RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Casey Luskin Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2006,13:06   

Bizarre ignoramus Casey Luskin has provided entertainment for years. I'm probably remiss in not starting this thread sooner.



"ISSUE ONE: CASEY ATTACKS CARL ZIMMER. ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"

   
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2006,14:09   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,20:06)
ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"

Two more than Dembski (who scores a "9")?

--------------

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2006,17:28   

Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to this article, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever  read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once. After that I didnt read anything he wrote, but this piece trying to rebut Carl Zimmer looks pretty funny.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2006,17:38   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 13 2006,17:28)
Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to this article, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever  read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once.

Wow. That article (aside from completely misrepresenting Miller's testimony) is some fine, vintage tard. He says he enjoyed Miller's testimony, which is puzzling, because based on his discussion of it, he didn't read it at all.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2006,12:19   

I hearby nominate Casey Luskin for the Joseph Goebbels Award.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2006,04:26   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,13:06)
ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"

Is this a linear or a logarithmic scale?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2006,10:34   

Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 13 2006,15:09)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,20:06)
ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"

Two more than Dembski (who scores a "9")?



WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ANSWER IS TWELVE AND A HALF.

ELEANOR CLIFT!

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2006,13:57   

Quote
He says he enjoyed Miller's testimony, which is puzzling, because based on his discussion of it, he didn't read it at all.

He enjoyed it for its soporific effect.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2006,02:25   

Carl Zimmer vs Casey Luskin continues to look like Evander Holyfield vs Screech.

   
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,01:07   

Quote
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?


...

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,02:16   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 21 2006,01:07)
Quote
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?


...

Huh. Did Donald M steal that from the DI or did the DI steal that from Donald M?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,18:28   

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat...._or.php

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,21:05   



Mike Dunford!

   
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,22:26   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 21 2006,01:07)
 
Quote
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?


...

Dunno. What holds up the clouds?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,13:15   

Casey hates the FSM

May Casey realize the error of his ways and be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,17:43   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,13:15)
Luskin:
While much of this is witty and fun, these comments reveal an underlying anti-religious mindset by these Darwinist academics who "endorse" FSM in a tone which mocks traditional Judeo-Christian religion.

But ID ain't about Judeo-Christian religion.  No sirree Bob.  It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it is.  And those ACLU-quoting activist judges.

(snicker)  (giggle)

I'd sure love to see these guys on a witness stand again.  Alas, since ID is as dead as a mackerel, we will unfortunately never get that chance.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,17:59   

The problem with Dover is, it was such an a55-whooping, any school board who now uses the words 'Intelligent Design' will be subject to hysterical phone calls from their lawyers demanding they drop it. So yeah, we're probably not going to get to see a Dover 2 with new cast members like Dembski. No chance to see the expression on a federal judge's face as he watches Dembski's pooty little insult to the judge's colleague, while Dembski sits on the witness stand and counts down the hours to Big ID Loss 2. No chance for ID Expert Denyse O'Leary to take the stand. Rothschild would probably let his intern Bobby do that cross, just to give her a fighting chance.

They will change their name and get some fresh faces and be back, obviously. But my favorite thing is that all the heavy ID advocates are contaminated with the title.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,19:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,17:59)
They will change their name and get some fresh faces and be back, obviously. But my favorite thing is that all the heavy ID advocates are contaminated with the title.

I'm sticking to my prediction that the fundies will now drop anti-evolutionism altogether -- they've lost that fight so many times that it would be simple-minded masochism to keep fighting it.  Instead, they will turn to anti-cosmology-ism, by giving us some privately-defined version of "The Anthropic Principle" which, they will say, proves that the universe was specially created . . . uh . . .  I mean designed . . . er . . .  I mean . .  um . . .  "adjusted", yeah, *that's* the word, "specially adjusted" . . . just to produce us.

There are several advantages to the fundies for that strategy.  First, it completely sidesteps all of their crushingly long list of anti-evolution defeats.  Just because anti-evolutionism has already been repeatedly ruled to be non-science religious dogma doesn't mean that anti-cosmology-ism is, right, Your Honor?  

Second, if you think people misunderstand evolution, just WAIT till the fundies start spouting out all sorts of sciencey-sounding bullshit about cosmology and quantum physics.  

Third, the very name "The Anthropic Principle" sounds vaguely sorta kinda like "Created For Man", so all the members of the Big Tent (remember, The Anthropic Principle says nothing at all about . . . oh . . .  how old the earth is, whether or not life evolves, or even whether or not the Big Bang happened) can read into it whatever they like, in whatever form they like it.  

And fourth  -- and most beautiful of all -- the term "The Anthropic Principle" was itself produced by real live cosmologists, not by foaming fundie nutters, and has actually been used in real science publications.  That'll keep the fundie quote-miners employed for years.  It'll also allow them to argue in court, "But Your Honor, this is just THEIR OWN SCIENCE that we want to have taught !!!!"

Gee, if I were a dishonest person, I'd write the book myself laying out all those arguments, and thus take credit (all the way to the bank) for starting ID's successor.  ;)

Alas, though, the anti-cosmology-ist strategy will ultimately fail too, just like the anti-evolutionist campaign did, and for much the same reasons. There will, for instance, be a documented history tying anti-cosmology directly to fundie anti-evolutionists, going back several decades (there were a couple ICR nutters who wrote articles declaring that Einstein's relativity is wrong and therefore the Big Bang is wrong, and then there's Gonzalez's "universe-was-designed" tome and Heddle's blitherings about "cosmological ID").  

And any version of The Anthropic Principle put out by fundies will, of course, be inherently religious, since none but a deity is capable of producing or adjusting a universe  (no "maybe the space aliens diddit" this time).  And you can be sure that in every "scientific" discussion where the fundie version of "The Anthropic Principle" appears,  *some* fundie nutter will stand up in the middle of it and shout "JESUS SAVES !!!!!!" at the top of his lungs, and thus give the whole game away.  Just like Intelligent Design, The Anthropic Principle gambit depends for its success completely and totally on the ability of its supporters to shut up about their religious motives.  Alas, they simply can't do it.  They don't WANT to do it.  Their incessant compulsion to preach, will kill them every time.  Just like it killed ID.

Of course, without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the fundies are nothing but a sewing circle anyway, and it appears as though the Republicrats will not have real political power again for a long long long time . . .

Indeed, the Republicrat Party itself will likely be in for some awfully rough times ahead.  Basically, the Repugs are the "Party of the Angry White Man".  Unfortunately for them, by the middle of this century if not sooner, white people will themselves be firmly a minority in the US -- and then the angry white men can stamp their feet all they want, they simply won't have the numbers at the ballot box to win.  Women and ethnics will then decide elections, and they're, uh, not very friendly to the Republicrats (and vice versa).  

I look for the Republicrats to decline drastically over the next few decades, and either remake themselves completely, or be replaced by an actual conservative political party ("conservative" in the Eisenhower sense, not in the radical Dubya/fundie sense).  The alternative would be for the angry white fundie nutters to seize power undemocratically, without elections.  I do not dismiss that possibility.  Indeed, I think open fascism in the US (as compared to the fig-leaf fascism that we've recently had under Republicrat single-party rule) is a very real option.

Which is why I keep my hunting rifle well-oiled.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2007,13:43   



"ISSUE FOUR. NEW ALLEGATIONS BY LUSKIN THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SINCE KITZMILLER, VINDICATES ID...

