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.

ICR Says Evolution Is Fake Science

Look what just appeared at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Is Evolution ‘Fake Science’?

It was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The organization BioLogos, which advocates that Christians accept secular evolutionary claims, recently published an online essay entitled How to Spot Fake Science. The not-too-subtle implication of the article is that Christians skeptical of ‘consensus science’ claims are being duped by pseudoscience. Based on their published material, BioLogos clearly thinks that criticisms of evolutionary theory fall into this category. Ironically, however, a number of the stated characteristics of pseudoscience apply to evolutionary claims.

We’ve written about that website. They do good work. See, e.g.: Discoveroids Hate BioLogos, Love Adam & Eve. It’s no surprise that ICR doesn’t like them. Jake claims their arguments are pseudoscience. He says:

According to the article, one characteristic of pseudoscience is that “explanations are made up after the fact to fit whatever outcomes are observed.” Closely related to this is the tendency to invoke “built-in explanations for the cases when the idea fails.” Evolutionists do this all the time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, evolutionists are always making stuff up. Jake gives us what he claims is an example:

This tendency to “explain away” contradictory data was illustrated by a recent article purporting to explain why crocodiles have remained the same for 200 million years. [Jake links to: Why crocodiles have changed so little since the age of the dinosaurs.] The very first sentence in the news article claims that “a ‘stop-start’ pattern of evolution, governed by environmental change, could explain why crocodiles have changed so little since the age of the dinosaurs.” Of course, if evolution were true, one would expect creatures to not remain the same for hundreds of millions of years. [Yeah, they should change wildly, all the time!] Creationists would argue that crocodiles have not evolved simply because evolution isn’t true. [Hee hee!] The fossils show abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction — not evolution.

All the evidence is on Jake’s side — or so he says. Then he tells us:

Another trait of pseudoscience is that “scientific-sounding terms or jargon are used in imprecise, incorrect, or undefined ways.” [Indeed! For example: specified complexity.] Evolutionist invocations of ‘natural selection’ is a classic example of this. [What?] When one reads the evolutionist technical literature, it is very clear that evolutionists are ‘fuzzy’ regarding the precise meaning of this term, despite its centrality to evolutionary theory.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids, on the other hand, are always precise — see, for example: Casey Defines “Complex and Specified Information”, and also Discovery Institute: It’s All About Definitions. Jake continues:

Creation author David Coppedge has rightly ridiculed evolutionary storytelling as the claim that “stuff happens.”

David Coppedge? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See Ken Ham Defends David Coppedge. Let’s read on:

But if evolution explains everything [Everything?], does it really explain anything? One can always come up with an after-the-fact ‘story’ to explain observations that contradict evolution. But according to the BioLogos article, isn’t that one of the characteristics of pseudoscience?

This is tragic stuff, so we’re skipping a lot. Here’s another excerpt:

The subject of origins is inherently religious or philosophical [Really?], and some evolutionist philosophers of science have acknowledged that evolution is a religion. [What?] Some supernatural (“beyond nature”) cause must be invoked to explain our universe. Evolutionists claim otherwise, but their own theories compel them to invoke entities that are effectively supernatural, such as other universes.

Are you compelled to invoke supernatural entities, dear reader? The only supernatural entity your Curmudgeon invokes is the Cosmic Aardvark — which is quite understandable. And now — at last — we come to the end of Jake’s article:

Because creationists candidly acknowledge that a supernatural Creator is required to explain our existence and unashamedly acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator, creation critics are quick to label creation science as “pseudoscience.” [Get ready, here comes the bombshell:] Yet these critics often overlook the fact that the charge of pseudoscience can just as easily, and with more far more justification, be applied to evolution.

Yes, dear reader, you’re also guilty of spewing pseudoscience. Now that Jake has explained it, isn’t it time you changed your ways?

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

Hambo’s Plan To Save the World

This one is so grandiose it’ll astound you. We found it at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG),the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

It’s titled How Can We Equip Generations to Stand?, and it was written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

With each passing day, it seems our world is getting crazier. [Whose fault is that?] Untethered from the truth of God’s Word, America, in particular, is a nation that continuously sinks to new levels of foolishness and depravity — and that is certainly what we’re seeing all around us! [It’s Darwin’s fault!] How do we equip our young people to stand in the midst of this?

