Luskin: "I am leaving Discovery Institute"

Furthering his studies? I wasn't aware he had begun them. Does he plan to actually learn some biology?

Paul Braterman has some worthwhile additional commentary.

And, the Sensuous Curmudgeon adds that Luskin is being replaced with Ann "Green Screen" Gauger.

I am leaving Discovery Institute. I am doing so in order to fulfill a lifelong goal of furthering my studies.

Attack gerbils leave a sinking ship.

Glen Davidson

For those wondering about the "Green Screen", it's because the Discovery institute doesn't have anything even remotely close to a biology lab, so they just bought an image of one from Shutterstock.

One of the biggest things I've learned is that the truth doesn't always win out in the short term, but it does in the longer term.

It's looking as ID isn't always a good career move for those younger than Phillip Johnson (born 1940).

Behe is a transitional form (born 1952). He was already ensconced in his tenured job when he turned to ID. He either gained (got some book sales and now has to work less because he's on a leash) or lost (disgraced, no legitimate accomplishments, no academic advancement possible), depending on his own personal goals. If his goal was to get some money in the mid-nineties and game the system by sticking Lehigh with a tenured professor who does nothing, he succeeded. If his goal was to do anything else, he failed.

Dembski (1960) is the most prominent figure to try to make a living out of post-Edwards ID. Unlike the slightly older Behe, he was a relatively junior faculty member when threw himself into ID style evolution denial. He's floundered around and as we all know recently announced that he'll be giving up ID for some kind of late to the party bitcoin scheme.

You'd have to be a fool to think that Casey Luskin's departure is entirely voluntary. In ten years at a do-nothing job, he could have earned all kinds of degrees. There are many, many people in many serious evening, weekend, or online programs who work their fingers to the bone at their day job. They'd love to be paid for a do-nothing "think tank" day job instead of having to do a real day job.

Either funding was reduced and they're tossing people overboard using a "last in first out" inventory management style, or Casey was deemed to be ineffective.

I assume he's either going to law school to be a crazy right wing lawyer or going to do a PhD in something so that he can claim that his PhD in biochem proves that all other biochemists are wrong, or that his PhD in some applied end math/computer thing means that he can "disprove evolution from above".

Could someone somewhere actually be paying attention to the deadlines that the DI created for themselves. These were the Five Year Objectives in 1998 (from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Text_of_The_Wedge_Strategy). That's "by 2003". Well, 2015 just ended.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies
influenced by materialism

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism

Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula; include design theory

Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

Interesting to see what he will do. Either he is after a real job or he just wants to gain some letters after his name and produce books of pap like the other ID fellows do.

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

The TOOT has also been joined by one Sarah Chaffee, a fairly recent graduate from Patrick Henry College, who is called their "Program Officer, Education and Public Policy", whatever that means. I can't remember the, er, discipline in which her degree was awarded - certainly not any science, because PHC doesn't teach any. She is already writing posts for the DI's blog. These are literate, at least. One can only presume that she is being paid for it.

Possibly she is more articulate than Ann Gauger.

I recently took a look at the CSC Staff list (http://www.discovery.org/id/contact/#staff - I think I was trying to work out who Chaffee was) and was surprised at how many people (most of whom I'd never heard of) it included. I noticed at least one volunteer position, but most appear to be on the payroll -- so Casey's departure does not appear to be about funding drying up. Klinghoffer has been their chief poo-flinger on ENV for quite a while now (a few years?), so can hardly be described as Luskin's "successor". Maybe he just got bored/burnt-out with ineffectually poo-pooing the entire fields of Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, etc?

hrafn said: I recently took a look at the CSC Staff list (http://www.discovery.org/id/contact/#staff - I think I was trying to work out who Chaffee was) and was surprised at how many people (most of whom I'd never heard of) it included. I noticed at least one volunteer position, but most appear to be on the payroll -- so Casey's departure does not appear to be about funding drying up. Klinghoffer has been their chief poo-flinger on ENV for quite a while now (a few years?), so can hardly be described as Luskin's "successor". Maybe he just got bored/burnt-out with ineffectually poo-pooing the entire fields of Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, etc?

John said:I know that about Klinghoffer, not least because he once referred to me in third person as an "obsessed Darwinist". Just being sarcastic, simply because he becomes the main "flamethrower" at the DI, now that Luskin has left.

hrafn said:

John said:I know that about Klinghoffer, not least because he once referred to me in third person as an "obsessed Darwinist". Just being sarcastic, simply because he becomes the main "flamethrower" at the DI, now that Luskin has left.

Whereas my point was that Klinghoffer was the DI's "main flamethrower" all along, possibly because he appears to have no constraints on his flaming. Luskin on the other hand was their flamethrower-constrained-by-at-least-attempting-to-sound-sciencey. It'll be interesting to see if Gauger attempts to carry on that role -- though I must admit, I have to wonder why they continue to bother -- the scientific community really isn't buying, and Klinghoffer's schtick would appear better suited for providing red meat to the culture warriors.

hrafn said: I recently took a look at the CSC Staff list (http://www.discovery.org/id/contact/#staff - I think I was trying to work out who Chaffee was) and was surprised at how many people (most of whom I'd never heard of) it included. I noticed at least one volunteer position, but most appear to be on the payroll -- so Casey's departure does not appear to be about funding drying up. Klinghoffer has been their chief poo-flinger on ENV for quite a while now (a few years?), so can hardly be described as Luskin's "successor". Maybe he just got bored/burnt-out with ineffectually poo-pooing the entire fields of Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, etc?

Maybe Luskin is going to be honest and let it all hang out, maybe he'll join forces with Ham's AIG!

I'd have to agree with most of what harold said. The one major point of disagreement would be on "dogmatic impurity". The IDM's 'big tent' never really gave a damn what you believed (agnostic, Moonie, Muslim, Jew, whatever), as long as you were up for evolution-basing. I think the only heresy that would get Luskin canned would be full-blown Theistic Evolutionism (which seems unlikely).

The donors-demand-a-change scenario does seem plausible. The question is, does this include a new strategy, or are the just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I don't see Chaffee adding much -- Klinghoffer already had the red-meat polemics nailed. And what little I've seen of Gauger, I don't really see her having more of an impact than Luskin. What I think the DI really need, if they want to improve their dog & pony show's profile, is a full-blown barnstorming facts-be-damned showman along the lines of Duane Gish. If any of the current DI crowd could carry that off, I'd suspect it would be Jonathan Wells -- but whilst they may let a Moonie into their 'big tent', I rather doubt if they (or their donors) would be happy with one as their Ring Leader.

Maybe he got a conscience.

Now that would be a miracle.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

hrafn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

Luskin always struck me as being a (bumbling) misguided crusader, rather than a self-conscious charlatan. So I'd suspect that he needs self-awareness and introspection more than "a conscience".

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle. Glen Davidson

Matt G said: Furthering his studies? I wasn't aware he had begun them. Does he plan to actually learn some biology?

hrafn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

Luskin always struck me as being a (bumbling) misguided crusader, rather than a self-conscious charlatan. So I'd suspect that he needs self-awareness and introspection more than "a conscience".