ED BRAYTON!!!!!!!"

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,23:02   

Poor J-Dog has been Luskinized:

(first comment)

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/01/how_generous.php

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,23:18   

And Luskin takes only the "Larry King" approved line of questioning to peddle his propoganda.

Quote
Question (1): “Does the DI have any religious affiliation? (My understanding is DI is specifically neutral on religion and open to all scientific teaching and research regardless where the evidence leads)”

Question (2): “Has DI taken a stand on the enforcement of the 'church / state establishment' rules banning from public schools and colleges the teaching of evolution if it is being taught as a religion?”

Question (3): “When does teaching science cross the line from speculation to indoctrination?”

Question (4): “What kind of test can a teacher / parent / student use if they are trying to avoid being indoctrinated or being agents of religious indoctrination?”

Thoughtful and challanging questions that Mr. Luskin certainly had to tread carefully with his answers. :O

[innocence]
"Maybe I'll write some questions to Mr. Luskin.
Then he'll publish the answers for ALL to see."
[/innocence]

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,14:47   

I believe the "REAL Question" should be: In a Battle of the Tards, who would win?

a.) DaveScott
b.) Casey Luskin

Please compare and contrast.  Please leave DaveScott's "Unnatural Love For Another Man", Dembski, out of the equation, as this HOMO love should not interfere with your discussion.  Unless, of course, you ARE a homo.

Let me begin.  In my book, they are equi-tards. However, as DaveScott has @ 5,000 tard- post lead over Young Luskin, you have to give the nod (or slap upside the head) to DS, becasue of his body of work.  Certainly NOT because of his body, such as it is, due to the preponderance of cheesey-poofs ingested over the course of his amassing his millionaire status.

Luskin however, will, in my opinion, be the bigger tard over time, as he has his hand on the ....well, call it "pulse", of the DI, and I believe his essential weasle essence will develop over time.  You can already see he is a suck-up, and a brown-noser.  

I believe it will help to visualize: Luskin closely resembles "Greg Marmalade",  the brown-nosing Frat character on Animal House, where as DaveScott is closer to Niedermayer, the ROTC frat-jerk in Animal House that was fragged by his own men in Viet Nam after he graduated.

I think the discussion of which of these tards would win a locked-cage match , where only the winner comes out alive could be a entire thread on it's own.

It could be even more fun to speculate whether Dave's arteries will clog from cheesy-poofs first, or Casey Luskin asphixiate from his head up his glutious maximus first.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2007,10:17   

Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2007,14:10   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2007,10:17)
Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

I got halfway through the darned video, now  I want a prize!  

ps:  Casey looks a pretty small on the video... could Casey be a Homo  floresiensis?  He certainly looks microcephaloc to me... I am just saying....

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2007,15:26   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2007,14:10)
He certainly looks microcephaloc to me...

He looks PHALLO-cephalic to me . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2007,15:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2007,10:17)
Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

dont wach it.  saw 3 minutws, eyes roled to far, got stuc.  cant se keybord well enougk to type now.

*snap*

Ouch.

It's bad enough that at some point even the camera had to be thinking, "jebus, this is retarded."

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2007,13:57   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 10 2007,15:26)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2007,14:10)
He certainly looks microcephaloc to me...

He looks PHALLO-cephalic to me . . . .

Calling Casy a PHALLO-cephalic is an insult to dickheads everywhere.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2007,14:36   

Quote
May Casey realize the error of his ways and be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.


well, maybe Casey was abused by what he thought was a noodly appendage as a child?

We should interview his childhood priest/pastor.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2007,18:58   

I have referred to Casey Luskin as a "baby attorney" on more than one occasion.  I intended only to address his education, experience, and expertise.

Now that I've seen the video, I realize that Casey Luskin actually, physically is still a baby--well, okay, maybe a toddler.  He's about two feet tall, and clearly wearing a toupee intended to lend him the air of being in junior high.

Maybe from now on I'll have to refer to him as as "embryonic" attorney...

Sheesh.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2007,19:29   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 23 2007,14:47)
I believe the "REAL Question" should be: In a Battle of the Tards, who would win?

a.) DaveScott
b.) Casey Luskin

Having read Luskin's, um, thoughts on human evolution I'm going with Luskin. It would go 15 rounds and be decided, narrowly, on points, but Luskin would win.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2007,18:52   

A question for Luskin

Category: Evolution Denialism

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,08:44   

From Carl Zimmer on Sci Blogs:

Once More Into The Flaming Pinto My Friends!

http://scienceblogs.com/loom....pin.php

Casey, Casey, Casey... Once again he breaks new ground in tardism, and seriously gives DaveScot a run for his money for the Lifetime Tard Acheivement Award.
(Although DaveScot linking to an article that disproves his very own quotemine attempt this morning is soooo "tres tard".

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,13:24   

If you haven't read that Carl Zimmer piece, go read it. Casey couldn't more perfectly represent Intelligent Design if he tried.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,19:14   

Quote
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it


http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,20:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 10 2007,19:14)
Quote
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it


http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php

Jeez. It must suck to be Casey Luskin almost as much as it does to be Bill Dembski.  

We could have a Pathetic Loser contest between the two.  Some sort of mindless Reality TV show - it's perfect for them and their audience.

I can picture the red faces, the stuttering, the hillarity  that ensues when the Blond Bimbo asks them "So, Bill and Casey, please tell me, how many times have you have received a wedgie?  So, how many were from kids younger than you?  For extra Bonus Credit, How many times have you received a wedgie from a member of the opposite sex? (Bill, that means, like girls?  You know?"

This could be a true Show For The Ages.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,19:30   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,20:36)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 10 2007,19:14)
 
Quote
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it


http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php

Jeez. It must suck to be Casey Luskin almost as much as it does to be Bill Dembski.  

We could have a Pathetic Loser contest between the two.  Some sort of mindless Reality TV show - it's perfect for them and their audience.

I can picture the red faces, the stuttering, the hillarity  that ensues when the Blond Bimbo asks them "So, Bill and Casey, please tell me, how many times have you have received a wedgie?  So, how many were from kids younger than you?  For extra Bonus Credit, How many times have you received a wedgie from a member of the opposite sex? (Bill, that means, like girls?  You know?"

This could be a true Show For The Ages.

I don't know. Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology. Dembski, on the other hand, is just sad...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,19:35   

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2007,20:30)
Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology.

You probably know about this then

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/1/luskin_human_origins.php

Casey's anthropology 'paper' from the late, fake ID journal PCID.

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,20:40   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2007,19:35)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2007,20:30)
Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology.

You probably know about this then

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/1/luskin_human_origins.php

Casey's anthropology 'paper' from the late, fake ID journal PCID.

Yup. Fisked about half of it on my blog sometime back. It took an incredible amount of time just to do that. I had to provide background information so that I could then go on and explain why and how Luskin was wrong. Which meant one background post for each post where I specifcally talked about what Luskin had to say. Casey made a lot of errors ??? in that paper - most of which are recycled creationist arguments.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,08:40   

"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_luskin_whining.php

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,09:49   

The SMU page Casey's whining about replays one of our all-time favorite moments:

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
--Ray Mummert

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,10:04   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2007,08:40)
"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_luskin_whining.php

Best line from Casey's whining  
Quote
The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the "IDiot" who wrote it is me.


boo fricking hoo

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,10:11   

Quote
Casey said: The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the "IDiot" who wrote it is me.


