismissed them. Today he’s doing it again. That’s to be expected. Recycling clunkers is a time-honored creationist activity.
Casey’s newest effort at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog is Welcome to the Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution. It begins with this Editor’s Note:
This is Part 1 of a 10-part series based upon Casey Luskin’s chapter, “The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution,” in the volume More than Myth, edited by Paul Brown and Robert Stackpole (Chartwell Press, 2014). When the series is complete, the full chapter will be posted online.
Wowie — Casey has contributed a chapter to that book. It must be one of the greatest books ever published! Then he says, with bold font added by us:
“There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.” So said Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education’s 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.
The “Darwin lobby” — BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey, Casey: Who is running around lobbying state legislatures to get them to enact legislation? Is it the science side, or is it the creationists, with their deceptive Academic Freedom bills?
Casey is off to a good start. Then he tells us:
But is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? Are those who express doubts about Darwinism displaying courage, or are they fools that want to take us back to the dark ages and era of the flat Earth?
That’s a really tough question. Let’s read on:
Thankfully, it’s very easy to test these questions: all one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolution.
The remainder of Casey’s post deals with what he calls: Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup. Fortunately, we don’t need to trouble ourselves with that. It was also his number one problem that we dealt with back in October — see Casey’s Evidence for Intelligent Design, when Casey was hawking the same book that contains his chapter.
Oh — Casey spends a lot of time complaining about the famous Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, which synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. That has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory, but Casey doesn’t care. He’s done the same thing before and we’ve written about it — for example: Casey and the Miller-Urey Experiment, #2.
So there’s nothing new in Casey’s latest post, and the likelihood is that there won’t be anything new in the rest of this promised series. We’ll look at his later posts, but we doubt that we’ll be motivated to write about them. It seems to us that the only reason for this new series is because, although Casey has nothing new to say, he has to do something to earn his salary, so the best he can do is repeat himself.
But his post wasn’t a total loss. It gave us an opportunity to once again use that expressive picture of our cousin, who is clearly signalling his opinion of the Discovery Institute.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.