Ken Miller swats Casey Luskin

Posted 2 January 2009 by Richard B. Hoppe

For the three people who don't read Pharyngula, Ken Miller is guest-blogging on Carl Zimmer's Loom, swatting Casey Luskin's latest attempts to spin the Kitzmiller trial testimony on irreducible complexity. PZ feels almost sorry for Luskin. I don't: I saw him hovering outside the meeting room of the Ohio State Board of Education during our wars here. No sympathy at all on my part. Added in edit: All three parts of Miller's smack-down of Luskin are up on The Loom now: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Part 3 is particularly interesting, with Miller looking at why Luskin is attempting to rehabilitate the ID position in the light of its epic failure in Kitzmiller.

95 Comments

Doc Bill · 2 January 2009

Of course, we all know that the DI's Attack Mouse, Luskin, was blowing smoke against his mirror. Poor cub reporter and idiot savant (without the savant part) Luskin couldn't possibly understand what he was writing as evidenced by the mish-mash of what he produced.

However, it's enlightening for Miller to expound on the real science.

We thank you, Dr. Miller, for that.

As for Luskin, he'll simply retreat into his little Seattle mouse hole, nibble on DI mouldy cheese and return again.

See you soon, Casey!

Gary Hurd · 2 January 2009

I first met Casey the same day I met Wes Elsbery and Matt Inlay (F2F) down at Uinversity of California, San Diego. The event was a talk by Jon Wells about creationism, sponsored by Casey's first IDEA club.

We had all helped Nick Matzke draft a reply to the just published "Icons of Evolution." The task ahead was to pass out an abbreviated version to people entering the auditorium.

Casey seemed to me a squirmy little worm then, and I doubt he will ever change.

waldteufel · 2 January 2009

Luskin claims a masters degree in earth science, and he claims a law degree.

He doesn't do science, and he doesn't practice law. What he does is perform as a PR shill for a propaganda machine that would make Josef Goebbels blush.

Stanton · 3 January 2009

waldteufel said: Luskin claims a masters degree in earth science, and he claims a law degree. He doesn't do science, and he doesn't practice law. What he does is perform as a PR shill for a propaganda machine that would make Josef Goebbels blush.

If I were Herr Goebbels, if Herr Goebbels was still alive today, and I was compared to someone like Mr Luskin, I'd blush bright red, From embarrassment.

KP · 3 January 2009

OT: Does anybody have easy access to the evolution and education journal that was posted here? http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/12/evolution-educa-2.html#comments-open

Seems it's not free anymore and I'd like to use some of the info in my anatomy and physiology class (which starts Monday). Neither of my institutions has a sub.

David Utidjian · 3 January 2009

It is available here:

http://www.isaiadis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/general/Evolution_of_the_Eye.pdf

all 209 pages.

-DU-

Tim · 3 January 2009

"For the three people who don’t read Pharyngula..."
Cool. I thought I was the only one.
This sounds good though. I'll have to check it out.

iml8 · 3 January 2009

I am entirely sympathetic to Ken Miller but alas there
is a certain sense of futility in all this, the situation
being "let's play a game":

1: IGNORE ALL THE STRAIGHTFORWARD EVIDENCE FOR EVO
SCIENCE.

2: COME UP WITH AN OUT-IN-THE-WEEDS
ARGUMENT THAT YOU'D NEED AN ADVANCED DEGREE
TO UNDERSTAND PRECISELY HOW BOGUS IT IS.

3: DRAW THE OTHER SIDE INTO DISPUTES OVER THE MATTER THAT
DRIVE THE DISCUSSION EVEN FARTHER OFF INTO THE WEEDS
IN ORDER TO MUDDY THE WATERS.

4: DECLARE VICTORY.

As propaganda it works very well. The only relief is
that it fails badly in court.

Cheers -- MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

DS · 3 January 2009

Well, having still failed to perform any actual research, Luskin is now reduced to trying to move goalposts that are set in stone. I suppose he could be forgiven for trying to change the argument, now that it has been shown to be completely wrong, but claiming that the argument was never made is not going to work. Oh well, what can you expect from people who spend their time crying over a three year old decision that they never even bothered to appeal?

Of course Luskin never did have any answer for any of the genetic evidence. He consistently ignored the fact that not only does exapation destroy the IC argument, but that all of the genetic evidence is consistent with descent with modification as well. If these clowns ever had any real conviction that they were right, they would be doing genomic sequencing instead of making up nonsense that anyone could see right through. "By their works ye shall know them" - indeed.

John Pieret · 3 January 2009

The second part of Miller's guest stint at The Loom is up and, if anything, Luskin fares even worse.

Frank J · 3 January 2009

I am entirely sympathetic to Ken Miller but alas there is a certain sense of futility in all this, the situation being “let’s play a game”:
— iml8

Here are the game rules in detail.

iml8 · 3 January 2009

Frank J said: Here are the game rules in detail.

The fundamental game underlying the rules is DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN'T TOUCH TO BOG DOWN THE ARGUMENT IN SIX-SIGMA BS. (BS == "Blatant Sophistry" of course.) I'm sure Ken Miller realizes the IC argument (and its like) is a tiresome diversion -- tripping it up does little to make the case for evo science, it's effort that buys nothing in itself. If you have a cold you have to deal with it, but overall the situation is a loss. The worthwhile effort is making the case on the basis of the clear evidence for evo science, and Miller can feel satisfaction in having done so. There's an older edition of the Miller-Levine text at the local library and it's actually fairly fun reading. I think I may buy the up-to-date version. Getting muddy over IC and the like is hard to avoid but not very satisfying. It's the stuff that makes the positive case for evo science, like the recent SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN special issue, that Luskin and company really don't like. People might get interested. They might believe it. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Stanton · 3 January 2009

iml8 said: Getting muddy over IC and the like is hard to avoid but not very satisfying. It's the stuff that makes the positive case for evo science, like the recent SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN special issue, that Luskin and company really don't like. People might get interested. They might believe it. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

But the catch is that, battling IC and the other stillborns of Intelligent Design ~~theory~~ is exactly like having to unclog a sewer pipe: sure, it's smelly, you get utterly filthy and the possibility of you dying from poison gas looms everywhere, but, if someone doesn't hold their breath to do it, the situation will only get worse, and stinkier. And you can't solve it simply by dowsing it with Drain-O and hoping that it will go away.

caerbannog · 3 January 2009

What's really annoying about all this is that Kitzmiller v. Dover was over and done with some three years ago, and Casey is *still* using it as his meal-ticket!

iml8 · 3 January 2009

Stanton said: And you can't solve it simply by dowsing it with Drain-O and hoping that it will go away.

Oh, I acknowledge the unfortunate necessity, but I point out that the evo science community ends up dancing to the tune of Luskin and company. It is useful to remember this is a distraction from the real effort, the one that makes money, which is selling evo science on its own merits. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

For those of you who haven't read the Loom yet, I am re-posting this:

Dear Ken,

Great job of course, and so masterfully done. After Luskin is finished in “deconstructing” blood clotting, I wonder whether he’ll set his sights next on plate tectonics. Having graduated from a leading center of research on plate tectonics, I wonder whether he’ll claim now that it is really a “fantasy” concocted by some misguided “geologists”.