Your point?

:p

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,10:12   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:04)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2007,08:40)
"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_luskin_whining.php

Best line from Casey's whining  
Quote
The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the "IDiot" who wrote it is me.


boo fricking hoo

Well, give him a little credit - self-knowledge is very important.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,18:42   

I say decrepit because Luskin's post is, to put it charitably, pitiful.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,19:05   

I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,20:42   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!

I think you have to be smart, which is perhaps why creobots are not?

Smoochies!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:16   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!

Nah, there are an unspecified number of theists at ScienceBlogs. I find, however, that a mind unclouded by a reliance on magical sky pixies certainly helps one write a better science post... :D

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:17   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,20:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!



Well, there's this one dude, whose site your currently at....

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:21   

Maybe she meant scienceblogs.com, not science blogger. In which case, well,

I don't think that guy's an atheist. Or John Wilkins.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:26   

I don't think Wilkins is a theist. Was there something in particular that made you think so?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:31   

Ed's a Deist. MarkCC is Jewish...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,21:21)
Maybe she meant scienceblogs.com, not science blogger. In which case, well,

I don't think that guy's an atheist. Or John Wilkins.

I'm assuming she did mean ScienceBlogs.com. I think Wilkins has mentioned in public that he is an agnostic, other than that I can't say - confidentiality and all. Our recruiter doesn't much care if a person is religious or not, the key is to write good, interesting science posts.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,22:26)
I don't think Wilkins is a theist. Was there something in particular that made you think so?

He's not a theist. He's an agnostic. FtK asked if you had to be an atheist. Wilkins argues with PZ that he's not an atheist. While I personally put all non-theists into the atheist category, Wilkins doesn't identify as an atheist.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,22:43   

Is there a list of science.bloggers?  I'll have to go check one of there sites and see if there is a link to all of them...just wondered how many there were.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,22:54   

We don't know what 'science.bloggers' means. Do you mean everyone who blogs about science? Or everyone who blogs at ScienceBlogs.com?

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,22:55   

If you want a list of everyone who blogs at ScienceBlogs.com, there's a list at...guess where?...ScienceBlogs.com

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:21   

Yeah, yeah, I meant ScienceBlogs...silly IDiotic me.  I'm gonna go try to find me a theist out of that bunch...anyone wanna place bets as to whether there are any?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:23   

Yes, we will bet that some sciencebloggers aren't atheists.

Ed Brayton. What do we win?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:35   

I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.  I'm doubtin' Ed's seen the inside of a church for a while.  If MarkCC is Jewish, you'd win...never heard of the guy.  I'll have to go check it out.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:41   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,23:35)
I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.
.

erm..

Quote
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Hope this helps.

Deism <> Atheism.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:43   

you originally said

Quote
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!


Now you say
Quote
I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.
We don't care if Episcopalians don't cut it in your book, in reality, where the rest of us live, deists aren't atheists.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:55   

HAR HAR I JUST SPOONED SCOOPED STERNBERGER STORY.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,23:59   

Yes, you did scoop me. And if the nickname Sternberger Story catches on, Blipey and I will show up on your lawn and there'll be hell to pay. Trust me. Nothing is so menacing, so fear-inducing, as a clown and a drunk triathlete.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,00:06   

Erm, Tarden Chatterbox came up with that name, and he says you eat chili like a girl.

Clown visits only scare interweb cyber-hooligans.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,00:16   

There are about 70 people blogging at ScienceBlogs.com. How many of them, FtK, have displayed the atheist logo?

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,00:34   

last sentence:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat....ous.php

Quote
And as a religious Reconstructionist Jew, I fully support religious gay marriage in the Reconstructionist community.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,01:20   

Rob Knop of Galactic Interactions is a Christian.

Added in edit: Here's a post that provides evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:08   

Well, there you go, Rob Knop. FtK, what do we win?
Quote
I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles.
--Bill 'Welsh' Dembski

We never got that bottle of scotch, FtK, and we sure are thirsty.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:43   

That's a very interesting post of Rob's.

Quote
So imagine this queasy cognitive dissonance. Here are things that are directly in contradiction with what the Bible says. Well, as a modern thinking person, it's really not very difficult to accept that a literal reading of the Bible is childish and nonsensical; heck, one only need read a couple of chapters into the Bible itself before you have to go into contortions trying to maintain that the Bible is consistent with itself. If the Bible is to be read as a central set of writings around which our faith is based, there's a pretty strong tipoff that we're supposed to think harder about it than accept it mindlessly from the fact that (a) the Bible is self-inconsistent, and (b) a literal reading of the Bible as "what happened" is blatantly at odds with what we know to be true through other avenues of inquiry.

How do we hold on to something? Some lose their faith. I've seen it happen; kids, especially kids who are raised in fundamentalist families who insist on special creation and a 6,000-year-old world, get to college. They struggle. Some figure out that there is no way to reconcile their beliefs with full participation in the modern world... and they lose their faith altogether. You hear some on the Christian Right bemoaning how "secular" colleges are destroying their children's faith, but in reality the problem is that they didn't do a very good job of providing a religious education to their children. They taught them a form of faith that is childish and backwards, and incompatible with modern knowledge. No wonder that the kids didn't hold on to it when their minds were opened to other things!

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:45   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,00:34)
last sentence:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat....ous.php

Quote
And as a religious Reconstructionist Jew, I fully support religious gay marriage in the Reconstructionist community.

That means he's not just Jewish just for the jokes.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,11:12   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,23:21)
Yeah, yeah, I meant ScienceBlogs...silly IDiotic me.  I'm gonna go try to find me a theist out of that bunch...anyone wanna place bets as to whether there are any?

Yes, please I would like to bet you a lot of money that there are theists at Science Blogs!

I know for a fact that there is at least one:  Rob Knop.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Mark Chu-Carrol of Good Math, Bad Math is also a theist of some type.  

I'm sure there are more that I don't know about.

edit:  I see that I was beaten to the punch.  Oh well.  We can all split the take, right guys?

--------------
Evolander in training

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,17:09   

A plethora of Luskinalia:

Luskin's Latest Lie

Fiskin' Luskin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,21:46   

Casey, Your Slip is Showing

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:10   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,21:46)
Casey, Your Slip is Showing

Oh, that is just hilarious, Elsberry.  

". . And here’s the weakness of the entire Atheist Darwinist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted indocrination entertained."

Picking at a typo, huh?  That's as nasty as quote mining.

Let it be known that Darwin once said:
 
Quote
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.


Grow up.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:13   

Watch out! Casey has FtK to protect him!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:15   

Oh, btw Bill...  Do you want to come in here and tell Wes what a prick he's being?

Thought not.

I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:15   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 04 2007,22:13)
Watch out! Casey has FtK to protect him!

Jealous.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:16   

FTK, what is this daddy complex you seem to have with Luskin? It's messed up.  :O

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:21   

Edit:  indoctrination / indoctrinated.   :angry:

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:26   

Casey is the IDers' jarhead.

Anyone who's seen him in person knows what I mean. 1000-yard-stare.

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:15)
I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies.

Yet you spend all your time here.

Edited to add: I guess the discussion at Young Cosmos moves too fast for you. Sal really appreciates open discussion, doesn't he?

