Casey: Intelligent Design in Resurgence

Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, has found another website willing to post his essays. It’s CNS News, part of the Media Research Center, founded by L. Brent Bozell III. Bozell is the nephew of the late William F. Buckley. They posted one of Casey’s essays at least once before — see Another Conservative Group Goes Creationist.

The title of Casey’s latest is Intelligent Design in Resurgence Just Ten Years After Damning Dover Decision. They have an active comments section.

Casey’s essay is a rehash of dozens of his earlier posts at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog, many of which we wrote about before, but his claims may be new to readers of the CNS News website. All we’ll do here is excerpt just enough to give you a hint of what Casey is saying. Some bold font was added by us for emphasis:

In December 2005, a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared intelligent design (ID) a “religious viewpoint” that is unconstitutional to teach in public schools. Predictably, critics who backed the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit jubilantly declared the “death” of ID. Now that we’re approaching the ten year anniversary of the case, we can count on the media to again proclaim a great triumph for Darwinian evolution and secularism. Reality, however, is very different.

What Discoveroids like Casey refer to as reality is a creationist fantasy-land loaded with evidence of their magical designer — blessed be he! — but that evidence is undetectable by the rest of us. And in Casey’s reality, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was a bungled decision that is utterly meaningless. He claims:

The Dover ruling was full of errors of fact and law. It badly misdefined intelligent design and ignored peer-reviewed papers and research by ID scientists.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He makes claims like that all the time — here’s one of several times we’ve written about his efforts: Casey and Kitzmiller — the Case He “Forgot”. Let’s read on:

Such a flawed ruling could never kill ID. But there’s a much stronger sign that ID is alive and well: the many intellectual victories for ID in the past decade.

Ooooooooooooooh — intellectual victories! What were they? Casey explains:

First and foremost, the ID research community has published dozens of pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers [link to the Discoveroids’ blog] advancing the scientific case for ID since Dover.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, it’s true, if you count the stuff that appears in BIO-Complexity, their own in-house “journal” — see Discovery Institute: Creationist “Peer-Review”. It’s little more than a blog with geeked-up language, formatted to look like a real science journal. Here’s more:

Even non-ID researchers have unwittingly and decisively confirmed ID predictions since Dover. In 2012, an international consortium of researchers published the ENCODE project, supporting the longstanding ID prediction that “junk DNA” would turn out to have function.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Junk DNA again. We’ve refuted that one too many times already. Moving along:

ID books and videos have also made huge impacts post-Dover. In 2008, over 1.1 million viewers flocked to theatres nationwide to watch “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a documentary featuring comedian Ben Stein recounting various high profile cases of discrimination against pro-ID scientists.

Good, huh? Then he talks about Stephen Meyer’s books. Evolution has been on the ropes since then! One last excerpt:

Many more successes could be listed, but the point is this: ID has had many recent intellectual “wins,” and rumors of ID’s demise are greatly exaggerated. … Despite what you hear — or don’t hear — in the media, the scientific fundamentals of ID are incredibly sound and the future is looking bright.

So there you are. Casey says intelligent design is thriving! So are astrology, belief in ancient astronauts, Moon landing denial, crop circles, and a number of others. Casey is in good company.

Copyright © 2015. 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

39 responses to “Casey: Intelligent Design in Resurgence

  1. “There are no Darwinist infidels in Baghdad. Never!”

  2. Resurgance assumes there was some kind of ID “surge” in the first place.

    That only occurred in the minds of the DI clowns, who somehow think that a Republican, Bush appointed, judge was really a liberal, anti-religion activist. In other words, they live in a fantasy world.

  3. michaelfugate

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA! indeed!

  4. Nuttin’ new here, other than Casey making a fool of himself for this new crop of bellybutton gazers.

  5. I think “resurgence” is an appropriate term. It’s one that plumbers use when they think your sewer pipe is all cleaned out and then … suddenly, it all flows back into the house.

  6. Casey Luskin:
    “First and foremost, the ID research community has published dozens of pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers advancing the scientific case for ID since Dover.”

    1) Sounds really desperate, doesn’t it?