Any chance you might choose to remind Behe here at this blog that perhaps he ought to start writing the definitive textbook on Klingon biochemisty? Am sure it would be far more lucrative for him - and especially his publisher too (since it publishes the “Star Trek” books) - now that the latest “Star Trek” film will be debuting this spring. I sometimes think that he and Dembski are really in it for the money, and if that’s the case, then what better way of promoting themselves by writing ample prose related to “Star Trek” science fiction masquerading as pseudoscience.

A belated Merry Kitzmas and a Happy Monkey to You.

With all best wishes,

John Kwok

KP · 3 January 2009

Muchas gracias, DU.

David Utidjian said: It is available here: http://www.isaiadis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/general/Evolution_of_the_Eye.pdf all 209 pages. -DU-

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Dear Mr. G, Sorry, but I beg to differ with you here:

iml8 said:
Stanton said: And you can't solve it simply by dowsing it with Drain-O and hoping that it will go away.
Oh, I acknowledge the unfortunate necessity, but I point out that the evo science community ends up dancing to the tune of Luskin and company. It is useful to remember this is a distraction from the real effort, the one that makes money, which is selling evo science on its own merits. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

The only reason why Luskin and the rest of his mendacious, quite pathetic, ilk, represent a "distraction" is the dire threat that they pose to quality American science education - which Ken notes eloquently in his latest book - as demonstrated recently by Bobby Jindal's endorsement and subsequent signing of the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act (And Jindal, having studied biology at mine and Ken's Ivy League undergraduate alma mater, should have known better than to try promoting the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism.). I personally think the best way of dealing with IDiots like Luskin, Dembski and Behe is to laugh at them. Hence, that is why I refer sarcastically to their membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective, tell them that Klingon Cosmology is far more credible than Intelligent Design creationism and endorse Ken's suggestion that Behe ought to be writing a textbook on Klingon biochemistry. Let's make it a New Year's Resolution here at PT that we should all spend our times laughing at the IDiots lurking here. Regards, John

iml8 · 3 January 2009

John Kwok said: Let's make it a New Year's Resolution here at PT that we should all spend our times laughing at the IDiots lurking here.

Hey, no problem. If people want to amuse themselves by trading insults with the Darwin-bashers, don't think I'm gonna stand in their way. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

386sx · 3 January 2009

Poor Casey. He has to move more goalposts again! He will probably say that each "kind" has its own irreducibly complexityness, and that the blood clotting looks kinda the same for different kinds because the designer used a similar design for similar kinds. Or something. (Either way, obviously Behe was still wrong though.)

iml8 · 3 January 2009

386sx said: He will probably say that each "kind" has its own irreducibly complexityness ...

Do you recall how the DI folks replied to the homologies between the bacterial flagellum and the TTTS? "Now you have TWO irreducibly complex systems to worry about!" I can't make this stuff up, and I'm fair at making stuff up. "Some irreducibly complex systems are more irreducibly complex than others." Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

The Curmudgeon · 3 January 2009

Casey's continued solitary crusade to rehabilitate Behe's testimony is like arguing that Pickett's Charge was really a terrific success, but everyone at Gettysburg was too stupid to realize it.

Frank J · 3 January 2009

Let’s make it a New Year’s Resolution here at PT that we should all spend our times laughing at the IDiots lurking here.
— John Kwok

As long as it doesn't backfire with the non-IDiot lurkers, and as long as it doesn't feed the trolls who only want to hijack threads. Meanwhile, you saw my comment on The Loom (on Part 2 of Miller's article), but for the benefit of PT lurkers, I copied it below: Dr. Miller, Thanks for another excellent take-down. Of course, as you know, your work is far from done, because Luskin is targeting a different audience, one that will make excuses, not only for ID’s steadfast avoidance of testing its own ideas, but of its downplaying of irreconcilable internal disagreements regarding what the designer did when. Thus he is not worried that it’s not just “Darwinists” who think that “dolphins are supposedly descended from land-dwelling vertebrates,” but Behe himself. If Behe’s average reader can paper over that, so can Luskin’s.

iml8 · 3 January 2009

Frank J said: ... and as long as it doesn't feed the trolls who only want to hijack threads.

That's one of the problems with trading insults with Darwin-bashers. They seem to like it. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Frank J · 3 January 2009

The fundamental game underlying the rules is DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN’T TOUCH TO BOG DOWN THE ARGUMENT IN SIX-SIGMA BS. (BS == “Blatant Sophistry” of course.)
— iml8

Unfortunately the majority of the audience - including many (most?) nonscientists who accept evolution - lacks the time and/or interest to truly digest the multiple lines of independent overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and consigns every conceivable alternative to the dustbin of failed hypotheses. Unfortunately the audience needs sound bites. And the anti-evolution activists are skilled at delivering them. IDers in particular are also skilled at keeping the discussion in the category of "weaknesses" of evolution, and out of any category that would make the audience ask hard questions about their alternate "theory." IMO, the only way we can compete (outside the legal arena, that is) is to not let them control the terms of the game, but rather to show how they play games - quote mine, define terms to suit the argument, bait-and-switch concepts (e.g. evolution with abiogenesis), etc.

Dave Wisker · 3 January 2009

Dr Miller's second article highlights something I have never understood about ID's irreducible complexity and evolution argument: how can removing parts from an existing system say anything definitive about how the system actually came about?

fnxtr · 3 January 2009

Of course they do. Because insults distract from the facts. And they don't have the facts on their side.

Ron Okimoto · 3 January 2009

Does anyone know if any of the changes of creationism to intelligent design occurred in Behe's sections of the book Panda's and People? Since Behe is a fan of Denton's (at least, before Denton wrote his second book that pretty much admitted that his first book was bogus) I would expect that he would follow Denton's style and not mention creationism at all.

Henry J · 3 January 2009

Oh well, what can you expect from people who spend their time crying over a three year old decision that they never even bothered to appeal?

Didn't the board that might have made that appeal have a major change of membership shortly after the trial? That could have something to do with it. ;) -------

Having graduated from a leading center of research on plate tectonics, I wonder whether he’ll claim now that it is really a “fantasy” concocted by some misguided “geologists”.

Yeah, and South America and Africa were designed to look like they fit together. Ha. Henry

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Dear Mr. G, 'Tis true but only up to a point:

iml8 said:
Frank J said: ... and as long as it doesn't feed the trolls who only want to hijack threads.
That's one of the problems with trading insults with Darwin-bashers. They seem to like it. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

That's why we ought to refer to them as - and I believe quite aptly - as mendacious intellectual pornographers. Believe me, they strongly resent being called that which is a most accurate term describing their modus operandi. Regards, John

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Frank J, I concur completely with your astute remarks:

Frank J said:
The fundamental game underlying the rules is DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN’T TOUCH TO BOG DOWN THE ARGUMENT IN SIX-SIGMA BS. (BS == “Blatant Sophistry” of course.)
— iml8
Unfortunately the majority of the audience - including many (most?) nonscientists who accept evolution - lacks the time and/or interest to truly digest the multiple lines of independent overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and consigns every conceivable alternative to the dustbin of failed hypotheses. Unfortunately the audience needs sound bites. And the anti-evolution activists are skilled at delivering them. IDers in particular are also skilled at keeping the discussion in the category of "weaknesses" of evolution, and out of any category that would make the audience ask hard questions about their alternate "theory." IMO, the only way we can compete (outside the legal arena, that is) is to not let them control the terms of the game, but rather to show how they play games - quote mine, define terms to suit the argument, bait-and-switch concepts (e.g. evolution with abiogenesis), etc.