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:15)
Oh, btw Bill...  Do you want to come in here and tell Wes what a prick he's being?

Thought not.

I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies.

Do you buzz around him in an elliptical orbit?

I think you make a good couple!
:p

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,23:10   

Typo? Luskin was talking to a reporter. I don't think writing implements had anything to do with that.

I've told FtK before that I'm not investing anything in obtaining her approval.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,23:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,23:10)
Typo? Luskin was talking to a reporter. I don't think writing implements had anything to do with that.

I've told FtK before that I'm not investing anything in obtaining her approval.

Duh! It was a mental typo, Ed. Like that fella who said "creationism" when he meant "ID" on the TV..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,23:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 05 2007,00:12)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,23:10)
Typo? Luskin was talking to a reporter. I don't think writing implements had anything to do with that.

I've told FtK before that I'm not investing anything in obtaining her approval.

Duh! It was a mental typo, Ed. Like that fella who said "creationism" when he meant "ID" on the TV..

You mean this guy?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,23:17   

Aye. That'd be him. Poor typo man, he got ousted for our edumacation a year ago, wont somebody stand up for him?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,23:39   

I wrote Kyle Miller, lead author on the article, asking him to confirm the quote. Kyle says it was their slip-up, so I have updated the PT article to let everyone know that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,23:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,23:39)
I wrote Kyle Miller, lead author on the article, asking him to confirm the quote. Kyle says it was their slip-up, so I have updated the PT article to let everyone know that.

Good job, Wesley. That's a lot easier than simply deleting the post or posting a bunch of crap until the article disappears from the page.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,19:10   

In a piece titled Lacking a Middle-Ground, the Swiss Devolve into Evolutionary Dogmatism, Casey the Earth scientist laments the rejection of young-Earth creationism by a school district in Switzerland and pleads for the introduction of ID as a middle ground.  I like this line in particular:
 
Quote
Since young earth creationism is so controversial, the article reports that “[t]he school authorities in canton Bern quickly revised the brochure included in the textbook” and removed the young earth creationist materials, leaving students to be told that “evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.”

Casey, wake up!  YEC isn't controversial, it's brain-dead.

And this line from the article at swissinfo, quoted by Casey, really caught me by surprise:
Quote
According to Scheidegger, evangelical Christian churches are the driving force behind a literal translation of the book of Genesis and the rejection of evolution.

Ya don't say?!!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,10:30   

It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

 



We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.   Maybe whoever receives the most interesting threat from Luskin wins a prize or something.





This is Luskin at a recent Amway for Jesus Festival, here he draws those circles we all love to see and hear about to potential converts:



--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,10:49   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 28 2008,10:30)
It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.   Maybe whoever receives the most interesting threat from Luskin wins a prize or something.


Wouldn't it always come down to Casey vs Denyse?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,03:22   

LOL!

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,04:54   

There seems to be some confusion about whether Luskin is an attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy.  What do you think is the best description, along the lines of "The DI's fearsome attack gerbil".

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,09:33   

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 29 2008,04:54)
There seems to be some confusion about whether Luskin is an attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy.  What do you think is the best description, along the lines of "The DI's fearsome attack gerbil".

Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Poodle

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,10:02   

Oh god that closeup is hi-larious.

Casey dude your lips look like two hotdogs stuck together by a pimply piece of wonder bread with razor burn.  And you be sportin the Uni-Brow, dog.  Daaaaaaaaaaamn.  I be pickin that shit out with some tweezahs yo.  You be lookin like one of the goddam Muppets man.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,10:02   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,09:33)
Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Poodle

If Sal hadn't ruined it for us, I'd have to nominate

Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Peccary

but it's just too disturbing to think about...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,13:01   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 28 2008,10:30)
It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

 
We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.  


I obtained this secret photo from a recent seminar...



--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,15:19   

q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,15:27   

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:10)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,21:46)
Casey, Your Slip is Showing

Oh, that is just hilarious, Elsberry.  

". . And here’s the weakness of the entire Atheist Darwinist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted indocrination entertained."

Picking at a typo, huh?  That's as nasty as quote mining.

Let it be known that Darwin once said:
   
Quote
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.


Grow up.

FTK,

Honing up those quote-mining skills???

Full context of Darwins Puppy Beating Days:

Quote
"Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before
that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply
from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have
been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as
the spot was near the house.  This act lay heavily on my
conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where
the crime was committed.  It probably lay all the heavier from my
love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a
passion.  Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing
their love from their masters."



FTK, you really are pathetic.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,15:33   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,15:19)
q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!

If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,16:45   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 29 2008,15:33)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,15:19)
q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!

If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer.

I missed that piece, which makes it even funnier :-)

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
BopDiddy



Posts: 71
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2008,09:54   

Why concentrate on photos when you can see Casey in full video.

Is it just me, or is the height difference reminiscent of Gandalf and Frodo?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4364
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2008,10:46   

Quote (BopDiddy @ Jan. 30 2008,09:54)
Why concentrate on photos when you can see Casey in full video.

Is it just me, or is the height difference reminiscent of Gandalf and Frodo?

Yeah, but he acts like an orc, and speaks like Grima Wormtongue.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,18:55   

Okay, so you all know how I wrote a post on Casey being a miserable loser with no life that just plays on the internet all day?

Miserable loser has a new hobby: screwing around with ERV on Google.

The past week:
1. I write a post making fun of Casey for being a loser
2. ERV disappears from Google
3. I reregister with Google-- everything is back to normal
4. ERV disappears from Google
5. ERV reappears with new descriptions:
Quote
The ERV blogs page is all about attacking me personally-otherwise theres no substance to any of it other than trying to mock me and attack me.

lower on the page, ERV description is links to the sites Casey is obsessed with (see his hit-job letter)
6. I 'claim' ERV with Googles webmaster tools, reregister ERV with the proper description.  He shouldnt be able to change anything again.  Sent a nice letter to Google to inform them someone was maliciously altering Google searches for sites they do not own/operate.  Asked them how to protect my site and for any information on who was altering my site.

*shrug*

Sums up Casey perfectly: Annoying.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,19:10   

Sums up Casey perfectly:  Mayor of Loserville

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,12:10   

If you visit the DI blog Evolution News & Views, you'll be stunned to find the ResearchBlogging.Org icon displayed prominently on the front page.  You see, Casey now blogs on peer-reviewed research.  Except that he doesn't.  

Casey's post is about a posthumous essay by Leslie Orgel that was printed in PLoS Biology.  Orgel's article is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed research paper.  Which means that Luskin is simply using the ResearchBlogging.Org icon to look legit. Nice try, Casey!



Folks at ResearchBlogging.Org are aware of this situation.  Stay tuned for further developments.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,14:24   

From Dave Munger's post at bpr3:
Quote
I should point out that Evolution News & Views has not registered with ResearchBlogging.org and has made a copy of the icon and placed it on its own server. Since we own the copyright on the icon itself, in principle we have the authority to ask them to stop using the icon because we only give permission to use the icon to blogs following our guidelines.

Do I detect the merest trace of irony here?

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
JohnW



Posts: 2262
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,15:18   

Mike Dunford on Luskin:

Quote
Anyone who wants to use the icon is welcome to. All you need to do is make sure that your post meets the guidelines for the project, register at the ResearchBlogging.org website, and follow the simple instructions that are provided. Casey did all but three of those things.