Oops, should have been: "Many followers are naive enough not to have to work around the truth, but I can’t believe that most of the DIots are that naive," (taking out the "not" that was third word from the last).

Glen Davidson

How many smart and educated people subscribe to a form of subjectivism, relativism, or nihilism?

People who misguidedly think they're 'doing the right thing' are generally far more destructive than self-conscious charlatans. I've never seen evidence to the contrary that Hitler did not genuinely think that he was Germany's savior -- and look how that turned out. I don't think Luskin's (and the rest of the DI's) issue so much is 'naivety' as a combination of compartmentalisation and groupthink keeping any cognitive dissonance manageable (I'd think this would be fairly common in Rightwing Authoritarian circles). O'course after all this time, it's possible that this balancing act is beginning to fray (sorry about the mixed metaphor), and this has caused him to jump or be pushed before he completely unravels.

John said:

hrafn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

Luskin always struck me as being a (bumbling) misguided crusader, rather than a self-conscious charlatan. So I'd suspect that he needs self-awareness and introspection more than "a conscience".

He went after Zack Kopplin in a debate aired live on the Michael Medved Show. (I believe Medved is still on the board of advisors.) Trying to humanize him is akin to asking which of these - Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Pol Pot - was the worst mass murderer in the 20th Century.

Nick Matzke said:

John said:

hrafn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

Luskin always struck me as being a (bumbling) misguided crusader, rather than a self-conscious charlatan. So I'd suspect that he needs self-awareness and introspection more than "a conscience".

He went after Zack Kopplin in a debate aired live on the Michael Medved Show. (I believe Medved is still on the board of advisors.) Trying to humanize him is akin to asking which of these - Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Pol Pot - was the worst mass murderer in the 20th Century.

Um, just gotta say...it's not really like that at all. Let's avoid ridiculous hyperbole please, people...

Nick - thanks.

John - Really? Have you not heard of Godwin's Law?

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Nick Matzke said:

John said:

hrafn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

Luskin always struck me as being a (bumbling) misguided crusader, rather than a self-conscious charlatan. So I'd suspect that he needs self-awareness and introspection more than "a conscience".

He went after Zack Kopplin in a debate aired live on the Michael Medved Show. (I believe Medved is still on the board of advisors.) Trying to humanize him is akin to asking which of these - Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Pol Pot - was the worst mass murderer in the 20th Century.

Um, just gotta say...it's not really like that at all. Let's avoid ridiculous hyperbole please, people...

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

hrafn said: People who misguidedly think they're 'doing the right thing' are generally far more destructive than self-conscious charlatans. I've never seen evidence to the contrary that Hitler did not genuinely think that he was Germany's savior -- and look how that turned out. I don't think Luskin's (and the rest of the DI's) issue so much is 'naivety' as a combination of compartmentalisation and groupthink keeping any cognitive dissonance manageable (I'd think this would be fairly common in Rightwing Authoritarian circles). O'course after all this time, it's possible that this balancing act is beginning to fray (sorry about the mixed metaphor), and this has caused him to jump or be pushed before he completely unravels.

John said:

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

But as you, me, Nick, and many, many others realize, a mere critique isn't enough. You have to come up with a plausible alternative, and the ID cretinists have yet to uncover one. Instead they mock their critics and claim "persecution" by "obsessed Darwinists" like yours truly and the many other pro-science people who've been posting here at PT and elsewhere for years.

TomS said:

John said:

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

But as you, me, Nick, and many, many others realize, a mere critique isn't enough. You have to come up with a plausible alternative, and the ID cretinists have yet to uncover one. Instead they mock their critics and claim "persecution" by "obsessed Darwinists" like yours truly and the many other pro-science people who've been posting here at PT and elsewhere for years.

I was concerned that you might have lost sight of that. I was pointing out that the statement you were responding to was yet another statement about "critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory", not about describing any alternative (whether scientific or not, whether robust or fragile, however good by any standard).

TomS said:

John said:

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

But as you, me, Nick, and many, many others realize, a mere critique isn't enough. You have to come up with a plausible alternative, and the ID cretinists have yet to uncover one. Instead they mock their critics and claim "persecution" by "obsessed Darwinists" like yours truly and the many other pro-science people who've been posting here at PT and elsewhere for years.

I was concerned that you might have lost sight of that. I was pointing out that the statement you were responding to was yet another statement about "critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory", not about describing any alternative (whether scientific or not, whether robust or fragile, however good by any standard).

MichaelJ said: or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

I don't buy the funding or giving up interpretations. Luskin's a true believer, he just so thoroughly naive about how actual science works - he has no ability to look at data synthetically, no idea about statistical generalization, no idea if the dangers of cherry picking and quote mining- that he genuinely thinks evolutionary biology is made up of thousands of people too dumb or two biased to see the obvious (to him) truth of his arguments.

What is more puzzling is that he's leaving a job where he gets to, basically, blog and pontificate for a living and pretend he's a real scientist,, but without any requirements for rigour, consistency, journal publications, dealing with peer reviews, competitive grant funding, committee service or anything else. And iirc he was making well over $100,000/ year.

It's much more likely that he's looking to advance to the top echelon of ConservativeEvangelicalWorld, - and to do that he needs a PhD. From somewhere. It might even be cheaper for the DI to pay his tuition etc for grad school than to pay salary.

Perhaps he even, say, might take over for Stephen Meyer when he retires. Another option would be going into apologetics full time - yes, that's what he's already doing, but not officially.

It's hard to imagine him getting into a real biology program, even a molecular biology program populated by people clueless about evolution - which can happen in places - seems like a stretch even if someone like Jed Macosko were pushing for it. Although if you pay your own way and have that kind of support, who knows, especially at a religious school.

To me it seems like a philosophy program or even straight up seminary would be more likely. Or what are those things called - isn't there a phd in law?

Unfortunately the only thing that would really help him would be a very long and serious experience with the inside of evolutionary biology - going to meetings, working all the way for data collection through model building and testing analysis through publication, getting to know a grad cohort, having to defend his views not in short blurbs and yelling in the Internet but in paper discussion groups and seminars for semesters and years of repeated discussion. Even if he stayed an IDist after all that, he would at least be a Todd Wood type, and would cease making utterly ignorant arguments about 0.5 CI being low, gene duplication being magic, erectus and habilis being highly distinct, evolutionists being motivated by bias and atheism, yards yadda. Unfortunately though he likely wouldn't get hired in ConservativeEvangelicalWorld after this, or by the DI. So I'd bet on some program where he'd be sure not to be challenged on his core topics.

A few weeks ago I posted somewhere that the DI seemed kind of flat and repetitive lately and they have some various major ish changes happening. Maybe there was a strategic review at DI. Maybe sending Luskin to grad school was one of the moves. Maybe he already started last fall and they kept it on he downlow out of paranoia, until he was established, particularly if it's something science-y.. If someone cared enough they could look at Luskin's posting frequency and see if it drops off in September, I dunno if it's worth the effort though...

Sry for typos - on my iPhone with jet lag...