But I believe we ought to expose them too for being the mendacious intellectual pornographers that they most certainly are and spend as much time as possible ridiculing such inane notions like "Irreducible Complexity" and the "Explanatory Filter" by asserting - with utmost seriousness - that there is indeed more ample proof for the existence of Klingon Cosmology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster than there is for any aspect of Intelligent Design creationism (or the other flavors of mendacious intellectual pornography known as creationism). Appreciatively yours, John

Frank J · 3 January 2009

Does anyone know if any of the changes of creationism to intelligent design occurred in Behe’s sections of the book Panda’s and People? Since Behe is a fan of Denton’s (at least, before Denton wrote his second book that pretty much admitted that his first book was bogus) I would expect that he would follow Denton’s style and not mention creationism at all.
— Ron Okimoto

Excellent question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but it brings up more questions for which the answers might shed more like on "cdesign proponentsists," such as when did Behe write his sections, before or after the 1987 word change? I would guess that Behe never used the word "creationism." But I do recall him raving about Denton, and I would guess that Denton did use some forms of the word in his 1985 book. However I always thought that "Darwin's Black Box" (1996) was a major factor for Denton conceding common descent. AIUI, the only difference between Behe and Denton, is that the latter's language was not as PC. Then Denton left the DI and Behe became even more PC. Such as admitting in 2005 that some DI folk (no names of course) who reject common descent are "more familiar with the relevant science." I plan to read "Creationism's Trojan Horse" soon, whether or not it answers your question.

iml8 · 3 January 2009

Frank J said: Unfortunately the majority of the audience - including many (most?) nonscientists who accept evolution - lacks the time and/or interest to truly digest the multiple lines of independent overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and consigns every conceivable alternative to the dustbin of failed hypotheses.

No unkindness meant, sport, but I have long had trouble regarding the folks who aren't paying any attention to the matter as an audience. Most people don't care about evo science ... they may be superb musicians, mechanics, carpenters, linguists, salesmen, whatever, but it takes a certain bent to care about the sciences. I'm also not certain how much it matters. If asked for an opinion, they pop off a few sound bites they have recorded upstairs and then forget about it again. This is unfortunate to the extent that, on the basis of indifference, they offer no resistance to "teach the controversy" and similar ploys. Otherwise they are neither for or against either side. How one might influence a group that pays not the slightest attention to discussions of evo science is hard to figure out -- "Inform the troops that communications have broken down!" I think the only things that reach them are pop culture items like SPORE ... fair TV documentaries are good, too. I would love to see a hit TV sitcom that had a Tom Bethell-like comic-relief character who was into every fringe movement that rolled along -- the lunatic-fringers would bristle. (Reminds me of Edward Teller, who late in his life told a reporter: "If you mention Strangelove VUN TIME, I vill TROW you oudt!") The hardcore Darwin-bashers aren't paying any attention, either, they just sort through what's said to find something to throw back. As far as I can see, the only target audience are those who are interested but undecided or wavering, and the only thing that can be done is to give them a credible sales job on evo science. Carl Zimmer seems to be working precisely up this alley. None of the waverers are going to be sold by a barking contest between the two factions (however much fun it may be), or eye-glazing quarrels over Irreducible Complexity. Mind you, Ken Miller had no choice but to respond to Casey Luskin, since Luskin was denouncing him personally as a fraud -- the pot calls the silverware black. But Miller's work in co-writing an effective standard secondary-school text on bioscience (and evolution) is far more significant. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Ron Okimoto · 3 January 2009

Frank J said: Excellent question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but it brings up more questions for which the answers might shed more like on "cdesign proponentsists," such as when did Behe write his sections, before or after the 1987 word change? I would guess that Behe never used the word "creationism." But I do recall him raving about Denton, and I would guess that Denton did use some forms of the word in his 1985 book. However I always thought that "Darwin's Black Box" (1996) was a major factor for Denton conceding common descent. AIUI, the only difference between Behe and Denton, is that the latter's language was not as PC. Then Denton left the DI and Behe became even more PC. Such as admitting in 2005 that some DI folk (no names of course) who reject common descent are "more familiar with the relevant science." I plan to read "Creationism's Trojan Horse" soon, whether or not it answers your question.

I checked Denton's first book out of the library as a graduate student because it was new and I had never heard of the guy. I got around 1/3 through the book before I gave up in frustation. Denton seemed to have no idea of how the molecular data was analyzed. I do not recall creationism being mentioned boldly in the text. It was more stealth than that. He made some of the same bogus arguments, but I really don't recall him claiming that it was evidence for creationism just against common descent. It has been over 20 years since I read the book. Denton seemed to get the cold shoulder from the Discovery Institute because he came up with an unconventional discription of the designer. That was a big no no for the ID scam and obviously didn't make the guys that "know" that the designer is the Christian God very happy. I've never heard why Denton and the Discovery Institute parted ways. Heck, they still list Berlinski as a fellow and he has claimed that he never bought into the ID junk. It looks like as long as you have propaganda value you get to stay, so why not Denton? They still hawk his first book, but you never see any of the ID perps recommending his second book.

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Dear Mr. G, I concur with you here:

iml8 said:
Frank J said: Unfortunately the majority of the audience - including many (most?) nonscientists who accept evolution - lacks the time and/or interest to truly digest the multiple lines of independent overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and consigns every conceivable alternative to the dustbin of failed hypotheses.
No unkindness meant, sport, but I have long had trouble regarding the folks who aren't paying any attention to the matter as an audience. Most people don't care about evo science ... they may be superb musicians, mechanics, carpenters, linguists, salesmen, whatever, but it takes a certain bent to care about the sciences. I'm also not certain how much it matters. If asked for an opinion, they pop off a few sound bites they have recorded upstairs and then forget about it again. This is unfortunate to the extent that, on the basis of indifference, they offer no resistance to "teach the controversy" and similar ploys. Otherwise they are neither for or against either side. How one might influence a group that pays not the slightest attention to discussions of evo science is hard to figure out -- "Inform the troops that communications have broken down!" I think the only things that reach them are pop culture items like SPORE ... fair TV documentaries are good, too. I would love to see a hit TV sitcom that had a Tom Bethell-like comic-relief character who was into every fringe movement that rolled along -- the lunatic-fringers would bristle. (Reminds me of Edward Teller, who late in his life told a reporter: "If you mention Strangelove VUN TIME, I vill TROW you oudt!") The hardcore Darwin-bashers aren't paying any attention, either, they just sort through what's said to find something to throw back. As far as I can see, the only target audience are those who are interested but undecided or wavering, and the only thing that can be done is to give them a credible sales job on evo science. Carl Zimmer seems to be working precisely up this alley. None of the waverers are going to be sold by a barking contest between the two factions (however much fun it may be), or eye-glazing quarrels over Irreducible Complexity. Mind you, Ken Miller had no choice but to respond to Casey Luskin, since Luskin was denouncing him personally as a fraud -- the pot calls the silverware black. But Miller's work in co-writing an effective standard secondary-school text on bioscience (and evolution) is far more significant. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