--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
sparc



Posts: 1710
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,22:43   

Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,09:19   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2008,22:43)
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?

I'm using this image from now on:


If anyone else wants to use it, here's the code:
<a href=”http://www.cbebs.org/”>
<img src=”http://www.cbebs.org/images/bpsdb.png” alt=”BPSDB” align=”left” height=”87? width=”117? />
</a>

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,10:09   

I use this icon for Luskin's posts:




edit: last one was a .png

edit2: I just wanted to do a poo joke, will no image work?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,10:12   

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,09:19)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2008,22:43)
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?

I'm using this image from now on:


If anyone else wants to use it, here's the code:
<a href=”http://www.cbebs.org/”>
<img src=”http://www.cbebs.org/images/bpsdb.png” alt=”BPSDB” align=”left” height=”87? width=”117? />
</a>

omg.

LUV!!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,10:49   

Has you seed this:

http://www.caseyluskin.com./

?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,11:04   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 05 2008,10:12)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,09:19)
   
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2008,22:43)
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?

I'm using this image from now on:


If anyone else wants to use it, here's the code:
<a href=”http://www.cbebs.org/”>
<img src=”http://www.cbebs.org/images/bpsdb.png” alt=”BPSDB” align=”left” height=”87? width=”117? />
</a>

omg.

LUV!!

That's just a prototype... I'm going to do another one without the coffee cup stain and a big red "FAIL" instead of the "X". I'll probably end up going with the "X", since it's a nice counterpart to BPR3's green check mark.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,12:55   

What a whiner
 
Quote
Update on the status of our application with ResearchBlogging.org

Here are the facts of this situation:
(1) On Feb. 3, I posted this blog post. A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research. At the time, I was unaware of ResearchBlogging.org and the fact that they requested registration in order to use their graphic. Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked.

(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic, and I immediately attempted to register--twice. Both times when I tried to register, when I submitted the request, I was directed to a page that looked something like garbled code, so it wasn't clear to me if the registration process was working properly. I then submitted an inquiry to ResearchBlogging.org wondering if they could correct the problem. I asked them for guidance, requesting direction for how I should proceed.

(3) On Feb. 5, I received a response from ResearchBlogging.org that, among other things, directed me to a discussion page which stated that the graphic I originally used was copyrighted by them. At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. Nevertheless, I never had any intention of violating anyone's copyright, and so I removed their graphic from this page and the EvolutionNews.org server at my own choice.

(4) In the response from ResearchBlogging.org, they also told me that, (a) they did receive my registration requests, (b) registration requests were granted at their discretion, and © a discussion thread was taking place about whether I should be granted registration. I was told that, "At present, after 26 comments, the consensus appears to be that your post is in violation of our guidelines. If you believe your post does meet our guidelines, I would encourage you to post your explanation in the discussion there." The conclusion was therefore: "We can't approve your registration at this time because your post does not appear to follow our guidelines, but if you can show us either that your post does now follow the guidelines, or if you can append the post itself so that it follows the guidelines, then we'll proceed with approving your registration."

(5) I then went to the discussion thread and replied back to the users ResearchBlogging.org as follows: (I am in the process of composing this response right now).


What an ass

So he was "unaware" of ResearchBlogging.org but is happy to steal the logo in question and add it to his post?

Why, Casey, why? If you wanted a logo then you could have created your own!

I can't wait to read his "response", especially his justification for the "no comment" policy on the post in question (and all others!)

I guess his response will appear here at some point.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,13:00   

Luskin explains all.  

Quote
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic,
...
At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. (emphases mine)

Right, so he was aware that one should be registered to use the icon, but wasn't sure whether one could use the icon if one was not registered.  Got it.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,13:02   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,11:49)
Has you seed this:

http://www.caseyluskin.com./

?

Ha ha.  From there:
 
Quote
The official purpose of this website is NOT to create a narcissistic URL with my name. Quite frankly I could care less if there is a "caseyluskin.com" out there. The purpose is to have some measure of quality control over the first hit people see on internet search engines if they have the odd desire to search for my name.

Of course, nothing says quality control like having a superfluous dot after your URL ("caseyluskin.com."), or a top-notch graphic like this:

Ouch.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,13:11   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2008,13:00)
Luskin explains all.  

 
Quote
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic,
...
At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. (emphases mine)

Right, so he was aware that one should be registered to use the icon, but wasn't sure whether one could use the icon if one was not registered.  Got it.

Bob

So... first he pubjacked, now he's offering a notpology. What's he gonna do to pull off the hat trick?

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,13:13   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2008,13:00)
Luskin explains all.  

Quote
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic,
...
At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. (emphases mine)

Right, so he was aware that one should be registered to use the icon, but wasn't sure whether one could use the icon if one was not registered.  Got it.

Bob

He's hoping they Sternberg him.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:14   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,13:55)
What an ass


From whence he speaks:



Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,15:16

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:14   

His post is up:

Quote
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Let me say that this website--which I just discovered yesterday--is both fascinating and useful. A wide variety of scientific topics are apparently discussed, ranging from science of the mind to cancer and disease research, to geology to evolution. I will most certainly revisit this site in the future, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a great way to stay informed about new scientific developments.
Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: "Casey Lying For Christ" and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about "about how terrible Luskin is"). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

I am thus faced with two conflicting desires here: I have no desire to involve myself in a discussion that allows personal attacks, even allowing further personal attacks after warnings from the moderator, who is apparently permitting such personal attacks to stand. Nonetheless, I do desire to honor Mr. Munger's invitation to make a comment here and his attempt to keep the conversation focused away from personal attacks. My compromise is that I will make one, and only one comment. If people want to continue to make personal attacks, cite irrelevant issues like the Wedge Document, etc., so be it. I'm not here to engage in personal attacks.

I frequently discuss peer-reviewed research related to evolution at www.evolutionnews.org. In fact, when I posted my post at EvolutionNews, that's all I thought I was doing--I had no idea that rules, including copyright issues, existed for using the graphic nor did I have any idea that by using the graphic, I would be accused of breaking rules. Given my ignorance prior to using the graphic, I would not necessarily expect my post to conform to rules that I wasn't even aware of when I posted my post. Nonetheless, I believe that my post does not break any of the 9 rules. Here's why:

It satisfies Rules #1 and #2: Dr. Orgel’s paper was clearly a respectable "armchair theorizing" paper by an eminent chemist in a mainstream biology journal that represented his views after a lifetime of prestigiously-funded research. It was reviewed and edited by another eminent chemist from the same field, Gerald Joyce. Thus, the paper states: "This manuscript was completed by the author in September 2007. Gerald Joyce provided comments to the author on earlier versions of the manuscript and edited the final version, which was submitted posthumously. The author received longtime research support from the NASA Exobiology Program and benefited from many helpful discussions with Albert Eschenmoser."

It satisfies Rules #3, #6, and #7: My post provided the complete formal citation in my post, and I also linked back to the original source. The post also contained original material that I wrote. These are black-and-white questions. Some people concede that I satisfied these. But the fact that some people have claimed that I did not satisfy a single rule makes me wonder about the fairness of some of the analyses presented here.