What is more puzzling is that he’s leaving a job where he gets to, basically, blog and pontificate for a living and pretend he’s a real scientist,, but without any requirements for rigour, consistency, journal publications, dealing with peer reviews, competitive grant funding, committee service or anything else. And iirc he was making well over $100,000/ year.

Their ego is deeply involved. Imagine if Luskin or Dembski are starting to have doubts. They’ve wasted productive years of their life pushing a stupid failed legal strategy to trick schools into teaching sectarian science denial, and have nothing to show for it relative to what they could have had by pursuing a mainstream career. Imagine the defenses against admitting that.

harold said:

What is more puzzling is that he’s leaving a job where he gets to, basically, blog and pontificate for a living and pretend he’s a real scientist,, but without any requirements for rigour, consistency, journal publications, dealing with peer reviews, competitive grant funding, committee service or anything else. And iirc he was making well over $100,000/ year.

It's highly unlikely that the departure was voluntary, for this reason. I don't think anyone has seriously advanced the idea that he suddenly saw the light, either. I made some arguments against that already.

Their ego is deeply involved. Imagine if Luskin or Dembski are starting to have doubts. They’ve wasted productive years of their life pushing a stupid failed legal strategy to trick schools into teaching sectarian science denial, and have nothing to show for it relative to what they could have had by pursuing a mainstream career. Imagine the defenses against admitting that.

The construction "Imagine if Luskin or Dembski are starting to have doubts" is, in the paragraph above, a set up for arguments that they cannot allow themselves to have doubts. We can only hypothesize, but my guesses are, in rank order of what I think the probability is... 1) Most likely, donors complaining about lack of progress, he's targeted as a scapegoat. 2) Next most likely, less likely than above but plausible, unknown to us, some sort of financial issue has arisen - a coming drop in funding foreseen by insiders, a lawsuit, audit, or investigation on the horizon, something like that, and he's been trimmed. 3) Next most likely, less likely than either of the above but still possible, despite being an obvious true believer, he's still a young, junior person, he may have unintentionally made an ideological mis-step. Not honest acceptance of science of course, but maybe some sort of "Biblical days could be longer than 24 hours" to the wrong person or some such thing. Unintentionally offend a big donor or big boss at a thing like the DI, and you'll be gone. 4) I'd put your "moving up the ladder" way down here. You don't move up the ladder by quitting and going back to school. He already had a prominent, six figure position, and degrees, and plenty of time to pursue many types of additional degree while in his six figure job. Not impossible, but involuntary departure is way more likely.

John said:

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

But as you, me, Nick, and many, many others realize, a mere critique isn't enough. You have to come up with a plausible alternative, and the ID cretinists have yet to uncover one. Instead they mock their critics and claim "persecution" by "obsessed Darwinists" like yours truly and the many other pro-science people who've been posting here at PT and elsewhere for years.

SLC said: Klinghoffer has even fewer qualifications then Luskin as the latter at least has a degree in, I believe, geology while the former's degree was in the humanities.

John said:

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

But as you, me, Nick, and many, many others realize, a mere critique isn't enough. You have to come up with a plausible alternative, and the ID cretinists have yet to uncover one. Instead they mock their critics and claim "persecution" by "obsessed Darwinists" like yours truly and the many other pro-science people who've been posting here at PT and elsewhere for years.

John said:

SLC said: Klinghoffer has even fewer qualifications then Luskin as the latter at least has a degree in, I believe, geology while the former's degree was in the humanities.

John said:

TomS said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

What flood? I think they've had at least twenty years to explain how ID can be a better, more robust, scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining the history, structure and current composition of Earth's biodiversity and they've flunked that repeatedly. All they can do is point out the "problems of Darwinism" using breathtakingly inane levels of reasoning that would prove the existence of Klingons, Romulans, Daleks and Time Lords.

He says that there are people who are critiquing. He does not claim that there are people who are interested in an alternative. (Any alternative, let alone better, robust, or scientific.)

But as you, me, Nick, and many, many others realize, a mere critique isn't enough. You have to come up with a plausible alternative, and the ID cretinists have yet to uncover one. Instead they mock their critics and claim "persecution" by "obsessed Darwinists" like yours truly and the many other pro-science people who've been posting here at PT and elsewhere for years.

I think he concentrated in religious studies, since one of his mentors was then religious studies professor Jacob Neusner, who has since outed himself as a Jewish Young Earth Creationist. Klinghoffer is friends on FB with two friends of mine - one of whom was depicted in the recent film "The End of the Tour" - and I have not discussed him with them.

John said:

hrafn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Maybe he got a conscience. Now that would be a miracle.

Luskin always struck me as being a (bumbling) misguided crusader, rather than a self-conscious charlatan. So I'd suspect that he needs self-awareness and introspection more than "a conscience".

He went after Zack Kopplin in a debate aired live on the Michael Medved Show. (I believe Medved is still on the board of advisors.) Trying to humanize him is akin to asking which of these - Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Pol Pot - was the worst mass murderer in the 20th Century.

SLC said: Actually, in terms of sheer numbers Mao was probably the worst.

Dave Thomas said:

SLC said: Actually, in terms of sheer numbers Mao was probably the worst.

C'mon folks. 10-yard penalty against the offense, too many Hitlers on the field.

The Disco Tute has been a Zombie Village for a long time. For all practical purposes Dembski dropped out years ago: getting and losing various seminary positions, abandoning his blog (UD) to the truly insane, announcing that the Nixplanatory Filter didn't work (then retracting the retraction), failing to sneak into Baylor one more time, and now admission that he's done.

Behe has to be thinking about moving to the Farm. Maybe he'll do a Creationist Emeritus Tour or something but his Edge days are over. Nobody cares.

It could be that Luskin finally got tired of being Meyer's doormat. Luskin did the "research" for Meyer's books, and developed a talent, as it were, for quote mining that requires a modicum of scientific understanding to do well. However, the Attack Gerbil never demonstrated creativity; he was a follower, not a leader. Never made "fellow" while others who contributed less were so accoladed.

I would not put my plugged nickels on an academic career for the old Gerb, or reviving his legal shingle. Those require work and, heavens forbid, honest work. More likely he will pick up some kind of "music ministry" degree and disappear. One can only hope.

At my most generous, and it ain't much, the Disco Tute is actually losing their steadiest worker. No other Tooter comes close to the Gerb's constant, meat-and-potatoes output. Klinkleklankle, the Slasher, is just a mean-spirited contrarian, in a dark corner muttering to himself, with infinitely less understanding and skill of scientific things than the Gerb.

Annie Green Screen, dull and plodding, is a weak-tea replacement for our feisty Gerbil. Furthermore, she cuts in half the staff of the Biologic Institute. Will Doug Axe be hitting the trail, too? Or is she making room for young Ewert from the Marks Infowhatever Lab at Baylor? The saga continues!

John said:

Dave Thomas said:

SLC said: Actually, in terms of sheer numbers Mao was probably the worst.

C'mon folks. 10-yard penalty against the offense, too many Hitlers on the field.

I strongly endorse your penalty, Dave. If you haven't noticed, I opted not to respond to him for the reasons stated already from you, Nick and Glen.

MichaelJ said:

John said:

MichaelJ said:

harold said:

eric said: First Dembski now this. Signs of the whole thing falling apart (financially)? Or is this simply the equivalent of old guard making way for some new guard?