As for Ken, he started out debating creationists before writing his textbook (In fact his very first debate was against Henry Morris, Vice President, Institute of Creation Research. I had the privilege of assisting him as the sole "evolutionist" on an ad hoc campus "Origins" Committee that was comprised otherwise by members of the campus chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ.). But this was really more a one-shot deal, and Ken did not delve into this issue again, until after the creationists began attacking his secondary school textbook, which was - and still is - co-written with a former student of his, Joe Levine. Instead of worrying about who said what with regards to cdesign proponentsists originally, I believe the more interesting line of questioning is to ask ID advocates like Luskin exactly how Intelligent Design offers testable hypotheses - which if validated by field observations and experimentation - might do a better job in explaining the origins, history and complexity of Planet Earth biodiversity. As a former marine invertebrate paleobiologist, I would love to see Luskin, Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Wells and the rest of their pathetic, intellectually-challenged, ilk explain how: 1) Intelligent Design explains the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" (which doesn't really exist, but is a mere artifact due to the fact that this seventy to eighty million year interval represents the time span in which the first skeletonized metazoans appear in the marine invertebrate fossil record). 2) Intelligent Design explains the persistence of taxa and entire ecosystems through time (the twin phenomena of morphological stasis and some kind of ecological niche stasis - of the kinds stated recently by eminent evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma in a talk I had heard this fall sponsored by the Linnean Society of New York.). 3) Intelligent Design explain the appearance of "escalation" - as dubbed by noted marine ecologist and paleobiologist Geerat Vermeij - in the fossil record, which underscores a succession of coevolutionary arms races between predators and their prey. 4) Intelligent Design explain extinction, especially that most curious phenomenon, mass extinction. 5) Intelligent Design explain the recovery of ecosystems in the aftermath of an extinction as devastating as the terminal Cretaceous one. I could go on, but these remain some of the most interesting problems being pursued now by paleobiologists. I have yet to see any Intelligent Design "scientist" attempt to grapple with these issues. Regards, John

Frank J · 3 January 2009

They still hawk his first book, but you never see any of the ID perps recommending his second book.
— Ron Okimoto

In fact, even the rubes seem trained enough not to recommend his second book ("Nature's Destiny"). A truly clueless rube would just google Denton's name, based on all the raving by their gurus, and recommend anything by him whether they read it or not. But in a decade on Talk.Origins I have never seen any such thing, not even from those embarrassingly clueless letters-to-the-editor that "Jason Spaceman" digs up. That suggests that many, if not most, people who do write such letters receive, and possibly seek, coaching from those better versed in the scam.

Frank J · 3 January 2009

No unkindness meant, sport, but I have long had trouble regarding the folks who aren’t paying any attention to the matter as an audience. Most people don’t care about evo science … they may be superb musicians, mechanics, carpenters, linguists, salesmen, whatever, but it takes a certain bent to care about the sciences.
— iml8

No disagreement here. By "audience" I don't mean to imply that they are listening attentively and either rooting for the "home team" or "letting the best team win, whichever it is." Rather it's a battle of memes. Even the people I know who do care more than average about the sciences give me the "yeah, whatever" when I get into it.

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Dear Frank J,

Don't you think it might be productive too - merely to demonstrate how and why ID is pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography - to start demanding from ID "savants" like Behe, Dembski and Luskin just how their ID hypotheses can be used to provide a more rigorous, much better, scientific explanation for the origin, complexity and history of our planet's biodiversity?

Just a thought.

John

Frank J · 3 January 2009

As a former marine invertebrate paleobiologist, I would love to see Luskin, Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Wells and the rest of their pathetic, intellectually-challenged, ilk explain how: 1) Intelligent Design explains the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”...
— John Kwok

Heck, I'd be thrilled if Nelson and the others just debated each other about when the Cambrian occurred. AIUI, the rest agree that it started ~540 MY ago, but Nelson thinks it was much more recent. But as you know, Phillip Johnson set the rules early on that such a debate was out of bounds until ID defeats "naturalism." Which even the most evangelical theists like Francis Collins will say is "never."

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Dear Frank J, In the very first - and unsolicited - e-mail that I received from that great "savant", Bill Dembski, Bill asserted that ID raises "questions":

Frank J said:
As a former marine invertebrate paleobiologist, I would love to see Luskin, Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Wells and the rest of their pathetic, intellectually-challenged, ilk explain how: 1) Intelligent Design explains the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”...
— John Kwok
Heck, I'd be thrilled if Nelson and the others just debated each other about when the Cambrian occurred. AIUI, the rest agree that it started ~540 MY ago, but Nelson thinks it was much more recent. But as you know, Phillip Johnson set the rules early on that such a debate was out of bounds until ID defeats "naturalism." Which even the most evangelical theists like Francis Collins will say is "never."

Surely he must mean questions that have been perplexing paleobiologists for the last few decades and are of sufficient interest to interest others, especially prominent evolutionary biologists like Futuyma and Michael L. Rosenzweig (who is one of our foremost ecologists). As for Nelson, he probably believed the Cambrian started when the Klingons arrived and seeded our planet with multicellular life. Regards, John

Frank J · 3 January 2009

Don’t you think it might be productive too - merely to demonstrate how and why ID is pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography - to start demanding from ID “savants” like Behe, Dembski and Luskin just how their ID hypotheses can be used to provide a more rigorous, much better, scientific explanation for the origin, complexity and history of our planet’s biodiversity?
— John Kwok

Yes, but only to those who really care about science (see also my last reply to iml8). Most nonscientists don't care if ideas are testable or whether proponents want to test their ideas - just look at all the excuses for alternative medicine, "all natural" this-and-that, etc. But they might care if those "alternatives" refuse to commit to such simple conclusions as "how old is life" and "are humans related to other species or not." Then, more people might wonder "what are they trying to hide?"

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Yes, but if we can educate the public along the lines of what Scientific American's editorial staff has suggested on Pg. 32 of the current (January 2009) issue devoted to evolution, then my observations may have more resonance with the public than you think:

Frank J said:
Don’t you think it might be productive too - merely to demonstrate how and why ID is pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography - to start demanding from ID “savants” like Behe, Dembski and Luskin just how their ID hypotheses can be used to provide a more rigorous, much better, scientific explanation for the origin, complexity and history of our planet’s biodiversity?
— John Kwok
Yes, but only to those who really care about science (see also my last reply to iml8). Most nonscientists don't care if ideas are testable or whether proponents want to test their ideas - just look at all the excuses for alternative medicine, "all natural" this-and-that, etc. But they might care if those "alternatives" refuse to commit to such simple conclusions as "how old is life" and "are humans related to other species or not." Then, more people might wonder "what are they trying to hide?"

iml8 · 3 January 2009

Frank J said: Rather it's a battle of memes.