It does not break Rules #8 or #9: There is also the issue of my using the ResearchBlogging.org graphic. As I mentioned earlier, not having visited ResearchBlogging.org at the time I posted my post, at that time I was unaware that there was anything wrong with my using the graphic. However, I now have learned that ResearchBlogging.org has certain rules for using the graphic. Apart from using the graphic before registering (something I did not know I was supposed to do when I posted my post, but I tried to register as soon as I learned of the rules), I do not believe I have violated any of the rules: Even though Dave Munger never asked me to do so, I've removed the graphic from my post. Moreover, rule #9 indicates that a single instance of breaking a rule (in my case, unknowingly) does not warrant expulsion from ResearchBlogging.org. (Rule #8 is simply a rule stating that users may report abuses, and is not violable.)

It satisfies Rules #4 and #5: Many people on this thread have said that these rules represent the key issues. One would expect that therefore this would be the focus of the discussion. But it wasn't. Only 3 of the 30 posts here actually quoted my article, or discussed it in any meaningful way, to allege, using direct evidence, that I made any errors or misunderstood anything. Here are those posts with my response:

Post # 9: Claims I was wrong to state, “Again, Orgel essentially assumes that cyclic metabolic pathways are irreducibly complex systems that require a large number of parts in order to function”

My response: My comment is not mistaken. For example, Orgel states, "At the very least, six different catalytic activities would have been needed to complete the reverse citric acid cycle. It could be argued, but with questionable plausibility, that different sites on the primitive Earth offered an enormous combinatorial library of mineral assemblies, and that among them a collection of the six or more required catalysts could have coexisted." That seems to meet the definition of irreducible complexity.

Post # 11: “Just like the case of the ribosome, the evidence shows that the complexity of life requires an intelligent cause.”

My response: This was my personal commentary on the data (which is permitted by the rules), and was not intended to represent Dr. Orgel’s viewpoint. In fact I never claimed Orgel supported ID. In fact, I explicitly stated precisely the opposite, stating that "Orgel is no proponent of intelligent design. In fact, the purpose of his paper is to offer sage advice to those seeking to explain the origin of life via evolving metabolic pathways." In his e-mail back to me, Dave Munger stated, stated: "We welcome a variety of divergent opinions at ResearchBlogging.org, as long as posts follow our guidelines, designed to encourage reasoned and thoughtful discussion of peer-reviewed research." So there is no violation here, unless the pro-ID opinion is fundamentally disbarred from participation. In fact some users may seem to desire censorship of the pro-ID viewpoint, as one person wrote, "This is blatant abuse of the program to lend an air of credibility and should be stopped." In short, they just don’t want my application approved because it might “lend an air of credibility” to my views.

Post # 12: "Again, Orgel essentially assumes that cyclic metabolic pathways are irreducibly complex systems that require a large number of parts in order to function—including many side pathways that can remove products that will disrupt the cycle. Saying that cycles need side pathways is the exact opposite of what Orgel said in the original - cycles need to avoid side pathways to maintain themselves."

My response: In fact I quoted Orgel accurately, including the portion where he explicitly said that side-pathways must be avoided or they will disrupt the cycle. My comment, "including many side pathways that can remove products that will disrupt the cycle," was intended to show that there must be other parts present to avoid allow the cycle to avoid these side-reactions. But I can see how my statement is unclear and does not communicate that very well. In his e-mail back to me, Mr. Munger stated that I may amend my post if I feel it is necessary. In this regard, I've amended my post to fix this unintended unclear statement as follows: "Again, Orgel essentially assumes that cyclic metabolic pathways are irreducibly complex systems that require a large number of parts in order to function—including parts that allow them to avoid many side pathways that will disrupt the cycle."

I read and understood the article. I studied origin of life research in both my undergraduate and graduate studies at UC San Diego studying earth sciences, and taking courses and seminars learning from people like Jeffrey Bada, Stanley Miller, and others. I also conferred with a biochemist friend about the paper.

I won't enter a philosophical discussion about how "understanding" or "accuracy" might be a function of whether people agree with my commentary, which is obviously pro-ID. I'll just say that I am not so presumptuous to assume that if someone comes to a different conclusion than I do, that they therefore do not understand the topic, or were therefore necessarily inaccurate.

Regarding rules #4 and #5, I see no evidence that I have broken rules #4 or #5 here. Given that these were the only complaints, I can only conclude that in fact my discussion was actually quite accurate.

My final conclusion:
In conclusion, these are your rules. I didn't know about them when I posted my post, but I think I nonetheless have not violated any of them. I'll respect Mr. Munger's decision, whatever it is, and whatever its stated or unstated justification is.

If you decide to allow my registration--superb! I’m not doing this to get “credibility” but because like all of you, I too love science and I’d like to think that this is a website worth contributing to. If my registration is permitted, I'll gladly contribute to what I hope this website is all about.

But if you don't want to follow your own rules, that is saddening, and it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists. Indeed, I find it most likely that one user admitted the most forceful reason why my registration would be denied: "This is blatant abuse of the program to lend an air of credibility and should be stopped."

But I’ll respect Mr. Munger’s decision, whatever it is, and the stated and unstated reasons are. I just hope that this does not become another example where, as in many corners of academia, "We welcome a variety of divergent opinions," as long as those opinions do not support intelligent design.

But I won’t presume that Mr. Munger will make such an inappropriate decision, and I’ll respect whatever he decides in the future. If anyone would like to contact me personally, please feel free to do so at [EMAIL=cluskin@discovery.org.]cluskin@discovery.org.[/EMAIL]

Sincerely in good will and friendship,

Casey Luskin



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:27   

Linky?

edit, Luskin first claimed he was going to reply on the bp site, did he do that or just post it on the DI site?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
sparc



Posts: 1710
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:31   

Quote
it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists.

preparing to sell himself as EXPELLED!

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:37   

Casey:
   
Quote
Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked.


   
Quote
Given my ignorance prior to using the graphic, I would not necessarily expect my post to conform to rules that I wasn't even aware of when I posted my post.

   
Quote
At the time that I posted my post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org


 
Quote
Also on Feb 5th, I posted the following comment at ResearchBlogging.org to state my position on this matter:

   Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Let me say that this website--which I just discovered yesterday--is both fascinating and useful.

So yesterday is Feb 4th. But
 
Quote
On Feb. 3, I posted this blog post. A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research.


So, let me get this straight. Casey does not go to the website in the logo but uses the logo in his website instead?

If this is the care and attention they go to when searching for the "designer" then no wonder they've not found anything yet!
Quote
Given my ignorance prior to using the graphic, I would not necessarily expect my post to conform to rules that I wasn't even aware of when I posted my post.

Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:49   

Casey has detailed his reply here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....logging

but I can't see it here:

http://bpr3.org/?p=80

Yet.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:51   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,14:37)
Casey:

Sorry, Oldman.  Mike Dunford was 4 minutes faster on the draw.

But, isn't it interesting that Casey chose to answer on Evolution News, where no comments or discussions can take place?  For all their big talk about teaching both sides, they run like little girls from any forum where they can be openly challenged.  I guess it allows him to ignore any critical commentary by saying "Oh, I wasn't aware that they were still talking about little ole me."

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,14:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,14:37)
Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org

In Casey's defense, he was too busy typing "Casey Luskin" into Google's image search engine.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:18   

Lushkin is now yapping at BPR

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:19   

Quote
Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org


Luskin's reading comprehension skill is only matched by his keen legal prowess.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:20   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2008,14:51)
But, isn't it interesting that Casey chose to answer on Evolution News, where no comments or discussions can take place?  For all their big talk about teaching both sides, they run like little girls from any forum where they can be openly challenged.  I guess it allows him to ignore any critical commentary by saying "Oh, I wasn't aware that they were still talking about little ole me."