I'm hoping for "whole thing falling apart". It seems that Casey is being replaced by Ann Gauger, who already works for the DI, not by some sharp young whippersnapper.

Is there a new guard? Luskin mentions meeting some in his farewell post but there doesn't seem to be any new names around.

I think David Klinghoffer has demonstrated that he is more than capable of continuing as Luskin's successor as the DI Minister of Propaganda. For example, here's his latest appraisal of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html On a more serious note, he does note that Ann Gauger is the new Director of Science Communication: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html Am sure that Gauger will be as insightful as Luskin.... and if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

Doc Bill said: Klinkleklankle, the Slasher, is just a mean-spirited contrarian, in a dark corner muttering to himself, with infinitely less understanding and skill of scientific things than the Gerb.

Dave Thomas said:

John said:

Dave Thomas said:

SLC said: Actually, in terms of sheer numbers Mao was probably the worst.

C'mon folks. 10-yard penalty against the offense, too many Hitlers on the field.

I strongly endorse your penalty, Dave. If you haven't noticed, I opted not to respond to him for the reasons stated already from you, Nick and Glen.

But it was you that started with the Godwhining, and SLC was just replying to that?!? Look, I'm just saying this thread is about Luskin, not about who is the world's most murderous despot. People who continue to not get that will be encouraged to continue the discussion on the Bathroom Wall. While I'm here, john, I should point out that it's "bad form" to reply to your own comments. If you have something additional to add to what you've already said, simply say it, but don't make us re-read what you had written previously. K?

John said:

harold said:

What is more puzzling is that he’s leaving a job where he gets to, basically, blog and pontificate for a living and pretend he’s a real scientist,, but without any requirements for rigour, consistency, journal publications, dealing with peer reviews, competitive grant funding, committee service or anything else. And iirc he was making well over $100,000/ year.

It's highly unlikely that the departure was voluntary, for this reason. I don't think anyone has seriously advanced the idea that he suddenly saw the light, either. I made some arguments against that already.

Their ego is deeply involved. Imagine if Luskin or Dembski are starting to have doubts. They’ve wasted productive years of their life pushing a stupid failed legal strategy to trick schools into teaching sectarian science denial, and have nothing to show for it relative to what they could have had by pursuing a mainstream career. Imagine the defenses against admitting that.

The construction "Imagine if Luskin or Dembski are starting to have doubts" is, in the paragraph above, a set up for arguments that they cannot allow themselves to have doubts. We can only hypothesize, but my guesses are, in rank order of what I think the probability is... 1) Most likely, donors complaining about lack of progress, he's targeted as a scapegoat. 2) Next most likely, less likely than above but plausible, unknown to us, some sort of financial issue has arisen - a coming drop in funding foreseen by insiders, a lawsuit, audit, or investigation on the horizon, something like that, and he's been trimmed. 3) Next most likely, less likely than either of the above but still possible, despite being an obvious true believer, he's still a young, junior person, he may have unintentionally made an ideological mis-step. Not honest acceptance of science of course, but maybe some sort of "Biblical days could be longer than 24 hours" to the wrong person or some such thing. Unintentionally offend a big donor or big boss at a thing like the DI, and you'll be gone. 4) I'd put your "moving up the ladder" way down here. You don't move up the ladder by quitting and going back to school. He already had a prominent, six figure position, and degrees, and plenty of time to pursue many types of additional degree while in his six figure job. Not impossible, but involuntary departure is way more likely.

If I can interject here in reply to yours and Nick's recent comments about Luskin's departure, David Klinghoffer wrote this: "We had no fewer than two sendoff gatherings for Casey, at the second of which Bruce Chapman observed that Casey's departure is particularly devastating for me as editor of Evolution News. That's true. I joked that it's not too late for Casey to change his mind about leaving -- otherwise, we may as well shut down Discovery Institute. An exaggeration, of course, but certainly Casey has been a pillar of our daily reporting and commentary in this space and a vital mainstay of a great deal else that goes on at the CSC." "Casey is an incredibly knowledgeable writer and thinker on all matters pertaining to design in nature, what he knows being matched by how devotedly he works and how generously he shares his expertise. At the same gathering, John West said that by comparison Casey makes the rest of us look like slackers. Again, true. It will indeed be a challenge to compensate for his not being here." "We all depend on him. And we all love him. You'd have to know Casey to know what I mean, but he is just a very endearing personality, and it's been a privilege to work with him -- and to call him a friend." You can read the rest of it here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/welcoming_ann_g102021.html

Jacob Neusner, who has since outed himself as a Jewish Young Earth Creationist

I'll just restate my hypothesis here, and add one more possibility. These are just probability ranked predictions, but I stand by them. "He" is Luskin.

1) Most likely, donors complaining about lack of progress, he’s targeted as a scapegoat.

2) Next most likely, less likely than above but plausible, unknown to us, some sort of financial issue has arisen - a coming drop in funding foreseen by insiders, a lawsuit, audit, or investigation on the horizon, something like that, and he’s been trimmed.

3) Next most likely, less likely than either of the above but still possible, despite being an obvious true believer, he’s still a young, junior person, he may have unintentionally made an ideological mis-step. Not honest acceptance of science of course, but maybe some sort of “Biblical days could be longer than 24 hours” to the wrong person or some such thing. Unintentionally offend a big donor or big boss at a thing like the DI, and you’ll be gone.

4) I’d put your “moving up the ladder” way down here. You don’t move up the ladder by quitting and going back to school. He already had a prominent, six figure position, and degrees, and plenty of time to pursue many types of additional degree while in his six figure job. Not impossible, but involuntary departure is way more likely.

5)I'm going to add "weasel leaving a sinking ship" way down here. The American Association of Gerbils and Hamsters has contacted me noted that they are offended by references to Casey as a "gerbil", by the way, please use "weasel". The problem with this one is that if the ship is paying you over 100K to do very little, there is no reason to leave ahead of schedule. Especially not to go back to school. Plan your next move, but leaving a sweet, sweet, six figure do nothing job ahead of schedule is odd. Unless that ship is sinking a lot faster than we think.

MichaelJ said: These 2 aren't exactly new on the ID scene. Where are these people?: "A final development -- one that is perhaps the most encouraging to me -- is the growing cohort of graduate students who are moving on and up in their careers to pursue ID research. Many are graduates of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, and the vast majority are closely aligned with ID thinking and ready to contribute to the next generation of research. Quite a few of them are already authoring peer-reviewed research papers that support ID, and we expect to see much more of this as time goes on." or this flood of researchers: "Over my tenure at Discovery Institute, I've witnessed a flood of credible scientists critiquing core tenets of neo-Darwinian theory, including the sufficiency of mutation and selection to produce new complex features, and the tree of life itself. "

I do wonder about what effect the lack of progress has on donors.

Since Kitzmiller, there has been a retreat from encouraging requirements about ID in schools. One would think, if they really thought that the decision was a bad one, that they would like to get another judge to rule on a similar case. Even if they seriously never wanted the teaching of ID, it still stands unchallenged. It still demands a response.