Planting memes is difficult and the Darwin-bashers are better at it, mostly because the dumb-downed message tends to serve their purposes while it tends to work against the sciences. I do admit I will take pleasure in using stockpiled shots of my own against the Darwin-bashers: BUT HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE DARWIN WHEN THEY KEEP CHANGING HIS THEORY ALL THE TIME? "Oh, so you're saying the Wright brothers were clueless because they couldn't build a 747 jetliner?" BUT THERE ARE SO MANY SCIENTISTS QUESTIONING DARWINISM NOW! "Could you tell me which of the top 100 -- make it 1,000 -- universities have come out against it?" This is all very amusing, but I am not sure how much it really accomplishes. It takes particularly clueless Darwin-bashers to say things like that anyway, the scenario being along the lines of Bugs Bunny bashing Elmer Fudd over the head with a mallet. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Frank J · 3 January 2009

John,

I saw the SciAm issue in a book store today, and plan to get it tomorrow (using the gift card that I didn't have with me today). I certainly hope you're right, and I also agree with iml8 that Ken Miller's efforts at revising education standards are more critical to changing public opinion in the long run than the battle of the sound bites. But there's still lots of work to be done on many levels. All of which will be spun by scammers and scammed alike as some "conspiracy" of "secularists." Maybe some day most people will get the incredible irony of why Miller was "expelled" by the producers of "Expelled."

John Kwok · 3 January 2009

Frank J, It's rather obvious why Ken wasn't included in "Expelled":

Frank J said: John, I saw the SciAm issue in a book store today, and plan to get it tomorrow (using the gift card that I didn't have with me today). I certainly hope you're right, and I also agree with iml8 that Ken Miller's efforts at revising education standards are more critical to changing public opinion in the long run than the battle of the sound bites. But there's still lots of work to be done on many levels. All of which will be spun by scammers and scammed alike as some "conspiracy" of "secularists." Maybe some day most people will get the incredible irony of why Miller was "expelled" by the producers of "Expelled."

Scientists like Ken are a major headache for the Dishonesty Institute, Premise Media and Ben Stein. And he's not the only one. Can someone tell me why if evolution is an atheist "creed", then such noteworthy, religiously devout scientists like Francisco J. Ayala, Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Mike Rosenzweig, to name but a few, have no problem reconciling their religious faith with their adherence to what is valid science, like modern evolutionary biology? It's only the religious zealots like Casey Luskin, Bill Dembski, Mikey Behe, Johnny Wells, Paul Nelson and Kurt Wise, to name but a few, who have problems, and since they're unable to admit that they ought to know better, they have become instead, premier mendacious intellectual pornographers. Cheers, John

TomS · 3 January 2009

iml8 said: I do admit I will take pleasure in using stockpiled shots of my own against the Darwin-bashers: BUT HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE DARWIN WHEN THEY KEEP CHANGING HIS THEORY ALL THE TIME? "Oh, so you're saying the Wright brothers were clueless because they couldn't build a 747 jetliner?" BUT THERE ARE SO MANY SCIENTISTS QUESTIONING DARWINISM NOW! "Could you tell me which of the top 100 -- make it 1,000 -- universities have come out against it?"

As to the first, there are, of course, many examples of "they keep changing ... all the time", such as "they" keep changing the description of the shape of the earth (once, it was a sphere, then it was an ellipsoid, then it was "pear-shaped") or the description of the motion of the earth (for Copernicus, the center of the universe was the sun). But I think that this can be confusing to people who are naive about science, even if they are well-disposed toward evolution, and deserves more than a "one-liner" as an answer. Maybe it merits a two-liner? :-) Perhaps: "Of course, nobody believes Darwin. If they ever got a final answer, they'd have to take up another line of work." As to the second, may I suggest something like: If there are so many smart, knowledgeable, and interested people who are anti-evolutionists, surely by now they must have come up with a tentative alternative answer to "what happened, and when?"

iml8 · 3 January 2009

TomS said: But I think that this can be confusing to people who are naive about science, even if they are well-disposed toward evolution, and deserves more than a "one-liner" as an answer.

It deserves a much better answer than that, but alas sound bites are forced into the most absolutely minimal format. I like to reflect on the fact that while Newton invented modern physics, he had no clear idea of the notion of energy. In fact we didn't understand it until well into the 19th century. On Darwin's anachronisms ... I'm going through ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES in detail, writing up an extended outline for my website, and noted at one point in surprise that Darwin didn't really understand the pathogen of infectious disease. Of course he didn't, nobody did in 1859. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Maezeppa · 3 January 2009

There's a blog that likens debating Creationists to "Playing Chess with Pigeons". The pigeons fly in, knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and then fly home to boast to their friends they won.

Frank J · 4 January 2009

There’s a blog that likens debating Creationists to “Playing Chess with Pigeons”.
— Maezeppa

Here's the link. Just yesterday I wrote this about the quote.

Frank J · 4 January 2009

The link to my comment didn't work, so I'll try again.

Frank J · 4 January 2009

As to the second, may I suggest something like: If there are so many smart, knowledgeable, and interested people who are anti-evolutionists, surely by now they must have come up with a tentative alternative answer to “what happened, and when?”
— TomS

As you know they not only not have a tentative answer, but the mutually contradictory ones they have offered in the past keep diverging into "don't ask, don't tell," despite decades of seeking and fabricating answers. Which makes Pope John Paul II's description of the evidence for evolution as "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" especially ironic. BTW, since this thread is about Ken Miller, I should credit him with the phrase "mutually contraictory" (referring to YEC, OEC, ID in "Finding Darwin's God") that I use whenever possible.

Frank J · 4 January 2009

...and he spelled it correctly.

Stanton · 4 January 2009

Frank J said:
As to the second, may I suggest something like: If there are so many smart, knowledgeable, and interested people who are anti-evolutionists, surely by now they must have come up with a tentative alternative answer to “what happened, and when?”
— TomS
As you know they not only not have a tentative answer, but the mutually contradictory ones they have offered in the past keep diverging into "don't ask, don't tell," despite decades of seeking and fabricating answers. Which makes Pope John Paul II's description of the evidence for evolution as "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" especially ironic. BTW, since this thread is about Ken Miller, I should credit him with the phrase "mutually contraictory" (referring to YEC, OEC, ID in "Finding Darwin's God") that I use whenever possible.

When I try to point out to Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, or some other anti-evolutionist who thinks that they know better than all of the Biology majors put together, they always dance around the subject by either ignoring me, changing the subject, suggesting that I read my Bible, or infer that it's somehow an evil conspiracy by the evil Darwinists that anti-evolutionists are wholly unmotivated to seek any answers. Uh-huh, yeah.

Frank J · 4 January 2009

...they always dance around the subject by either ignoring me, changing the subject, suggesting that I read my Bible, or infer that it’s somehow an evil conspiracy by the evil Darwinists that anti-evolutionists are wholly unmotivated to seek any answers.
— Stanton

Well sure, if you're talking to those who are either hopelessly compartmentalized or in on the scam. And I'll bet that those who say "read the Bible" are completely unfazed that Behe said that reading the Bible as a science text is "silly" and admitted (under oath, no less) that the designer might be deceased. But you might get a different reaction from those who say things like "I heard that the jury's still out about evolution."

ghor · 4 January 2009

yes

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

Hi all,

Zimmer has posted the last of Ken's observations, which is an excellent summary of the Dover trial's aftermath and of Luskin's "attempt" at trying to overturn Judge Jones' ruling, at least in the court of public opinion:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/04/ken-millers-final-guest

Regards,

John

iml8 · 4 January 2009

Interesting reading. I didn't really think of it, but
there does seem to be a method to Casey Luskin's madness.
However, the end result is even madder: "They're trying
to encourage people to take another shot at Dover!"

A triumph of hope over 40 years of court cases lost with
100% consistency.
I was literally shocked at the irresponsibility of the
exercise: "They didn't really have a good case against ID
at Dover, so go ahead and try again. BTW, don't
call us if you get stuck with a monster legal bill."