Casey's response is now up at bpr3.org.  

It has a AFDave vibe about it.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:33   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2008,16:20)
Casey's response is now up at bpr3.org.  

It has a AFDave vibe about it.

I read Luskin's three or four comments, then refreshed the page.  It's hardly loading now.

I guess their server is getting slammed about now.

I suspect Casey is, too.  Silly boy.  You'd think he'd know to stay behind the DI's skirts.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:33   

Quote
#40  Miles Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Casey, you’re on record for attacking plenty of people, Barbara Forrest for one. It’s not like we don’t read what you write.

Your public lies and distortions are well documented on various web sites, you lie through your teeth, sir. Please spare us the “personal ethic” lecture. History indicates your ethics are marginal at best.

And your one set of rules for ID and another for science is laughable. Do you ever put your persecution complex to bed?

Good grief.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:35   

Lushkin is claiming he never makes personal attacks.  WTF?  For starters how many times has he personally attacked Barabare Forrest?  The DI has called her names, made fun of her, written all sorts of nasty shite about her.  I am floored by what a liar this guy is.

What a lying sack of shite.

edit = that "Miles" guy seems to be in the know. ;-)

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:48   

Casey Luskin at BPR:

Quote

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.


Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

 
Quote

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


Source

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:00   

As I mentioned in my post at BPR, I think the simplest method of getting to the heart of the matter is to focus on rule #5. In terms of being a 'blog post', Caseys post is hardly reasonable or fair towards the original author and doesn't even bother presenting anything in it. Of the actual article, only two quotes are used and both are presented out of context devoid of discussion of the authors opinion as to why he says what he does. This alone shows that Casey didn't treat the material fairly and shouldn't be allowed to use the icon.

But that's just my impression.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:04   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,15:14)
His post is up...

It has the whiff of notpology about it, it does.  
   
Quote
In conclusion, these are your rules. I didn’t know about them when I posted my post, but I think I nonetheless have not violated any of them. I’ll respect Mr. Munger’s decision, whatever it is, and whatever its stated or unstated justification is.

If you decide to allow my registration–superb!...But if you don’t want to follow your own rules, that is saddening, and it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists...

But I’ll respect Mr. Munger’s decision, whatever it is.


--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:05   

I wonder if Casey thinks that not allowing comments on his posts, while nearly everyone else allows responses to their posts is having different rules. I don't think a news site qualified as a blog myself...

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:08   

I would encourage you guys to post some of these most excellent comments where Luskin can see them.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:14   

Since this is the Casey Luskin thread, I thought copying the source Wes linked too was relevant.  it really shines some light on Mr Luskin.

Quote
x x x x clip begin x x x x
Date: 23. marraskuuta 2000 08:56

Oheiset raportit osoittavat miten evolutionistien leiri alkaa olla todella
huolissaan

x x x snip x x x

Sorry it's a bit late, but this is a report on weeks 7 and 8 of the UCSD
anti-creationism seminar,and also on the wonderful "Darwinism, Design, and
Democary" conference in Clearwater, Florida on 11/10-11/11.

On November 9th, Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for
Science Education (an anti-creationist political activist group) came and
spoke at the UCSD anti-creationism seminar and then gave a public lecture
at Scripps Institution for Oceanography.  24 hours later I came up for a
breath in Florida at the "Darwinism, Design, and Democracy" conference
hosted by Tom Woodward, Trinity College of Florida, and the Foundation for
Thought and Ethics. And then the following Thursday (11/16) I had the
pleasure of discussing Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" at the
anti-creationism seminar again with special guest star Wesley Elsberry
presiding. I'd like to share some highlights of these experiences with you
all.

Eugenie C. Scott's lecture:

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist,
which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She
is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what
she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past
I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of
internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful,
persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the
dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name
of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet.  It's
certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small,
understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However,
the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most
importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe
in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the
common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the
desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves
in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was
under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an
earth sciences major.)

You will hopefully find this encouraging:  The first thing Scott did at the
seminar was hold up a copy of "Icons of Evolution" and say (this is more or
less verbatim), "I want you all to see this book.  This book will be a
"Royal Pain in the Fanny" for those who want to be teachers of evolution
[in the schools]"  I had to take a double-take to make sure that she had
really just said that.  She then said that most high school bio teachers
don't want to be controversial, and if the book shows some things in a
textbook to be controversial, then many k-12 teachers who "don't know a lot
of science" will be "intimidated"--especially if parents use the ammo
provided by the book to check the school board--and then the teacher will
just avoid the subject altogether.  She said that many textbooks might not
publish as much on the subject of evolution if it will be controversial and
cause the textbook to not get sold to school districts (which, implicitly,
have read Icons and understand what it is saying).  She laid the blame for
this "at the foot of the university profs".  She also spoke of it at the
public seminar, saying people should watch out for it.

Also she said that the author (whom we all know very well) "works hard to
hide the religious underpinnings" and like many other ID people had done
his homework well.  Was that a compliment to you Dr. Wells?  I'm not so
sure.  According to Scott ID is still "a religious movement" whose "goal is
to replace scientifric materialism with theism".  Apparently ID people are
"using evolution as a talking horse" to achieve that goal.  The false
notion that ID is religion, and the claim that "methodological naturalism
and theism aren't mutually exclusive" form the basis of her attacks upon
the arguments made by the pro-ID.

At the public lecture she went through the differences between YEC, OEC,
and ID.  She showed a quote from Henry Morris saying that all science must
be based upon Scriptures, and a quote an address by someone who used to be
the director of the discovery institute (I missed the name) discussing the
importance of bringing theism back into the intellectual life.  This was
part of her usual attempt to show that ID is purely religiously based, and
nothing more.

Scott criticized ID because it doen't say what happened.  Well, Dr. Scott,
ID says that an object was intelligently designed.  "Yeah," she replies,
"but what happened?." "Like I said, It was intelligently designed". "But
what happened?"  Scott doesn't get it--Intelligent Design theory is a real
theory that doesn't overstretch itself--it doen't say exactly how the
design was inserted into the real world because at this point it
can't!  But IT CAN say that it was designed, period.  Of course that isn't
enough for Scott, but she just proved another point of pro-IDers that the
design inference can stem questions which could lead to fruitful research
(i.e. how was the design accomplished).

Scott also claimed that the famous Colin Patterson quote is grossly out of
context.  Not sure how she knew that, but I'm serious about this--someone
at ARN should send her a free copy of the transcript of his talk.

The worst point she made, repeatedly was saying that the ID people say,
"It's just an Intelligence" "wink wink nudge nudge".  She's trying to
convince people that ID is nothing but religion.  She said ID says
evolution is a bad idea.  Not true.  She said ID doesn't make any
practically helpful statements.  Not true--especially if you're not
interested in truth.  I think we need to do all day workshops at many
universities around the country to show people what ID really is, to stop
the lies of Scott, if ID is going to work.  Otherwise she's going to go
around the country spreading this garbage, and scientists who don't know
better will undoubtedly buy it.  She used a lot of standard criticisms of
ID, irred comp, and other things I won't go into.  But if anybody wants
more details, please e-mail me and I'd be happy to provide them.