The list of "top ten" events of 2015 was loaded with things that have nothing to do with the activity of ID advocates. When have they come up with something different to point to?

What do they have to offer?

Dembski: "In the last few years, my focus has switched from ID to education, specifically to advancing freedom through education via technology."

Luskin: "I am leaving Discovery Institute. I am doing so in order to fulfill a lifelong goal of furthering my studies."

I don't know why this is so hard to figure out. Read between the lines. Dembski and Luskin are trying to step out of the spotlight so they can get gay married and buy a cottage in the country with all those sweet sweet DI dollars.

Wake Up Sheeple !

@Curmy

rot13

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this is a Presidential election year and there is a slate of Republican candidates that are extreme Right Wingnuts.

There may be some stealth political maneuverings going on here. While attention is focussed on the major candidates, there may be some Right Wing mischief going on locally in various places that we can't see at the moment.

If these characters seem to be able to learn anything, it would be to stay off the radar. Natural selection applies to parasites and viruses also.

harold said: I'll just restate my hypothesis here, and add one more possibility. These are just probability ranked predictions, but I stand by them. "He" is Luskin. 1) Most likely, donors complaining about lack of progress, he’s targeted as a scapegoat. 2) Next most likely, less likely than above but plausible, unknown to us, some sort of financial issue has arisen - a coming drop in funding foreseen by insiders, a lawsuit, audit, or investigation on the horizon, something like that, and he’s been trimmed. 3) Next most likely, less likely than either of the above but still possible, despite being an obvious true believer, he’s still a young, junior person, he may have unintentionally made an ideological mis-step. Not honest acceptance of science of course, but maybe some sort of “Biblical days could be longer than 24 hours” to the wrong person or some such thing. Unintentionally offend a big donor or big boss at a thing like the DI, and you’ll be gone. 4) I’d put your “moving up the ladder” way down here. You don’t move up the ladder by quitting and going back to school. He already had a prominent, six figure position, and degrees, and plenty of time to pursue many types of additional degree while in his six figure job. Not impossible, but involuntary departure is way more likely. 5)I'm going to add "weasel leaving a sinking ship" way down here. The American Association of Gerbils and Hamsters has contacted me noted that they are offended by references to Casey as a "gerbil", by the way, please use "weasel". The problem with this one is that if the ship is paying you over 100K to do very little, there is no reason to leave ahead of schedule. Especially not to go back to school. Plan your next move, but leaving a sweet, sweet, six figure do nothing job ahead of schedule is odd. Unless that ship is sinking a lot faster than we think.

Doc Bill said:

harold said: I'll just restate my hypothesis here, and add one more possibility. These are just probability ranked predictions, but I stand by them. "He" is Luskin. 1) Most likely, donors complaining about lack of progress, he’s targeted as a scapegoat. 2) Next most likely, less likely than above but plausible, unknown to us, some sort of financial issue has arisen - a coming drop in funding foreseen by insiders, a lawsuit, audit, or investigation on the horizon, something like that, and he’s been trimmed. 3) Next most likely, less likely than either of the above but still possible, despite being an obvious true believer, he’s still a young, junior person, he may have unintentionally made an ideological mis-step. Not honest acceptance of science of course, but maybe some sort of “Biblical days could be longer than 24 hours” to the wrong person or some such thing. Unintentionally offend a big donor or big boss at a thing like the DI, and you’ll be gone. 4) I’d put your “moving up the ladder” way down here. You don’t move up the ladder by quitting and going back to school. He already had a prominent, six figure position, and degrees, and plenty of time to pursue many types of additional degree while in his six figure job. Not impossible, but involuntary departure is way more likely. 5)I'm going to add "weasel leaving a sinking ship" way down here. The American Association of Gerbils and Hamsters has contacted me noted that they are offended by references to Casey as a "gerbil", by the way, please use "weasel". The problem with this one is that if the ship is paying you over 100K to do very little, there is no reason to leave ahead of schedule. Especially not to go back to school. Plan your next move, but leaving a sweet, sweet, six figure do nothing job ahead of schedule is odd. Unless that ship is sinking a lot faster than we think.

There are lots of reasons to give up a $100,000 salary. Maybe he's tired of being the Gerbil. Isn't that why Jerry Mathers quit? Just think, the only attention he gets is from us and that alone is a pretty depressing thought! He's been hearing "Luskin is an idiot" (and worse) for a decade. That's got to wear a guy down after a while. Imagine - we're his only friends! Just give me a rope, I'll find a rafter. I doubt the Disco Tute has much in the way of employee health care or matching savings plans. It could be that the Gerb looked at his long-term financial picture and found it lacking. Or, perhaps Gerb was pushed over the edge by Meyer's new book, "Darwin's Signature in the Doubtful Cell - Part I." The output from the Tute has been pretty slim in the past couple of years. School boards aren't pushing creationism like they used to, academic freedom bills are scarce and I suspect the funding for lobbying has dropped way off. I doubt the Gerbil was pushed. I would have tossed Klinkerklanker, Gauger, Axe or O'Dreary (or all of them), first. Something else is going on in that dingy second story walk-up over the gym in Seattle.

In the end, it’s really none of my business and I’ll shut up about it now.

Maybe he saw the error of his ways. Maybe he got tired of lying. Maybe he wants to actually learn some real biology so he will finally know what he is talking about. Maybe they ran out of money. Maybe he failed to convince anyone one too many times. Or maybe he got a better paying job somewhere to lie bigger an better. Who knows? Who cares? Let's just hope we've heard the last of him.

Gerbil

Let’s just hope we’ve heard the last of him.

Matt Young said:

Jacob Neusner, who has since outed himself as a Jewish Young Earth Creationist

Is that true?! Can you provide a reference? I cannot immediately find anything to that effect.

John said:

Matt Young said:

Jacob Neusner, who has since outed himself as a Jewish Young Earth Creationist

Is that true?! Can you provide a reference? I cannot immediately find anything to that effect.

If he is still teaching, his most recent position was as a professor of religious studies at New College, University of Florida. He left Brown I believe because it was becoming too liberal for him. Sometime in the late 90s or in the 00s he identified himself as a YEC. I saw a reference to that a few years ago and have to dig it up again.

Doc Bill said: Harold's heart grows three sizes today!

In the end, it’s really none of my business and I’ll shut up about it now.

One quibble, though, is that the Gerbil is a public figure, unibrowed spokesperson for the Disco Tute, and over the years he's done his squeaky best to get into our business. Thus, he gets cut less slack in my book. In industry there are well-known euphemisms. "Going on special assignment" means "about to get fired." "Retiring" means "retiring." I guess that's actually the truth, come to think about it. "Leaving to pursue other interests" means "was fired." "Leaving to spend more time with family" means "fired and probably about to get divorced." I'll go with Door Number 2: mid-life crisis realizing he's always going to be the Attack Gerbil and once you attain a certain age, walking around the office in a Gerbil suit is downright creepy. Church of the Gerbil, praise be cedar chips. Look for it.

Neusner is at Bard College and has been for some time. He is now Professor Emeritus. I read some of his works in the 90's and early 00's, and I would be astonished if he were a creationist, though he is certainly religiously very conservative. If you can locate one, I'd be grateful for the reference.

