Casey Is Back — O the Joy!

A few days ago we dared to write Guess Who’s Returning to the Discovery Institute, in which we predicted — based on information we were told but couldn’t confirm — that Casey Luskin would soon be returning to the Discovery Institute. Well, guess what — it really is happening!

This just popped up at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog, and it was written by none other than Casey himself: I’m Excited to Return to Discovery Institute to Find Intelligent Design Stronger Than Ever! His post is far too long, but at the end they have some bio info about him. After referring to Casey as “Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture,” they say:

Casey Luskin is a geologist and an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. [Ooooooooooooh! Casey has expertise!] He earned his PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg, and B.S. and M.S. degrees in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. His law degree is from the University of San Diego, where he focused his studies on First Amendment law, education law, and environmental law.

Incredibly impressive! Okay, let’s dig into his post — briefly — to see what he says about his dramatic return. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

[I]t is with a mixture of joy and excitement that I write to announce that I’m grateful to return to Discovery Institute as Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture (CSC). [We’re excited too!] And I’m very optimistic about the future! Over the past few years, I’ve seen critics of intelligent design (ID) advance some wild and amusing conspiracy theories about the reasons for my departure and absence. Fortunately, none of them are true. I chuckled when they wishfully and confidently asserted that I had, alternatively, “jumped ship,” “abandoned ID,” was “fired” or “retired.”

We don’t recall saying such things about Casey. Anyway, after several paragraphs describing his studies, he says:

As I return to Discovery Institute, I remain as optimistic about ID’s future as I was when I wrote my farewell post in December 2015: “my personal support for ID and confidence in its future have never been stronger … the fundamentals of ID are sound.” In that post, I discussed four general areas where ID was forging ahead: (1) scientific advancements and peer-reviewed papers, (2) failed attempts by critics to suppress ID, (3) ID’s performance in high-level debates against top critics, and (4) a growing community of ID-friendly graduate students and scientists. Considering various developments over the past few years while I was doing the PhD, I believe this optimism remains warranted, and that ID is in an even stronger position than when I left[.]

Casey is optimistic. Isn’t that cute? Then he tells us:

Evidence supporting ID and/or challenging standard materialistic evolutionary models has continued to grow these past few years. There are so many examples it’s hard to know where to begin. [We’ll omit a few paragraphs of that stuff.] I suppose little has changed in the past five years while I was doing the PhD: attempts to suppress ID continue, but the evidence for ID grows stronger — apparently so strong that it can’t be answered on the merits and must be suppressed. One wonders why there can’t just be a serious, civil conversation about ID.

He’s right. We’re so desperate about the progress the Discoveroids are making that we have to suppress them. Casey continues listing “achievements” his Discoveroid colleagues have made. We probably blogged about a lot of that stuff, so there’s no need to list it all here. Near the end he says:

Over the last few years, many other scientific advances turned out to support ID and/or challenge Darwin. I hope to discuss those in depth on other occasions. [We’re looking forward to it!] For now, I want to list one final reason for optimism. Prior to my leaving Discovery in 2015 I helped craft the vision for the ID 3.0 research program [Link omitted!] — a vision that has since become a reality. As Associate Director of the CSC, I’m excited about helping to manage the research that is being funded by Discovery Institute and about renewing my contributions to the ID community in many other ways.

This is Casey’s final paragraph:

Despite this positive outlook, I must again confess a lingering sadness: I left a major part of my heart in the South Africa. With its wonderful people, rich multicultural society, cheerful vibe, and unmatched natural beauty, including incredible wildlife testifying to nature’s design, South Africa will always be a special place for me. If you ever plan to go there, feel free to contact me and I’ll offer some tips for your trip!

Okay, dear reader, there you have it — Casey really is back! Happy days are here again!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

18 responses to “Casey Is Back — O the Joy!

  1. Rarely can the re-entry of a protagonist into controversy have aroused so much joy among his opponents.

    Readers here may be interested in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abW7wWMJZ1Q where Barbara Forrest discusses the Kitzmiller trial, and events both that NCSE and at DI since then (but just too early to mention Casey’s return).

    One thing she did mention, which people here may want to pay attention to, is that the DI has funnelled over over $400,000 to Rice University, presumably to James Tour. According to Wikipedia, Tour has rejected the ID label, although as regular readers here know he has often appeared in DI materials. Tour is one of the two ID proponents of fellow travellers for whom I have any respect (the other one is Berlinski), and I look forward with some interest to seeing what he does with that money

  2. Excuse me for going off-topic, but I just learned of the Beasley Designs of the Year at desiguseum.com. These are awards by professionals in design, which mean that they have nothing to do with “intelligent design”. Of course, i””intelligent design” is about nothing.

  3. Excuse me again. That should be
    designmuseum.org

  4. There have been more embarrassing typos; like “cdesign proponentsists”

  5. Casey: “Evidence supporting ID and/or challenging standard materialistic evolutionary models has continued to grow these past few years.”

    1) If the Discodudes claim that the standard understanding of evolution is “materialistic”, does that mean they consider the Intelligent Design model is phantasmagorical?

    2) Standard evolutionary models (plural)? There is just one reality, Casey.