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

Guess you haven't been reading what the IDiot Borg drones have been posting about Dover and Jones' decision over at Uncommon Dissent:

iml8 said: Interesting reading. I didn't really think of it, but there does seem to be a method to Casey Luskin's madness. However, the end result is even madder: "They're trying to encourage people to take another shot at Dover!" A triumph of hope over 40 years of court cases lost with 100% consistency. I was literally shocked at the irresponsibility of the exercise: "They didn't really have a good case against ID at Dover, so go ahead and try again. BTW, don't call us if you get stuck with a monster legal bill." Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

If there is a unifying theme to their peculiar breathtaking inanity, then it is the risible assertion that Jones' decision shouldn't be used as legal precedent at all in other, quite similar, cases (Legally they may have a point, but clearly not intellectually or emotionally speaking.).

iml8 · 4 January 2009

John Kwok said: Guess you haven't been reading what the IDiot Borg drones have been posting about Dover and Jones' decision over at Uncommon Dissent ....

Oh, I know they've been fussing about it, even publishing a book on Dover, but I can't read these guys for more than a second before my brain goes into a stall and my eyes glaze over. I just sort of chalked it up to the usual griping -- I didn't realize the specific agenda behind it. Burning the other guy is one thing. Setting up your own for a fall is another. But they're trapped: the ultimate focus of the Darwin wars in the US is to push anti-Darwin notions into the public schools, and that means getting them past the courts. If nobody's willing to risk a court case, then they might as well pack up and go home. They're not going to do that. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

I know exactly what you mean:

iml8 said:
John Kwok said: Guess you haven't been reading what the IDiot Borg drones have been posting about Dover and Jones' decision over at Uncommon Dissent ....
Oh, I know they've been fussing about it, even publishing a book on Dover, but I can't read these guys for more than a second before my brain goes into a stall and my eyes glaze over. I just sort of chalked it up to the usual griping -- I didn't realize the specific agenda behind it. Burning the other guy is one thing. Setting up your own for a fall is another. But they're trapped: the ultimate focus of the Darwin wars in the US is to push anti-Darwin notions into the public schools, and that means getting them past the courts. If nobody's willing to risk a court case, then they might as well pack up and go home. They're not going to do that. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

They foolishly think they'll prevail, and yet the great weight of legal history is against them. It's too bad both Dembski and Behe haven't listened to my generous advice to write the definitive textbook on Klingon Cosmology (I've offered to serve as their editorial consultant.). Indeed, there is ample more proof for Klingon Cosmology than there will ever be for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism: 1) We see Klingons often on television - and the movies too - so obviously, they must be real, right? 2) An official North American-based Klingon Language Institute exists. 3) Klingons have conducted marriage and other religious ceremonies before our very eyes. 4) Both the Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon. Hence for these very reasons, there is indeed far more proof for Klingon Cosmology than there will ever be for Intelligent Design creationism.

The Curmudgeon · 4 January 2009

iml8 said: If there is a unifying theme to their peculiar breathtaking inanity, then it is the risible assertion that Jones' decision shouldn't be used as legal precedent at all in other, quite similar, cases (Legally they may have a point, but clearly not intellectually or emotionally speaking.).

The Dover case isn't legally binding outside of its circuit, but it relied entirely on earlier US Supreme Court cases, which certainly are binding. The Dover case depended on the facts of the Dover school board's actions. The first set of facts were the religious motives of the school board, and those aren't relevant anywhere else. The second set of facts that came out was the creationist roots and nature of the ID movement. Those facts won't go away, and that's the biggest feature of the Dover case.

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

You're absolutely right, but I won't be surprised if the Dishonesty Institute opts for Dover II, with Luskin's recent broadside against Ken Miller being one of the opening salvoes:

The Curmudgeon said:
iml8 said: If there is a unifying theme to their peculiar breathtaking inanity, then it is the risible assertion that Jones' decision shouldn't be used as legal precedent at all in other, quite similar, cases (Legally they may have a point, but clearly not intellectually or emotionally speaking.).
The Dover case isn't legally binding outside of its circuit, but it relied entirely on earlier US Supreme Court cases, which certainly are binding. The Dover case depended on the facts of the Dover school board's actions. The first set of facts were the religious motives of the school board, and those aren't relevant anywhere else. The second set of facts that came out was the creationist roots and nature of the ID movement. Those facts won't go away, and that's the biggest feature of the Dover case.

The Curmudgeon · 4 January 2009

John Kwok said: You're absolutely right, but I won't be surprised if the Dishonesty Institute opts for Dover II, with Luskin's recent broadside against Ken Miller being one of the opening salvoes:

Even if Behe were right, that the system he testified about isn't (yet) explained by evolution, so what? There's no rational justification for a "theory" that says it's some kind of miracle. At best, it's just another research project waiting to be worked on. Nothing remarkable about that.

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

That was really an amazing admission coming from Mikey Behe, don't you think:

The Curmudgeon said:
John Kwok said: You're absolutely right, but I won't be surprised if the Dishonesty Institute opts for Dover II, with Luskin's recent broadside against Ken Miller being one of the opening salvoes:
Even if Behe were right, that the system he testified about isn't (yet) explained by evolution, so what? There's no rational justification for a "theory" that says it's some kind of miracle. At best, it's just another research project waiting to be worked on. Nothing remarkable about that.

'Tis time for Mikey to hang it up. Either he ought to start writing "Star Trek" science fiction like a Klingon biochemistry textbook - which ought to please his publisher, since it, Simon and Schuster, also publishes the "Star Trek" books - or take his cues from Simon and Schuster's most popular authors, David McCullough and Frank McCourt (Yup am guilty of name dropping folks but I can't help it. Frank's current wife is a fan of evolutionary biology.) and start writing legitimate histories, biographies and memoirs. Cheers, John

Stanton · 4 January 2009

John Kwok said: 'Tis time for Mikey to hang it up. Either he ought to start writing "Star Trek" science fiction like a Klingon biochemistry textbook - which ought to please his publisher, since it, Simon and Schuster, also publishes the "Star Trek" books - or take his cues from Simon and Schuster's most popular authors, David McCullough and Frank McCourt (Yup am guilty of name dropping folks but I can't help it. Frank's current wife is a fan of evolutionary biology.) and start writing legitimate histories, biographies and memoirs. Cheers, John

I don't trust anything Behe would write, as he doesn't even bother to get his fake facts straight. I wouldn't even trust his fiction with a 10 centimeter tractor beam.

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

Now why didn't I see your excellent point beforehand:

Stanton said:
John Kwok said: 'Tis time for Mikey to hang it up. Either he ought to start writing "Star Trek" science fiction like a Klingon biochemistry textbook - which ought to please his publisher, since it, Simon and Schuster, also publishes the "Star Trek" books - or take his cues from Simon and Schuster's most popular authors, David McCullough and Frank McCourt (Yup am guilty of name dropping folks but I can't help it. Frank's current wife is a fan of evolutionary biology.) and start writing legitimate histories, biographies and memoirs. Cheers, John
I don't trust anything Behe would write, as he doesn't even bother to get his fake facts straight. I wouldn't even trust his fiction with a 10 centimeter tractor beam.