John said: ... a professor of religious studies at New College, University of Florida.

He left Brown I believe because it was becoming too liberal for him.

Maybe all the pressure has finally gotten to Luskin and he's seen the light. Maybe, just maybe, he's going to try to earn an honest living? Time will tell. Or maybe he'll try to put his law degree to work with something like the ACLJ or other right-wing christian law firms.

Pierce R. Butler said: Ftr: New College is a separate institution from the University of Florida (though both operate under the State University System), located ~180 miles from the UF campus.... New College also has a reputation as the most liberal/avant-garde higher-ed project in the state, created explicitly to isolate progressives from the larger student body.

Matt Young said: Neusner is at Bard College and has been for some time. He is now Professor Emeritus. I read some of his works in the 90's and early 00's, and I would be astonished if he were a creationist, though he is certainly religiously very conservative. If you can locate one, I'd be grateful for the reference.

Neusner is a signer of the conservative Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which expresses concern over the "unfounded or undue concerns" of environmentalists such as "fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss"

harold said:

Matt Young said: Neusner is at Bard College and has been for some time. He is now Professor Emeritus. I read some of his works in the 90's and early 00's, and I would be astonished if he were a creationist, though he is certainly religiously very conservative. If you can locate one, I'd be grateful for the reference.

Wikipedia shows that Neusner bothered to sign some sort of right wing anti-environmental, anti-climate change thing, with openly stated creationist rationale. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Neusner is a signer of the conservative Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which expresses concern over the "unfounded or undue concerns" of environmentalists such as "fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss"

So he is a science denier. The conditional probability that he is an evolution denier, given that he signed that statement, is very, very high.

We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

harold said:

Matt Young said: Neusner is at Bard College and has been for some time. He is now Professor Emeritus. I read some of his works in the 90's and early 00's, and I would be astonished if he were a creationist, though he is certainly religiously very conservative. If you can locate one, I'd be grateful for the reference.

Wikipedia shows that Neusner bothered to sign some sort of right wing anti-environmental, anti-climate change thing, with openly stated creationist rationale. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Neusner is a signer of the conservative Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which expresses concern over the "unfounded or undue concerns" of environmentalists such as "fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss"

So he is a science denier. The conditional probability that he is an evolution denier, given that he signed that statement, is very, very high.

So he is a science denier. The conditional probability that he is an evolution denier, given that he signed that statement, is very, very high.

Matt Young said:

So he is a science denier. The conditional probability that he is an evolution denier, given that he signed that statement, is very, very high.

Maybe. I knew about the climate denial, but that does make him an all-around science denier, and I wd still be interested in a citation showing that he is a creationist. A Talmudic scholar is unlikely to not understand how the Bible was compiled.

Matt Young said:

So he is a science denier. The conditional probability that he is an evolution denier, given that he signed that statement, is very, very high.

Maybe. I knew about the climate denial, but that does make him an all-around science denier, and I wd still be interested in a citation showing that he is a creationist. A Talmudic scholar is unlikely to not understand how the Bible was compiled.

Re Carbon dioxide:

Anything in excessive quantity can be a pollutant, even things that are absolutely essential in the proper quantities. (Heck, maybe even especially those.)

Henry J said: Re Carbon dioxide: Anything in excessive quantity can be a pollutant, even things that are absolutely essential in the proper quantities. (Heck, maybe even especially those.)

but you can’t argue that it contains the words “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant”.

That explains why I think some of today's concerns--creation in seven days, not in aeons of immeasurable time, and the story of creation as a handbookf for geology, not a theology of humanity in God's plan and program--strike me as monumentally beside the point." Common Ground... p. 26 YECism was clearly not his position, not when he wrote that, anyway. Glen Davidson

Henry J said: Re Carbon dioxide: Anything in excessive quantity can be a pollutant, even things that are absolutely essential in the proper quantities. (Heck, maybe even especially those.)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I did find this passage by Neusner:

That explains why I think some of today's concerns--creation in seven days, not in aeons of immeasurable time, and the story of creation as a handbookf for geology, not a theology of humanity in God's plan and program--strike me as monumentally beside the point." Common Ground... p. 26 YECism was clearly not his position, not when he wrote that, anyway. Glen Davidson

harold said:

Matt Young said: Neusner is at Bard College and has been for some time. He is now Professor Emeritus. I read some of his works in the 90's and early 00's, and I would be astonished if he were a creationist, though he is certainly religiously very conservative. If you can locate one, I'd be grateful for the reference.

Wikipedia shows that Neusner bothered to sign some sort of right wing anti-environmental, anti-climate change thing, with openly stated creationist rationale. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Neusner is a signer of the conservative Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which expresses concern over the "unfounded or undue concerns" of environmentalists such as "fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss"

So he is a science denier. The conditional probability that he is an evolution denier, given that he signed that statement, is very, very high.

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I did find this passage by Neusner:

That explains why I think some of today's concerns--creation in seven days, not in aeons of immeasurable time, and the story of creation as a handbookf for geology, not a theology of humanity in God's plan and program--strike me as monumentally beside the point." Common Ground... p. 26 YECism was clearly not his position, not when he wrote that, anyway. Glen Davidson

What is your impression of this document? http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I did find this passage by Neusner:

That explains why I think some of today's concerns--creation in seven days, not in aeons of immeasurable time, and the story of creation as a handbookf for geology, not a theology of humanity in God's plan and program--strike me as monumentally beside the point." Common Ground... p. 26 YECism was clearly not his position, not when he wrote that, anyway. Glen Davidson

What is your impression of this document? http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

That it hardly resolves the question of Neusner's position on creationism. Glen Davidson

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I did find this passage by Neusner:

That explains why I think some of today's concerns--creation in seven days, not in aeons of immeasurable time, and the story of creation as a handbookf for geology, not a theology of humanity in God's plan and program--strike me as monumentally beside the point." Common Ground... p. 26 YECism was clearly not his position, not when he wrote that, anyway. Glen Davidson

What is your impression of this document? http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

That it hardly resolves the question of Neusner's position on creationism. Glen Davidson

The conditional probability that he also denies evolution is substantially higher, than if all else was the same and he had not signed that document. Anyway, I suppose the point here is that everyone is obsessed with saying that John Kwok was wrong to suggest that he is a "creationist". Well, John is at worst close to the truth. That document opens with this (emphasis mine) - "WHAT WE BELIEVE 1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." The use of the phrase "intelligent design" is unlikely to be a coincidence. I couldn't find evidence of Neusner directly denying or defending the theory of evolution. Those who were dismayed and disenchanted at the thought of Neusner being a science denier should not, sadly, feel better because of this. Neusner has signed a document that directly denies science and hints strongly at support for political creationism. The problem is not creationism narrowly defined, it is publicly harmful denial of science by unqualified ideologues. While virtually all climate science deniers also pander to evolution denial, if there are a few who don't, they're also wrong. The topic here wasn't Neusner and I think I've made my point. I just wanted to be sure everyone who was commenting on Neusner was, in fact, examining this relevant document.

TomS said: I do wonder about what effect the lack of progress has on donors.