    3) What evidence supporting ID?? Casey, how can you say that something that has never existed “has continued to grow”?

  6. Yes, Casey Luskin, defending ID at his many church talks. For fun I attended several, asking him questions he couldn’t straight out answer.
    I also recall him talking about his grad work at UCSD. I recall the major contribution he seemed to have made on his field studies was to bring the beer,

  7. Theodore J Lawry

    I don’t see why he had to get a degree in geology in order to talk about it. He talked continually about evolution and astronomy, without having any education in those fields. Is he going to restrict himself to geology now? I bet he won’t! In fact I wonder if knowing about geology might cause him to avoid that topic? An example of Dunning-Kruger effect? We will see!

  8. Luskin got an advanced degree in a scientific field for the same reason Wells did: to add a spurious credibility to the nonsense he utters. Do him reasonable credit: the University that conferred it and the degree itself are both real and respectable. It’s not the same as that total fraud Hovind or Carl Baugh or any of the other dime-store gurus who are the real bottom-feeders on the creationist food chain, with their utterly spurious print-shop sheepskins.

    But anyone who can say, with a face he manages to keep straight, that ID is stronger now than it was when it was when Judge Jones drove a horse, cart, sledge, truck, winnebago and Pilbara ore carrier through it, fifteen years back, is surely not even kidding himself.

  9. “expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution”.
    Apart from his degree in geology, what does his credential as attorney contribute to ID? Is he going to follow in the footsteps of Philip Johnson?

  10. The question remains, what is the alternative to evolution. To add to the expertise to the backing of ID without
    advancing any description of ID, that does not help. Rather it tends to tell us, if all of those clever people, over all those years, haven’t been able to describe an alternative, maybe there isn’t an alternative.

  11. “One wonders why there can’t just be a serious, civil conversation about ID.”
    Because IDiots lack sincerity and integrity.
    Because IDiots never properly define their terms.
    Etc.
    Etc.

  12. @PaulB: just curious, what is it that makes you having (some) respect for Tour and Berlinski?
    There is a Dutch YEC blogger I have respect for, you see.

  13. Charley Horse X

    Panning for fool’s gold pays well in the USA and is less dangerous than descending 2 miles into a real gold mine in SA. Dominionists, flat Earthers and reconstructionists have suffered a major setback with Trump’s failed coup. Perhaps Luskin will help them to recover.

  14. We shall see what three new justices of the Supreme Court will do over the decades of their tenure.

  15. @FrankB, Having dug a bit deeper, I retract regarding Berlinski. Regarding Tour, he is an estimable chemist who has made very serious contributions to his own field; see his Wikipedia entry. I also had respect of Phillip Johnson, who, though deeply deluded, had shown a high level of ability in his own specialist field, and wrote well.

    I really don’t understand why Casey, requiring a Ph.D. from the same reasons as Jonathan Wells, chose geology. He is an Old Earth creationist, and does not question conventional Earth science, so where is the relevance?

    I believe that Barrett is devoutly Catholic, so will push Church interests in general, and opposition to abortion in particular. I don’t think she’d be particularly sympathetic to creationism

  16. The YECer I respect is the excellent Dutch Biblicar scholar JP van der Giessen, because

    1. he doesn’t lie about evolution theory and doesn’t even write about it on his blog;
    2. he thinks scholarship more important than loyalism and has severely criticized the poor level of YEC blog Logos.nl.

    He for instance has writen an article called “christian pseudoscience”, trashing both the Green collection and Ron Wyatt. To their credit Logos.nl has published it on their blog and a few more. At the other hand Logos.nl hasn’t learned anything; they steadfastedly keep on publishing garbage. Like a nobody researching the question:

    “Waarmee we dus de Bijbelse tijdlijn en radiometrische dateringen aan elkaar kunnen relateren?”

    “[a formula] With which we can relate the Biblical timeline to radiometric datings?”

  17. “Of All The Gin Joints In All The Towns In All The World …”

    Return of the Gerb or proof positive that religion poisons the mind.

    It’s the Luskin Witch Project – no matter how far he goes, he winds up in exactly the same place, doomed forever to pace the musty office over a lousy gym in Seattle. Rod Serling couldn’t write an episode more depressing.

    Imagine spending half a decade in lovely Jo-Burg working with real scientists on real science, culminating in a Piled Higher and Deeper, the entire World your favorite mollusk. You could get a job most anywhere: mining or oil company, cushy academic position or a Zef music producer gangstah-man. So many possibilities.

    Unless your mind is poisoned. Unless you return to the very moment you nearly reached escape velocity, to a point where time stood still, nothing had advanced, even the coffee cup you left behind was still warm. Half a decade gone, just like that. Telling the same lies, denying the same reality. Wallowing in the same self-fulfilled “persecution” complex. An object of derision only to be mocked.

  18. “I really don’t understand why Casey, requiring a Ph.D. from the same reasons as Jonathan Wells, chose geology. He is an Old Earth creationist, and does not question conventional Earth science, so where is the relevance?”

    Because he could get the degree without lying, unlike Steve Austin or Jonathon Wells.