Things are certainly bad, but Hambo has the answers! He says:

Well, that will be focus of our Answers for Pastors & Leaders Conference [Link omitted!] (actually, open to all to attend), October 5–7, 2021, at the Ark Encounter south of Cincinnati. [You don’t need to be a preacher to attend!] And it’s also the focus of my newest book (more on that below). This conference is specifically geared towards pastors and Christian leaders, but it’s open for anyone to attend — and I strongly encourage parents and others with influence over children to make plans to come. During this conference, we will be equipping you to raise godly generations. You won’t want to miss it!

You won’t believe what’s coming next:

This conference includes a free seven-day pass [Seven days!] to visit both the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum (45 minutes away) [Wowie!] so you can enjoy everything these attractions have to offer, including our new virtual reality experience and Fearfully and Wonderfully Made pro-life exhibit. [Sounds wonderful!] Early-bird pricing ends soon, so be sure to register today for this timely conference.

As you know, ol’ Hambo is famed not only for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), but also for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for building an exact replica of Noah’s Ark. With one visit, you can not only attend the preacher’s conference, but also see Hambo’s other attractions. Isn’t that great?

This will be our final excerpt:

As I mentioned above, my new book Will They Stand?: Parenting Kids to Face the Giants [Link omitted] also focuses on how to raise godly generations. It includes personal stories from my upbringing, biblical principles from God’s Word on how to raise godly children, the roles of fathers and mothers in education, and a chapter from my daughter, Renee, who heads up AiG’s Christian school Twelve Stones Christian Academy [Link omitted], as well as a chapter featuring my wife, Mally. It’s a different sort of book to those I’ve written in the past, and I encourage you to read it in preparation for this conference.

You wanna be prepared, dear reader, so read all that stuff before you visit Hambo’s glorious events. You will be going, won’t you?

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

Altruism Is Anti-Darwinian Behavior

Let’s see what you think of this one, dear reader. We found it at the creationist website of the Discovery Institute. Unless we’re missing something, there’s a weird typo in their title: To Say the Lease [sic], Altruism Is Not an Easy Fit with Darwinism. It has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Andrew McDiarmid presents an Evolution News essay, “How to Destroy Love with Darwinism.” Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Their podcast has a most provocative title, so let’s see how Darwinism destroys love. They say:

Altruism as defined by evolutionists means “behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind.”

Okay, let’s go with their definition. What can they do with it? Here it comes:

It’s not an easy fit with Darwinism [Really?], since Darwinian evolution is all about passing your favored genes onto your offspring. How can a creature do that if she gives her life for another, particularly when it’s not even her own children, and before she has produced any offspring? Such individuals fail to pass on their own genes — a seeming conundrum for Darwinism.

Well, not every act of altruism involves giving one’s life. It often means only exerting some effort, or experiencing some inconvenience, in order to benefit someone else. Life-saving, self-sacrificial acts for anyone — family or otherwise — are rare, but they do happen — especially in the military. We’ve all heard tales of a solider who gives his life to save his comrades, and indirectly, his nation. The Discoveroids wouldn’t agree, but we think such acts are far from being foolish, Darwin-disproving behavior. Anyway, the Discoveroids continue:

Evolutionists have made some progress (they think) explaining such things with theories of group selection or kin selection. [That makes sense!] But those explanations face some fresh challenges and don’t even begin to explain self-sacrificial acts done for non-kin, a behavior we see among humans.

It’s true that people sometimes do amazing, self-sacrificial acts, with no expectation of personal or kin benefit. Does that disprove Darwin’s theory? The Discoveroids claim it does. Here’s their explanation:

From a design perspective [Hee hee!], though, such behaviors are not baffling, for they are not genetically determined acts, as if humans are only wet robots governed by genes.

Ah, that explains it. The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — designed you to sacrifice yourself, and he doesn’t care about genetics — even though he personally dictated the contents of your DNA. Darwinists, however, never think of anything but genetics. And now we come to the end:

They are acts of true self-sacrificial love, done freely and made possible because reality is more than matter and energy, and humans are more than just DNA survival machines.

Brilliant! This means that the next time you pause to hold the door open for someone carrying packages, you are glorifying the intelligent designer and disproving Darwin’s evil theory. Wowie — it’s another Discoveroid victory!

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