I think I've read at least two-thirds of what Casey Luskin has written.

A major contributor to the success of Intelligent Design becoming a part of the national landscape.

God's blessings on Casey Luskin.

FL

FL said: I think I've read at least two-thirds of what Casey Luskin has written. A major contributor to the success of Intelligent Design becoming a part of the national landscape. God's blessings on Casey Luskin. FL

eric said:

TomS said: I do wonder about what effect the lack of progress has on donors.

My theory (which is solely mine) is that Ahamson is perfectly happy with his money being spent on proselytization. ID presentations to church groups, legislators, school boards etc. fit the bill. Since that and salaries is primarily where the "Research" money goes, I wouldn't assume he's unhappy with how or what the DI is doing. They're spreading The Good Word, and even without legislative success that may be enough to keep their primary donor satisfied.

FL said: A major contributor to the success of Intelligent Design becoming a part of the national landscape.

Gsparky2004 said:

FL said: A major contributor to the success of Intelligent Design becoming a part of the national landscape.

That's an extremely low bar for "success".

harold said: The difference between the DI and AiG (which I believe has about five times the budget of the DI) is that AiG doesn't bother to disguise the message the in a silly attempt to get around Edwards.In the long run, there may or may not be any consequences from the identity crisis, but the DI does have an identity crisis. Its raison d'etre isn't to keep testifying to the already faithful home schooling crowd. That's what AiG and ICR do, and do better. The DI promised in the Wedge Document that, if creationists would make the sacrifice of accepting a watered-down, deceptive version of creationism, the DI would make evolution denial the mainstream position, "destroying materialism" in the process. That didn't happen and to all extents and purposes they seem to have stopped trying. Not only did they stop trying after Dover, but they even whine that Dover shouldn't have happened. Again, there may never be any real world consequences, but the DI has failed, in a way that Ken Ham hasn't.

FL said: I think I've read at least two-thirds of what Casey Luskin has written. A major contributor to the success of Intelligent Design becoming a part of the national landscape. God's blessings on Casey Luskin. FL

harold said:

eric said: My theory (which is solely mine) is that Ahamson is perfectly happy with his money being spent on proselytization. ID presentations to church groups, legislators, school boards etc. fit the bill. Since that and salaries is primarily where the "Research" money goes, I wouldn't assume he's unhappy with how or what the DI is doing. They're spreading The Good Word, and even without legislative success that may be enough to keep their primary donor satisfied.

The question is, though, why bother with the "ID" part of ID/creationism, if that's all you want?

Again, there may never be any real world consequences, but the DI has failed, in a way that Ken Ham hasn't.

FL said: God's blessings on Casey Luskin.

God's blessings on Casey Luskin.

Though we don’t know how many teachers are teaching some form of creationism or DI arguments against evolution ‘under the radar.’ We only know they’ve been unsuccessful at the above board legal level.

I remember talking to evolutionary biologist Sean B. Carroll several years ago afer a talk he gave, and he pointed out to me that the videos he’s been overseeing for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have been gaining some interest within the home-school community. I’ve also seen some anecdotal evidence in which home-schoolers are becoming more interested in teaching their kids valid science, not the junk emanating from DI, ICR and AiG.

FL said: God's blessings on Casey Luskin.

I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Ravi said: I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

harold said:

Ravi said: I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Well, you're here right now. Start by defending your position. Could any evidence convince you of the basic tenets of evolution - even if you don't think such evidence exists, is there anything that would convince you? Who is the designer? How can we test this? What did the designer do? How can we test this? When did the designer do it? How can we test this? What is an example of an experiment which you think will differentiate between design and evolution? A thought experiment will do? What outcome does ID predict? How old is the Earth?

harold said:

Ravi said: I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Well, you're here right now. Start by defending your position. Could any evidence convince you of the basic tenets of evolution - even if you don't think such evidence exists, is there anything that would convince you? Who is the designer? How can we test this? What did the designer do? How can we test this? When did the designer do it? How can we test this? What is an example of an experiment which you think will differentiate between design and evolution? A thought experiment will do? What outcome does ID predict? How old is the Earth?

I'm convinced that Luskin left of his own accord. My take of the DI is that it consists of a group of people who get fat cheques without having to do much to earn the money. Luskin on the other hand is an employee and is probably paid a lot less and has been pretty tireless in pushing the ID barrow. That's why he attained the moniker of the attack Gerbil. If the DI was looking to save money they could have started by cutting payments to some of the "Fellows". My feeling is that Luskin saw the 10 year anniversary of Dover coming up and saw no promotion possibilities in the DI. I see him either getting another science degree and getting on the book writing bandwagon or, recognising that ID is a dead end, doing more in the area of Law and making money defending poor Christians put upon by the evil secular world.

harold said:

Ravi said: I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Well, you're here right now. Start by defending your position. Could any evidence convince you of the basic tenets of evolution - even if you don't think such evidence exists, is there anything that would convince you? Who is the designer? How can we test this? What did the designer do? How can we test this? When did the designer do it? How can we test this? What is an example of an experiment which you think will differentiate between design and evolution? A thought experiment will do? What outcome does ID predict? How old is the Earth?

I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Hey folks, Panda's Thumb is having server problems. You can see new comments if you "Update", but they vanish if you refresh the page. Things are broken. The Crew is working the problem.

Just Bob said:

harold said:

Ravi said: I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Well, you're here right now. Start by defending your position. Could any evidence convince you of the basic tenets of evolution - even if you don't think such evidence exists, is there anything that would convince you? Who is the designer? How can we test this? What did the designer do? How can we test this? When did the designer do it? How can we test this? What is an example of an experiment which you think will differentiate between design and evolution? A thought experiment will do? What outcome does ID predict? How old is the Earth?

Name something that isn't designed, and tell how you know it isn't.

Doc Bill said:

harold said:

Ravi said: I always wanted there to be a Matzke v Luskin debate. Of course, the Darwinists are afraid to debate the ID proponents. An indefensible position cannot possibly be defended.

Well, you're here right now. Start by defending your position. Could any evidence convince you of the basic tenets of evolution - even if you don't think such evidence exists, is there anything that would convince you? Who is the designer? How can we test this? What did the designer do? How can we test this? When did the designer do it? How can we test this? What is an example of an experiment which you think will differentiate between design and evolution? A thought experiment will do? What outcome does ID predict? How old is the Earth?

You're wasting your time, old friend. Ravi is strictly bush league ID wannabe. He/she or it knows less about ID than about science, if that's possible. Much less entertaining than our Floyd, who never fails to amuse. Not as boring as JoeG even in the "water is not ice" and the "null set is not a set" days. Ah, youth. Poor Ravi. He want's to be a contendah but he just don't got the guts, know what I mean, Vern?

Right. What Harold said.

Ravi, you could answer each of Harold's questions with a short sentence or two -- some with a single word or number. Why won't you do that?

I'm writing in reply to Ravi but really for the benefit of lurkers since creationists never listen.