    2) “Pro-ID scientific papers”? I was always under the impression that a scientific paper merely presented the observational results, without making a pro- or con- statement regarding any particular point of view. A true scientist lets the results speak for themselves.

    3) Only “dozens of papers since Dover”? Dover was ten years ago. Gee, those ID researchers have really been churning ’em out, haven’t they?

    4) Wonder how many of those “dozens of papers” were published in a journal other than the Di’s own BIO-Complexity — if any.

    And the DI wonders why “they can’t get no respect”. At least Rodney Dangerfield was funny. (Well, I guess the DI is as well, even if it’s unintentional.)

  7. Either: (A) Casey and this fellow conspirators at DI don’t believe a word they say and are blathering merely to keep the $$$ flowing in from rich idiots; or (B) they actually believe the crap they’re spewing.

    I don’t know which possibility offends me more.

  8. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    I think it’s time to call it Doctor.

    ***places hand on shoulder***

    You did everything you could.

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Intelligent+Design

    (books, movie, BIO-Complexity, LOL)

  9. “Resurgence” means a recovery from a ebb in the tide of ID. When does the offficial history locate that low water mark, how can we tell the difference in – well, for example, in there being fewer discoveries, fewer adherents, lesser backing? Were there reports in the ID literature calling attention to the poor status of ID?
    Or is the history of ID as insubstantial as the theory of ID?

  10. A search on PubMed just using the word “evolution” returns 20918 papers. If I changed that to “evolutionary biology” in just the past 10 years, it bumps up to over 33 thousand. So, I’ll see their “dozens” and raise them thirty thousand.

  11. They have a crack team working on thinking up a plausible excuse for “cdesign proponentsists”. I’m sure they’ll have an announcement for us any day now.

  12. @Doug McClean — and they will publish their announcement in their very own peer-reviewed journal, BIO-Complexity.

  13. I should add that the DI will then count their plausible excuse as one of their “dozens of pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers advancing the scientific case for ID since Dover.”

  14. @Rikki_Tikki_Taalik: Thanks for your link to Google Trends showing interest (or rather, the lack thereof) in Intelligent Design.

    You’re right — sure looks like flatline.

  15. michaelfugate

    What must it be like to work at the DI? Repeatedly claiming ID has nothing to do with religion while claiming the designer is the Christian God? Writing books claiming to be science while offering Christian witness as a postscript? How does one do that? Is it with a wink and a nudge? Is it self-delusion?

  16. Charles Deetz ;)

    Did he mention their progress in useless metaphors? They’ve advanced to Mount Rushmore as the best way to explain ID, way far advanced over the old junkyard-tornado and watchmaker analogies.

  17. michaelfugate

    On another note – the world ends tomorrow…..

    Best line “Scientists have several theories about when Earth will be destroyed, although none of the data points to this Wednesday. “

  18. Casey is once again confusing the word Resurgence with the more concise term Regurgitation.

  19. ID books and videos have also made huge impacts post-Dover. In 2008, over 1.1 million viewers flocked to theatres nationwide to watch “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a documentary featuring comedian Ben Stein recounting various high profile cases of discrimination against pro-ID scientists.

    So they think hiring a comedian to moan about the persecution of creationists will get their message across? Don’t they worry it will send an altogether different message?

    In fairness, the lugubrious Stein is more than just a comedian. He has served as a lawyer, a writer for various (mostly conservative) publications, and one of Richard Nixon’s (and Jerry Ford’s) speechwriters. Over the years, he has been a shrill defender of Richard Nixon and a venomous critic of his detractors and especially of Woodward and Bernstein’s “Deep Throat” Watergate source. In my opinion, none of this makes him look any better than does his (whiny) support of “intelligent design.”

  20. Pope Retiredsciguy wonders

    how many of those “dozens of papers” were published in a journal other than the Di’s own BIO-Complexity — if any.

    Well, it’s possible to do some analysis of the bibliographic list Luskin provided in his article.

    I’ve not had time (nor possibly the stomach) to undertake such a ‘study’, though it’s worth noting that the entire archive of the DI’s captive BIO-Complexity “journal” is available on-line
    –and for FREE (unlike those godless Darwinistic scientists, who charge subscriptions for their peer-reviewed academic periodicals.

