Law Evolution Science and Junk Science

Ridiculous, meet Sublime.

[Logo link]Two recent Florida Op-Eds relating to evolution have hit the newsstands.

The ridiculous first--Casey Luskin, who else? Casey attempts to come across in his public persona as reasonable.  His Discovery institute attack whines are usually muted when in public. 

His Op-Ed piece can accomplish only the usual "teach the controversy" whine.  Unlike a fine Cabernet, this whine does not improve with age.  He trots out the same hoary talking points without a shred of truth or reliable evidence to support his points.  He claims to teach the controversy but never specifies what is in controversy. Not only that, those darn Darwinists are so dogmatic when they're right.  It's just not fair. In short, he thinks those Florida rubes won't notice the missing facts in all his verbiage.  From the comments following the Op-Ed, I'd say they noticed. Casey Luskin, unMindful Hack.

The sublime--Carl Hiaasen, no hack at all, also weighs in.  Carl has two thing going for him.  First, he lives in Florida and has had a stellar career as a newspaper columnist.

Unlike cdesign proponentsists, Truth means something to him.  Second, he has a series of really great novels revolving around the the recurring theme that many Floridians are nuts and deserve what they get.  He writes fondly of Floridian foibles so his readers can draw universal lessons.  He surely does not consider Floridians a bunch of rubes.  His sense of irony is obvious.

I can only hope he writes a book on intelligent design.  Inhis novels, Hiaasen delights in puncturing pomposity and deflating pretend experts. The comic possibilities are endless. Hiassen's column is in this same vein.  He exhibits his classic fond but bemused ridicule of Floridians by pointing out the lack of scientific opportunities that can and will occur when Casey Luskin creationists have any impact on state education choice standards.  Deftly done.

Read his column.

Buy his books.

Was I harsh on Casey in accusing him of thinking Floridians were simple rubes?  You be the judge.  Check out his reaction to the Florida State Board of Education.  Tricked, they were, tricked!  Those rubes!

Thanks to Mister DNA, CBEB

Intelligent Design, just another Shifty Idea.

[Logo]   Yup.  Shifty.

John Derbyshire has ID's number at the Corner here.

Yet another conservative against ID here.

We know ID can't hold its own against atheist liberals.  We can't expect it to convince liberal atheists when it doesn't even convince conservative or Christians, either.  Denyse O'Leary frantically caterwauls to the contrary:

Traitorous conservatives:

Traitorous Christians, like, here and here.

Even Creationists.

Nobody's buying ID's shifty ideas these days.

Casey Luskin demonstrates "fair use" doctrine.

Congratulations to Casey Luskin for finally fumbling an attempt to actually discuss something approaching the outer reaches of science at Evolution News and Views.  Even a facsimile of a scientific article makes the false advertising of Evolution News and Views appear slightly less obviously false.  It seems like it's been years since any post at EN&V even attempted to resemble an actual scientific discussion.   I can't think of a single recent article discussing any peer reviewed intelligent design research recently.   In fact, I can't think of one, ever.  Still secret, I guess.

So, that's news by itself.  What's not news is Casey's misunderstanding of intellectual property law.

Notice that "Peer reviewed" checkmark at this article? I did and was stunned.  I went to the website and found out that any blog can submit an application to display that blog reviewed check mark when blogging on peer-reviewed research.  Even this blog might qualify.  I won't do it because, frankly, peer-reviewed scientific articles are well outside my expertise.  I have nothing intelligent to say that wasn't said in the article itself.   I leave that for qualified scientists to digest and explain. 

(There are several blogs that do a great job of explaining very technical stuff from parasites to penises.  This stuff is  for experts.  Don't try this at home!)

Still, I was impressed the Casey had taken the initiative to join the scientific community.  It would be a good thing and perhaps a learning experience.  Alas, like almost all else about Intelligent Design Creationism, it was a fake.

Yes, the checkmark is copyrighted.