In real science, nothing is decided by debate and certainly not by witty zingers. When there is a contentious issue, there may be arguments. There may be panel discussions. There may be workshops. But never debates. That's not how real, grown-up science works, ever. Just to be clear: we're talking ZERO. Because debates are a lousy, unreliable method for solving real scientific controversies. [In my opinion, they're lousy and unreliable for every purpose, but I don't insist on this.]

A person who is eager for a 'debate' on a scientific issue is not a serious person. Period.

FL said: A major contributor to the success of Intelligent Design becoming a part of the national landscape.

harold said: But my main point is to clarify things for hypothetical neutral third party readers.

harold said: it is much, much easier for a typical reader to immediately grasp that the ID/creationist ideas are stupid, than for them to follow a defense of evolution.

Science Avenger said:

harold said: it is much, much easier for a typical reader to immediately grasp that the ID/creationist ideas are stupid, than for them to follow a defense of evolution.

Indeed, I've found this to be true of climate deniers as well. Simply make them spell out exactly what they think is actually going on, in detail, and their case immediately becomes untenable, even to a layman. I also think I've come up with a devestating new rhetorical weapon, which is still in the testing phase, and it should work as well with evolution deniers as climate deniers: ask them to critique their own side. Ask them what argument made by their allies makes them cringe, makes them want to say "shut up, you aren't helping". Any scientifically-minded honest person should be able to do this without much trouble. I certainly can with any issue I feel strongly about. So far its been fun watching them squirm, and desperately try to return the discussion to why they think AGW is wrong. This, of course, is what we'd expect from someone who hasn't really thought the issue through, or is so married to their position that they really don't care what the truth is, blindly supporting anything or anyone they perceive as an ally. Like the OEC who avoids arguing with the YEC over earth's age, the "not warming crowd" is loathe to argue with the "warming but not our fault" crowd, not to mention many people make both arguments simultaneously, not grasping the contradiction.

One has to sympathize with the DI for a moment-- having to pay $100,000 a year to someone whose best known nickname is Attack Gerbil has to be humiliating.

John said:

harold said: The difference between the DI and AiG (which I believe has about five times the budget of the DI) is that AiG doesn't bother to disguise the message the in a silly attempt to get around Edwards.In the long run, there may or may not be any consequences from the identity crisis, but the DI does have an identity crisis. Its raison d'etre isn't to keep testifying to the already faithful home schooling crowd. That's what AiG and ICR do, and do better. The DI promised in the Wedge Document that, if creationists would make the sacrifice of accepting a watered-down, deceptive version of creationism, the DI would make evolution denial the mainstream position, "destroying materialism" in the process. That didn't happen and to all extents and purposes they seem to have stopped trying. Not only did they stop trying after Dover, but they even whine that Dover shouldn't have happened. Again, there may never be any real world consequences, but the DI has failed, in a way that Ken Ham hasn't.

Wish I could share your optimism on all of these counts, with one notable exception. Within the home-schooling movement there's been a bit of drift towards genuine science. I remember talking to evolutionary biologist Sean B. Carroll several years ago afer a talk he gave, and he pointed out to me that the videos he's been overseeing for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have been gaining some interest within the home-school community. I've also seen some anecdotal evidence in which home-schoolers are becoming more interested in teaching their kids valid science, not the junk emanating from DI, ICR and AiG.

Dave Wisker said: One has to sympathize with the DI for a moment-- having to pay $100,000 a year to someone whose best known nickname is Attack Gerbil has to be humiliating.

But to replace him, wouldn't they have to identify what he did that was of any benefit to, well, anybody?

Henry J said: But to replace him, wouldn't they have to identify what he did that was of any benefit to, well, anybody?

If Ahmanson thinks his agenda is being prosecuted, the checks will keep coming.

harold said: I can't help feeling some kind of "ten year review since Dover" happened and there was some source of dissatisfaction.

The second recipient of the award was probably Hannah Maxson (Cornell ‘07), the president of the short-lived Cornell IDEA club, but not confirmed because the Disco Tute made the award in private to “protect the reputation of the recipient” or something like that.

Doc Bill said:

harold said: I can't help feeling some kind of "ten year review since Dover" happened and there was some source of dissatisfaction.

There was also the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center co-founded by Luskin to establish "IDEA" clubs in colleges and high schools. (high schools!) An ambitious project and a resounding failure. And, there was the "Casey Luskin Graduate Award" for promotion of ID and IDEA clubs or some such nonsense. The first recipient of the award was ... ... you guessed it: Casey Luskin! Seriously, folks, you can't make this stuff up! The second recipient of the award was probably Hannah Maxson (Cornell '07), the president of the short-lived Cornell IDEA club, but not confirmed because the Disco Tute made the award in private to "protect the reputation of the recipient" or something like that. Evil darwinists, doncha know. The only thing remaining of IDEA today is a fossilized website with mostly dead links that appears to have succumbed in 2009.

From the IDEA web site - a massive example of "You can't make this up"....

"Does one have to be an expert in science, intelligent design or evolution to start an IDEA Club?"

The answer? "NO! Definitely not!"

http://www.ideacenter.org/clubs/start.php

harold said: From the IDEA web site - a massive example of "You can't make this up".... "Does one have to be an expert in science, intelligent design or evolution to start an IDEA Club?" The answer? "NO! Definitely not!" http://www.ideacenter.org/clubs/start.php

Michael Fugate said:

harold said: From the IDEA web site - a massive example of "You can't make this up".... "Does one have to be an expert in science, intelligent design or evolution to start an IDEA Club?" The answer? "NO! Definitely not!" http://www.ideacenter.org/clubs/start.php

But you need to believe in a higher power....

harold said:

Dave Wisker said: One has to sympathize with the DI for a moment-- having to pay $100,000 a year to someone whose best known nickname is Attack Gerbil has to be humiliating.

It may not matter and I may never know but I suspect some rearranging of the deck chairs may be going on. Luskin is a lawyer "with a Masters in geology". It's not uncommon to hire legitimate lawyers with extra training in some field of science for legal disputes about technical things. His qualifications probably implied, at least to the suckers, that his presence was somehow related to that defining goal of the DI, teaching disguised creationism in public schools. One thing that never happened in his long and leisurely tenure at the DI was a change in the legal status of sectarian science denial in public schools. Whether he got sick of making an easy 100K and quit for a more rigorous and ascetic lifestyle, as most here believe, or whether he left with a footprint on his rear end and the gushing is hypocritical PR propaganda, as I'm inclined to suspect, there has been no real replacement for his position yet. I can't help feeling some kind of "ten year review since Dover" happened and there was some source of dissatisfaction. It will be at least interesting to see what comes next. Will it be a more aggressive offensive on the legal front? A gradual shift to YEC without pretense of suitability for public school, a la AiG and ICR? Just a slow and tranquil sail into tacitly conceded irrelevance? Time will tell.

Michael Fugate said:

harold said: From the IDEA web site - a massive example of "You can't make this up".... "Does one have to be an expert in science, intelligent design or evolution to start an IDEA Club?" The answer? "NO! Definitely not!" http://www.ideacenter.org/clubs/start.php

But you need to believe in a higher power....

4) We also require that club leaders be Christians as the IDEA Center Leadership believes, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.

4) We also require that club leaders be Christians as the IDEA Center Leadership believes, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.