On a more serious note, I'm not joking when I've mentioned that Ken Miller thinks Behe ought to write a textbook on Klingon biochemistry. I thought Ken was kidding, but he was quite serious. John

John Kwok · 4 January 2009

Dear Stanton,

I've heard Francisco J. Ayala say in a public lecture that Behe ought to know better as a biochemist. I believe Ayala thinks Behe is doing his ID BS for monetary reasons only. And if that's really Behe's intent, then he ought to start writing about "Star Trek", especially when - as I have noted here beforehand - his American publisher also publishes the "Star Trek" books.

John

Pete Dunkelberg · 4 January 2009

I have not met Behe, but I hear that he really seems to be a true believer in himself.

Mike Elzinga · 4 January 2009

Pete Dunkelberg said: I have not met Behe, but I hear that he really seems to be a true believer in himself.

One has to wonder if his theory of irreducible complexity is itself irreducibly complex. Did it come together in one fell swoop in a brilliant flash of insight from already function parts just lying around for the task? Take away one part and it doesn't work?

Mike Elzinga · 4 January 2009

There's obviously a part missing.

Stanton · 4 January 2009

Mike Elzinga said: One has to wonder if (Behe's) theory of irreducible complexity is itself irreducibly complex. Did it come together in one fell swoop in a brilliant flash of insight from already function parts just lying around for the task? Take away one part and it doesn't work?

If one takes a single part away from Behe's "theory" with the intent to see if it still functions, one would never notice the resultant non-functioning, given as how it never functions to begin with (nor 'twas the intent, either). It's like what they say in Greece, about how who would bother to notice a vampire missing from Santorini.

midwifetoad · 4 January 2009

Dave Wisker said: Dr Miller's second article highlights something I have never understood about ID's irreducible complexity and evolution argument: how can removing parts from an existing system say anything definitive about how the system actually came about?

Among other problems, removing parts does not model in reverse the steps by which the system evolved. Is this point too subtle to ping the cdesign proponentsist's radar?

Dr. J · 5 January 2009

John Kwok said: Dear Stanton, I've heard Francisco J. Ayala say in a public lecture that Behe ought to know better as a biochemist. I believe Ayala thinks Behe is doing his ID BS for monetary reasons only. And if that's really Behe's intent, then he ought to start writing about "Star Trek", especially when - as I have noted here beforehand - his American publisher also publishes the "Star Trek" books. John

I've often wondered if those people involved in the ID "movement" really believe what they are writing and preaching or if it is just about the money. I'm sure it's a mix of both - they do come up with some terribly goofy stuff. I can't fathom how anyone believes in a 6,000 year old Earth with all the evidence that is out there - yet I get a few every year in my evolution course. It is a hell of a money making scheme. As for the lawsuits like Dover, I hope they keep coming - it is a great educational tool, they seem to knock down the movements for some period of time, and are expensive for the Dishonesty Institute and others to fund. Dover did an incredible job of showing the ID'ers real motives and lack of scientific validity. The PBS Judgement Day video works great in class to show the key points of the "debate" and is more effective than most anything I can do.

Frank J · 5 January 2009

Burning the other guy is one thing. Setting up your own for a fall is another.
— iml8

The DI left those who trusted them at Dover with big legal bills, so nothing is beneath them. With that I have to wonder if the Madoff affair gave them more encouragement than ever that those desperate for a "savior" from "Darwinism" will keep coming to the DI with "Thank you sir, may I have another."

Frank J · 5 January 2009

I’ve often wondered if those people involved in the ID “movement” really believe what they are writing and preaching or if it is just about the money. I’m sure it’s a mix of both - they do come up with some terribly goofy stuff. I can’t fathom how anyone believes in a 6,000 year old Earth...
— Dr. J

As you might know, nearly all DI fellows reject a "6,000 year old Earth." Of course, unlike classic OECs, they are usually quiet about it, and are far more politically sympathetic to YECs. So ironically ID may be better at classic YEC itself (AIG, etc.) at promoting YEC among followers who seem mostly predisposed to accept it for various reasons (I personally suspect that aversion to big numbers is at least as big a factor as "death before the Fall"). Given the DI's "big tent" strategy, I think that their main motivation is to win the "culture war" by whatever means necessary, and that means getting the "masses" to believe whatever fairy tale they're comfortable with, regardless of lack of evidence and mutual contradictions. To keep their fans from asking too many questions they say as little as possible about their own positions, and keep the focus on "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." In contrast, the classic YEC and OEC groups seem to truly believe that evidence and/or revelation from the Bible, supports their particular account of natural history. All of these groups are well-funded, sell books, get speaking fees, etc. regardless of how well they do in courts, so money is more a given than an incentive. But I think that they are all so paranoid about the "culture war" that they are willing to risk being the laughingstock of all of science, and potentially of the majority of people (if they ever take an interest).

iml8 · 5 January 2009

Frank J said: The DI left those who trusted them at Dover with big legal bills, so nothing is beneath them.

I have to think that doing this as a deliberate effort would be five-star cynicism, and so appalling as it might seem they honestly think they have a good case. Of course, it wasn't the Darwin-bashing school board members who got stuck with the bill at Dover, it was the local city / school government. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

eric · 5 January 2009

The Curmudgeon said: The Dover case depended on the facts of the Dover school board's actions. The first set of facts were the religious motives of the school board, and those aren't relevant anywhere else. The second set of facts that came out was the creationist roots and nature of the ID movement. Those facts won't go away, and that's the biggest feature of the Dover case.

Actually, Kitzmiller got enough press that future pro-science lawyers might argue that an "objective observer" would know about it generally. This would make the first set of facts relevant because it would mean an objective observer understands that ID has been used in the past as a code phrase for religion and an illegal cover for religious action.

in an earlier post, iml8 said: How one might influence a group that pays not the slightest attention to discussions of evo science [hardcore Darwin bashers] is hard to figure out

Fortunately this is not an irreducibly complex problem, and you don't need to solve it in one fell swoop. :) NCSE, court cases, etc... will help ensure modern biology is taught properly in (US) High Schools. That's enough for many folks, while others who wish to continue to work on the larger problem of deprogramming the world’s religious fanatics are free to do so.

The Curmudgeon · 5 January 2009

eric said: Actually, Kitzmiller got enough press that future pro-science lawyers might argue that an "objective observer" would know about it generally. This would make the first set of facts relevant because it would mean an objective observer understands that ID has been used in the past as a code phrase for religion and an illegal cover for religious action.

Yes. I've argued that courts should now apply a presumption of a non-secular purpose to any school board that adopts a pro-ID policy. But a legal principle like that would probably have to come from an appellate-level court.

iml8 · 5 January 2009

The Curmudgeon said: Yes. I've argued that courts should now apply a presumption of a non-secular purpose to any school board that adopts a pro-ID policy. But a legal principle like that would probably have to come from an appellate-level court.

Idle question for the legally inclined: What would happen legally if people tried to push entirely secular pseudoscience into the public schools? There's plenty of it out there -- Einstein-bashers come to my mind -- it's just that it's not usually backed up anything resembling a mass movement. In evo science controversies the logic is: "Is it really science?" "No." "If it's not science, then what is it?" "Religion in disguise." "Then the Exclusion Clause says NO COOKIE." But if it's just plain pseudoscience, what happens? My uneducated guess is that it would remain permanently a local school-board dispute. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

midwifetoad · 5 January 2009

iml8 said:

But if it's just plain pseudoscience, what happens? My uneducated guess is that it would remain permanently a local school-board dispute. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Isn't that the current trend -- toward "scientific alternatives" and "academic freedom"? The legal problem is coming up with "scientific alternatives" that don't map exactly to ID. That may be why Louisiana hasn't approved any specific alternatives, even though they have the law on the books.

iml8 · 5 January 2009

midwifetoad said: Isn't that the current trend -- toward "scientific alternatives" and "academic freedom"?