    There have been 5 annual editions of BIO-Complexity, starting in 2010 to 2014. They each contain up to 3 different types of articles, which they categorise as ‘Research Articles’, ‘Critical Reviews’, or something they call a ‘Critical Focus’.

    And here is the total count of articles, by category, they have published in that journal over 5 years:

    Research Articles: 9
    Critical Reviews: 7
    Critical Focus: 3

    That’s a grand total of 19. To get the plural for “dozens”, Luskin has had to cast his net wider; if I really run out of things to do, I might run a little analysis of that, but don’t hold your breath. Something important might come up–like washing my hair–that could bump this down my ‘to do’ list…

  21. And some breaking news!

    Despite their ‘dozens’ of articles, the IDiots have been passed over yet again by the Nobel Foundation, which has just announced DNA repair wins chemistry Nobel.

    No doubt there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth in Seattle–but cheer up, Discoveroids, there’s always next year!

  22. @Megalonyx:
    But when has there been a Nobel Prize for a discovery of a transitional fossil?

  23. Tom S asks

    when has there been a Nobel Prize for a discovery of a transitional fossil?

    The Nobel is reserved for cutting-edge extensions of our scientific knowledge.

    Transitional fossils are ten a penny. If their finders had to be given Nobels, then Nobels would outstrip the Weimer Mark as an exemplar of devaluation through hyperinflation…

  24. “Transitional fossils are ten a penny”.
    Yes and Casey is priceless.

  25. Pete Moulton

    Megalonyx points out, “…it’s worth noting that the entire archive of the DI’s captive BIO-Complexity ‘journal’ is available on-line
    –and for FREE”

    Still too expensive for what you get./

  26. @Megalonyx:
    I was tempted to draw this out … “easy to give excuses”, and so on.
    But I’ll be fair … and point out that I have been contributing here for a few years, and I think I have earned the right to be snarky without smiley.

  27. It would be acceptable (though somewhat deceptive) to use “dozens” to describe 19 articles. Here is my rationale. 12 is a dozen and any more than 12, even a fraction, makes it a plural. So they have produced 1 and 7/12 dozens of articles.
    By similar logic one could interpret the Biblical edict to “go forth and multiply” as a rationale for birth control. Since it isn’t explicitly stated that the multiplication can’t be fractional, ergo birth control!

  28. @ Tom S: I know you and your snark without a smiley, no worries! Which is also why I omitted my own — but will seal this one with it, just to be double certain🙂

  29. Olivia tells me the one thing she fears is a Megalonyx resurgence.

  30. @Troy: I always thought that “go forth and multiply” bit was some grade school teacher telling the students to write out the multiplication tables 20 times…

  31. Our Curmudgeon misheard an initial phoneme; the one thing Olivia cheers is a &c. &c…

  32. The Gerb is getting totally beat up in the comments. There are two creationists flailing around, one of whom, Lee Bowman, is a well-known creationist gadfly know-nothing. They aren’t making any progress, of course, because they’re IDiots. Par for the course. Poor Gerb, all his supporters are IDiots.

  33. @Pete Moulton: I was all set to write “Another example of ‘you get what you pay for’ “, but your line says it better.

  34. @abeastwood-multiplication tables now that’s pushing it. Of course with the human growth rate as it is, one would think the bible said to go forth and exponentiate.

  35. Bowman is back again?!?!

    If you weren’t aware, Bowman once quipped about my being a Curmudgeonite. My response to this is displayed in the sidebar.🙂

  36. “Bowman is back again?!?!”

    And so is the Crimson Fruit.

  37. Life is busy. I’m around.🙂

  38. Remember that the command to go forth and multiply was given to all animals, before there Fall, when there was no death.
    How long would the mass of living animals would be expanding with a speed greater than the speed of light?
    (I don’t think that we can count bacteria in that calculation, because the Bible only records that order being given to animals.)
    But “exponentiate”? If the factor of exponentiation were less than 1, that wouldn’t cause any population problem.