No, it's not fair use.  Succinct analysis.

Potential infringers sometimes claim their work is a parody, a recognized fair use.
That doesn't apply here.  You see, the parody has to be "intentional"--not accidental.

The biggest objection is that the peer-reviewed checkmark represents a screening process that Casey has apparently subverted, affecting the market for the work.  Why go through the screening process when you can just shortcut it and hold yourself out as a "peer review" blogger, as Casey has demonstrated?  The organizers of researchblogging.org invested a lot of time and effort in their screening guidelines to represent real science research to the general public.  Luskin has compromised their hard work and efforts.  Now, we have no idea if the displayed checkmark means anything at all.

More here.

Casey Luskin: Young Earth Creationist or mere Intelligent Design Proponent?

Timothy Sandefur calls Casey Luskin out on copyright law at the Panda's Thumb. Casey Luskin is initially (and superficially) right: His photograph is copyrighted.  Even his cease and desist letter is copyrighted!

The real question is whether its use here constitutes "fair use."

Here is a good short description of the fair use doctrine.  Although the fair use doctrine isn't susceptible to a bright line test, and there can be close cases, this isn't one of them.  Timothy Sandefur's Panda's Thumb/Freespace post explains why. 

The comments, though, at Panda's Thumb drift into an effort to divine of the flavor of Casey Luskin's creationism.

I think this is easy.  Casey Luskin, who is quick to protect his visual image can also act to protect his ID credentials if he so desires.  He can simply explain why he rejects young earth creationism.  He has not taken the opportunity to do so. On the contrary he has embraced young earth creationists.  For all practical purposes, he is one.

Let's look at facts.  He works for the Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to the overthrow of good science.  Compatible with Young Earth Creationism?  Yes.

Are there any prominent DI Fellows that are YEC?  Yes again, Paul Nelson and Nancey Pearcey to name at least two.

Has the Discovery Institute itself taken a position regarding YEC?  Nope, it explicitly dodges the question.

Does Casey Luskin rely on the support of young earth creationists for his position?  Repeatedly. 

Here and here, for example. 

Casey Luskin repeatedly includes young earth creationist in his calculations of the number of people who reject evolution and explicitly argues that such doubts are reasonable.  When you repeatedly include the YEC creationists as evidence of reasonable doubts about evolution, you are, for all practical purposes, a Young Earth Creationist.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Read his post here. 

He calls Young earth creationism merely "controversial,"  not "wrong" or scientifically incorrect.  In particular, he criticizes Swiss authorities for not taking a "middle ground."  What is the middle ground between a falshehood (YEC) and science?  OK, should YEC be any part at all of the "teach the controversy" scheme advocated by the DI.  Or can we once and for all declare YEC to be "off the table?"  If the Discovery Institute did that, its credibility would increase and it would fare a lot better in the legal system.  But I predict neither Casey nor the DI will categorically reject YEC as an alternative to evolution.

To recap, Casey Luskin is the public relations director for an organization with several Young Earth creationist supporters and which refuses to distance itself from those supporters.  When given the opportunity in his own writings he fails to address the scientific error of young earth creationism.  The evidence supports an inference that Casey Luskinis a young earth creationist.

But he can always clarify matters for us by answering a few questions:

Give or take 1 billion years, Casey, how old is the earth?

How do you interpret Genesis, Casey?  Inerrant and scientifically accurate, or mostly allegorical and not intended as a scientific discourse on biology?

Discovery Institute Pounds the Creationist Table

Lawyers say "When the facts are in your favor, pound the facts.  When the law is in your favor, pound the law.  When neither the facts nor the law is in your favor, pound the table.

Rob Crowther and Casey Luskin are frantically pounding the table over at the Discovery Institute.

Here's a nice letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper pointing out why Intelligent Design is not science.  The letter writer accurately observes that ID is disguised creationism lacking factual support.