Yeah, but I was thinking along the lines of pseudoscience that everybody agrees is secular in purpose. Some Einstein-bashers are antisemitic, but they're unusual -- most have no ideological axe to grind, they just want to think they're smarter than Einstein. It's a curiosity question: What would the law have to say about injections of clearly nonsecular pseudoscience into the public schools? Of course, in the real world, Darwin-bashers not only like to say they are non-secular, they also say they are not pseudoscientists. But that is a somewhat different matter from the question here. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

midwifetoad · 5 January 2009

In my Internet experience, Einstein deniers, HIV deniers, and evolution deniers are either the same people or members of mutually supportive anti-science coalitions.

I've been in discussions where ID proponents would refuse to challenge geocentrists and would positively support HIV deniers.

iml8 · 5 January 2009

Yeah, I've seen much the same sort of thing -- Tom Bethell's the archetype, "never saw fringe science I didn't like."

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

eric · 5 January 2009

Three excellent, detailed and lengthly posts refuting a wide variety of Luskin's errors, but I humbly sumbit that except for a small reference in Nick's post, you guys missed a big one. Luskin could be completely right about evolution being unable to explain blood clotting, but he's still arguing the false dichotomy, the 'contrived dualism' that was rejected in McClean in 1982 and cited again in Kitzmiller. Irreducible Complexity is (at best) a (poor) argument against evolution. It is not an argument for design. It never has been an argument for design, under any specific wording in DBB or Pandas or any other source.

D. P. Robin · 5 January 2009

The Curmudgeon said: Casey's continued solitary crusade to rehabilitate Behe's testimony is like arguing that Pickett's Charge was really a terrific success, but everyone at Gettysburg was too stupid to realize it.

They need the Iraqi Information Minister: http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/mss_history.html

John Kwok · 5 January 2009

Where's "Baghdad Bob" when you really need him? Could that be Behe in disguise? I wonder:

D. P. Robin said:
The Curmudgeon said: Casey's continued solitary crusade to rehabilitate Behe's testimony is like arguing that Pickett's Charge was really a terrific success, but everyone at Gettysburg was too stupid to realize it.
They need the Iraqi Information Minister: http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/mss_history.html

RBH · 5 January 2009

iml8 said:
midwifetoad said: Isn't that the current trend -- toward "scientific alternatives" and "academic freedom"?
Yeah, but I was thinking along the lines of pseudoscience that everybody agrees is secular in purpose. Some Einstein-bashers are antisemitic, but they're unusual -- most have no ideological axe to grind, they just want to think they're smarter than Einstein. It's a curiosity question: What would the law have to say about injections of clearly nonsecular pseudoscience into the public schools? [SNIP] Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

On the assumption that you meant "nonsectarian" rather than "nonsecular," AFAIK the courts would be indifferent to it. There's no law against teaching bad science as such. 'Course, given the various state requirements for kids to pass standardized graduation tests and the sanctions visited on schools with bad records in that respect, other consequences would be dropped on such a local district.

iml8 · 5 January 2009

RBH said: On the assumption that you meant "nonsectarian" rather than "nonsecular," AFAIK the courts would be indifferent to it. There's no law against teaching bad science as such. 'Course, given the various state requirements for kids to pass standardized graduation tests and the sanctions visited on schools with bad records in that respect, other consequences would be dropped on such a local district.

Yeah, I meant "secular" (my bad), and that's kind of what I figured. Of course, I don't think Einstein-bashers are attempting to sell their views to secondary school boards. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

The Curmudgeon · 6 January 2009

John Kwok said: You're absolutely right, but I won't be surprised if the Dishonesty Institute opts for Dover II, with Luskin's recent broadside against Ken Miller being one of the opening salvoes:

I've finally concluded that the Discoveroids really aren't about science at all. (That's rather obvious, as they never do any.) If they go for Dover II, it's not because they think they've found their long announced but never disclosed anti-Darwin evidence. It'll be because the politics of the case are right for them. I blogged about this at my place yesterday, but it's not necessary to go there. In a nutshell: Some (probably like Casey) imagine that they're at the cutting edge of an exciting new theory, but at the top of that organization I think it's a very different story. They know their "science" is garbage, and they probably laugh at Casey even more than we do. But he's useful to them. What they really want is for the Supreme Court to come out with a different interpretation of the First Amendment -- one which will allow creationism in school, etc. They want to come out of the closet, with pride, and creationism in the schools is only the beginning of their anti-secular version of what America should be all about. ID is just the vehicle to get them there.

iml8 · 6 January 2009

The Curmudgeon said: What they really want is for the Supreme Court to come out with a different interpretation of the First Amendment -- one which will allow creationism in school, etc.

That's actually a fairly common gambit among the Religious Right crowd: "The Constitution does not really specify a separation between church and state. That's an interpretation by liberal judges." Sure it is. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

The Curmudgeon · 6 January 2009

iml8 said: That's actually a fairly common gambit among the Religious Right crowd: "The Constitution does not really specify a separation between church and state. That's an interpretation by liberal judges." Sure it is.

Sure, but the Discoveroids actually have a well-funded long-term plan to break down that "wall of separation." That's the difference between them and some solitary, seat-of-the-pants guy like Freshwater in Ohio -- whose hearing resumes today, by the way. To the Discoveroids, ID is just a tool they're using to get into court. It's obvious that they have no interest in science.

Stephen Wells · 6 January 2009

Inasmuch as there's anything to IC, it shows that the system could not have evolved _only by the addition of single parts_ _from simpler systems doing the exact same thing_. Since evolution does not proceed only by the addition of single parts- we can also have deletions, duplications and so on- and the precursor needn't have been doing the exact same job- there's cooption- IC systems clearly can evolve. And Muller showed, before the IDiots were even born, that interlocking complexity is a predictable consequence of evolution.

Maybe our best response to creationists saying "This system is irreducibly complex" is just to respond "Great! Since irreducible complexity is produced by evolution, this system must have evolved!". That will confuse and annoy them in equal measure.

iml8 · 6 January 2009

Stephen Wells said: Maybe our best response to creationists saying "This system is irreducibly complex" is just to respond "Great! Since irreducible complexity is produced by evolution, this system must have evolved!". That will confuse and annoy them in equal measure.

There's another response: IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEMS COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED! "So does that mean reducibly complex systems could have evolved." Reluctantly: YES. "So why couldn't a reducibly complex system have lost parts of itself until it couldn't lose any more and still work? That means that the irreducibly complex structure evolved from a reducibly complex one." Alas they will have an answer for this, and in reality they are winning the game, since the game was never any more than trying to bog everything down in red herrings anyway. And it works only too well. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Henry J · 6 January 2009

They'd just ask where the reducibly complex one came from.

John Kwok · 6 January 2009

But the answer is quite obvious:

Henry J said: They'd just ask where the reducibly complex one came from.

It came either from a Klingon Intelligent Designer or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!