Not surprisingly, the Discovery Institute's Rob Crowther objects to the letter.  Why?  Was the letter writer mistaken?  No.  It seems the letter exceeded the newspaper's maximum word count by 153 words!   That's right.  Rob himself can't succinctly demonstrate the letterwriter is wrong.  Instead, Rob pounds the table mightily, convicting the letter writer of verbosity, not inaccuracy.  Well struck, Rob.

Casey Luskin goes Rob one better.

Creationist Casey doesn't like Tiktaalik. 

He shouldn't.  Tiktaalik is a creationist's nightmare.  Tiktaalik is indeed an important transitional fossil.  But all fossils are transitional.  Tiktaalik is important because was a predicted transitional fossil.  Evolution predicted both the fossil's existence and its current location.  Not bad for a theory in crisis since 1986.

Casey's creationism flatly predicts that Tiktaalik cannot exist.  Yet, there it is in all its undeniable splendor.

How does Casey handle this unfortunate fact?  Does he claim the fossil was faked?  Nope. It seems Tiktaalik was discovered by the dreaded elite scientists!  Not your ordinary run of the mill scientists and not some schmuck scientists from Bible college either.  Certainly not any of the hardworking Discovery Institute hacks feverishly working on, uh, Intelligent Design science.  No, elite scientists.

Casey uses elite as an epitaph.  Now, personally, I think "elite" is a good thing.  I suspect Casey would prefer an elite cardiologist should he ever require open heart surgery.  Maybe he'll really will try to get by with any name from the yellow pages, but I doubt it.  When the chips are down, Casey will go for an elite professional every time--except, that is, when he needs to "pound the table."

In case you miss the point, Casey blames the "scientific elite" three times for the discovery of Tiktaalik.  Casey doesn't even pound the table creatively.  Can't he come up with a different term of derision?  Somebody get Casey a thesaurus.

Intelligent Design Clothing Line ID's Intelligent Designer

cdesign proponetists are loathe to identify the designer.

Casey Luskin, Young Earth Creationist:  "ID-proponents have consistently given the principled explanation that ID's inability to specify the nature or identity of the designer stems from a desire to respect the limits of scientific inquiry."

Idea Center: "The mere presence of CSI does not tell us anything about the identity of the designer. The fact that ID does not identify the designer is only because of epistemological limitations of the scope of this scientific theory."

If they did identify the designer, then ID would be indistiguishable from creationism.

Fortunately, The Intelligent Design, LLC., has a clothing line that pretty muchs outs the designer.  The designer's a fish with sunglasses, as it turns out.

I predict Pharyngula fans will show little interest in this clothing line unless the fish is replaced by an octopus.  Perhaps like this one: 

Seriously, here's Behe invoking the Bill Dembski of physics:

"Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase, 'hypothesis non fingo.'"

Oddly, that Latin phrase doesn't mean what Behe thinks.  It doesn't mean, "I feign lack of curiosity."  It means, "I don't make shit up when I have no idea."  Big difference.

Of course the Isaac Newton of information theory is not so unimaginitive as Casey Luskin:  Here's Dembski's Intelligent Design Positive Research Program in detail.  The final item?

* Identity Problem -- Who is the designer?

Intelligent Design Predictions: Denyse O'Leary falsifies Intelligent Design

Denyse O’Leary is quite the blogwhore.

She maintains or acts as moderator on about a half dozen sites including but not limited to Post-Darwinist, Mindful Hack, Uncommon Descent, Overwhelming Evidence, and the ID Report.  All sites flog her books mercilessly.  You might assume a person maintaining multiple sites has a lot to say.  Not true.  She mostly posts what she calls  “Service Notes" to ensure her blogs update on automated feeds. She also cross-posts to non-content at her other blogs, ensuring the same result.

The only thing she promotes more than ID is her self.  When she does get around to promoting ID, she is often intentionally hilariously and unintentionally accurate

Recently Denyse offers a very odd collection of ID prophecies entitled “9 Predictions if ID is true.”

Casey Luskin dumber than a brick?

Casey Luskin fails to comprehend the huge advantage conferred by sexual reproduction in what is perhaps the scientifically dumbest post ever.

At Evolution News and Views, Casey Luskin confirms yet again that "The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site."

It certainly is.

Diploid cells carry two copies of every gene compared to the single copy in cells produced assexually.  If there is an error in the transmission of genetic information, the descendant's diploid cells have two chances to get it right instead of the assexual cell's single chance.  That confers an evolutionary advantage to sexaully reproduced diploid cells.

Of course he is correct that assexual reproduction takes less energy and is also advantageous under certain circumstances.  Living organisms often pursue different strategies for evolutionary success.  It does not disprove evolution and Luskin does not explain what Intelligent Design theory has to offer to the discussion.  You have to wonder if Casey has ever heard of annual and perrenial plants and their different strategies for evolutionary success.

Back to seventh grade biology class for Casey.

Luskin contradicts Behe

Casey Luskin, you need to talk to Michael Behe, he didn't get the memo.

Luskin claims that evil Darwinists misrepresent ID thusly:

Dr. Kampis says:

"The Intelligent Design movement holds that living organisms are too complex to have arisen through random mutation and natural selection, and therefore must have been designed by some outside entity."

Question: Where do ID-proponents define ID like that? Answer: Nowhere.

Where would Dr. Kampis get such an outlandish idea?

Probably from the horse's mouth--Michael Behe.  Here's Michael Behe interviewed in Godspy magazine, making the same point made by Kampis:

Godspy Magazine:      But isn't your main scientific argument, in fact, falsifiable? You claim that random mutation and natural selection—the Neo-Darwinist mechanisms of evolution—could not have produced certain structures in the human cell, such as the flagellum, because these structures are "irreducibly complex"—in other words, if you remove one part the whole system doesn't work. You claim such a system could not have evolved incrementally, and would need to have been designed somehow. Isn't this falsifiable? If Neo-Darwinists can show how these structures could have evolved, then it would prove your point false, right?

Dr. Behe:      That's correct.

Godspy:       Would it be compatible with ID to say that the design in the universe, or in human life, is, in some way, a reflection of the Logos?

Dr. Behe:     Yes, that's perfectly compatible with ID.

As any unbiased onserver can see, Kampis has fairly summarized Behe's position.  Maybe Casey Luskin can try again and offer his own definition of ID.  I'm pretty sure that any definition he might offer has already been contradicted by Discovery Institute Fellows.  It is a simple fact that DI/ID proponents will say anything to the general public to avoid ID's creationism, yet are quite candid about the creationist foundation of ID when speaking to a religious audience. 

Discovery Institute can't even lie accurately

The Discovery Institute is still pouting over the Flying Spaghetti Monster, claiming that it "mocks religion."

No. It mocks creationists who palm their creationism off as scientific.  Big difference.

Undeterrred, the Discovery Institute "quotes" Glenn Branch of the Nation Center for Science and Education, thusly:

Now in an interview with the Toronto Star, Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has defended such mocking of traditional religion by Darwinists as "light hearted fun" that is "probably healthy.

You know why I put quote marks around the word "quotes."  The DI is pathologically incapable of quoting accurately or in context.

Let's look at the real quote:

Keeping track of creationist activity and combating it is a tiring and often thankless chore and enjoying light hearted fun at the opposition's expense is probably healthy.

As is plain, The FSM does not mock religion- and Glenn Branch is not approving of religious mockery.  The FSM effectviely mocks creationists who misrepresent both religion and science--people well worth mocking.

Of course the best way to defeat mockery is to actually address the point of the pundit.  So, John West, please tell us how Intelligent Design distinguishes between the Flying Spagetti Monster and the Deity of your choice. Oh, and keep in mind Job 13:7-11.