She concluded by asking everyone present to help out by joining the NCSE
(similar to what seemed to happen in Marcus Ross's experience with the NCSE
at GSA), to write letters to the editor fighting creationists whenever
possible, and encouraged all scientists to go back to their churches,
synagogues, temples, etc., to make sure they all get the right perspective
on evolution.  She later said that profesors need to leave philosophical
materialism out of the discussion as much as possible.  Statements like,
"Life is here by chance without a plan or purpose" (as I've had one upper
division evolution prof, who attended her lecture, say) are now off
limits.  She made that very clear that scientists need to check philosophy
out at the door.  I think that's good, but she never addressed the question
of whether some of the science itself is based upon philosophy.  So that is
where Scott is coming from: don't tell your students they can't believe in
religion, but do tell your fellow church members they can't believe in
creationism.  What's wrong here?

I was able to talk with Scott one on one for about 3 minutes while she
walked from our class seminar to her public lecture.  I asked her why she
thinks ID isn't science.  She said it isn't science because it does not
refer to natural law (a reference to Ruse's testimony which he later
recanted).  She also said that it isn't testable and she doubts that
Dembski will be able to really formulate "detectable design' (even though I
think both evolution and Design are inferences, epistimologically
equal).  Scott also opposes the teaching of ID because it would cause
"chaos" in the classroom curriculum.  In my opinion, that is a copout
answer, for a well-organized presenter could present all the material in
Icons and allow for a good discussion of the issue in at most two class
periods.

Here is something very interesting that I found out about the NCSE:  From
what I understand, the NCSE tries to coordinate the effort to fight people
who effectively challenge the one-sided teaching of evolution (OSToE) in
the schools.  When the NCSE finds out that somebody is attacking the
one-sidedness of a curriculum in an area, they apparently then contact
local university professors and local CLERGY (who, from what it seems, tend
to be catholics, lutherans, or episcopalians who tend to see evolution as
religiously neutral with regards to origins, and also see
creationist/ID/anti-evolution ideas necessarily as religious doctrine
rather than empirical science).  The NCSE then gets these local clergy and
university profs to go before the school boards to effectively testify that
any anti-OSToE ideas are purely religiously based and/or not science.

She specifically mentioned bringing in clergy, because it seems to be an
effective way of convincing school boards.  That makes sense to me, because
if I was on an innocent school board member trying to do the best thing for
the community, and saw that the religious people are OK with evolution,
then I wouldn't have trouble thinking that there must be no scientific
problem with evolution.

I think that by looking at what Scott's group does, a good strategy can be
developed which might be very successful for pro-ID people, creationists,
and any others who want to end the OSToE but don't necessarily know where
to begin.

I think that the place to start is where they start--with the local
university scientists and clergy.  Go to the local university scientists
and host a half-day workshop for the local biology profs / other professors
with the sole intention of educating them about Intelligent Design,
problems with evolutionary theory, answering any questions or reservations
they might about ID with the intention of helping them and befriending
them, not winning an argument or making them out to be the enemy.

The same should be done for the clergy, and emphasize to them the
scientific problems with evolutionary theory, and show them that this stuff
has nothing to do with religion or causing unnecessary conflict, but with
real scientific truth and fairness and truth in science
education.  Hopefully they would be behind that.  This could diffuse any
future potential objections these people might have to ID.

After talking to the local clergy and university scientists, give each
member of the local school board a free copy of Icons.  Let them read it
and say, "We'll be back in about 2 weeks to present all of this stuff all
over again and make our case, but we just wanted to give you a chance to
read up on this before we come."  In 2 weeks, come back, make the case, and
get the OSToE out of the curriculum and perhaps even get some ID ideas into
it!  These are just some thoughts I had.  What do you all think is the best
strategy?

One last thing--someday on some website there may appear a picture of Scott
with some students, and one student in the back smiling to himself, "My
gosh what am I doing in this picture".  If you ever see it, it was taken at
the seminar by Wesley Elsberry.  (Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Wesley
Ellsberry, devoted critic of William Dembski and others, came.  He was her
ride from the airport.  He videotaped and photographed her 2
performances.  I did get a chance to meet him (he had e-mailed the IDEA
Club a few weeks earlier) and he did seem like a nice enough guy in
person.  We had a long talk after his revisit to the seminar during week 8,
which I'll go into in a bit.

Florida Design Conference:

In the words of Eugenie C. Scott, I attended this pro-Intelligent Design
Conference because, "it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it".  That's
what she said during the public lecture about a design conference she had
once attended.  Well, attending this conference near the beach in
Clearwater, Florida wasn't a dirty job, and I was happy to do it!

The conference was organized by Tom Woodward of Trinity College in Floriday
(see his website at "www.apologetics.org") and by the Foundation for
Thought and Ethics.  The keynote speakers were Tom Woodward, George Lebo,
and phylo Scott Minnich and Paul Chien.  The theme for the conference
seemed to be the quote, "In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the
government, in America you an criticize the government but not
Darwin"  Apparently this infamous quote was said by Chinese paleontologist
Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen.  I didn't get the exact location or circumstances of the
reference, but if anyone has it that would be great!

George Lebo spoke on Friday night about evidences for design in the
universe.  He made some interesting points--that the universe must be
sparsely populated because life couldn't exist in most parts of the
universe.  Apparently our solar system and galaxy are special, because the
solar system exists away from the center of the galaxy, where high levels
of radiation would prevent life, and also because the solar system is in a
somewhat synchronous rotational orbit with the rest of the galaxy, such
that the gravitational forces on the sun and planets are constant, allowing
for the earth to have a stable orbit.  Otherwise, we'd be in big
trouble.  Apparently this situation is very unique among stars, and that it
is unlikely that it would commonly be found in the universe.

On Saturday Paul Chien gave a great lecture on the Chenjiang Cambrian
fossils.  The undisrupted yellow mudstone these fossils are found in has
allowed for much better preservation than their counterparts in Canada,
which are found in metamorphosed shale.  Paul Chien estimates that the
entire layer, which is less than 4 feet in height, was deposted in less
than 2 million years.  On an evolutionary timescale, that's an
instant.  Chien noted that Chinese scientists have doubted evolutionary
explanations for the Cambrian explosion, but said that American scientists
are "in denial" saying "maybe we'll find more fossils".  One interesting
point made, which many of you might know (but I didn't so I'll say it
anyways) is that Simon Conway Morris has become a Christian.  That doesn't
necessarily mean he's pro-ID or anything even close to that, I just found
it interesting--and encouraging--that a foremost researcher into the
Cambrian life has become a Christian.  Chen said, "[Chinese scientists] go
where the evidence leads because they cannot deny [the scientific
evidence]".  It's a blessing to have Paul Chien on the side of ID on the
Cambrian explosion.

Scott Minnich also spoke on Saturday on the bacterial flagellum.  This talk
was fascinating, as I'm not a biologist, and was amazed as he told us some
statistics on the flagellum.  The flagellum is a self-assembled and repair,
water-cooled rotary engine consisting of 30 structural parts and driven by
a proton motor force.  In some cases it has 2 gears--forward and reverse,
and operates at speeds usually around 17,000 but has been seen as high as
100,000 rpm.  Wow--Ford motorcompany should take notes!  There are
apparently no papers discussing the origin and evolution of the
flagellum.  The Designer is apparently a lot better than we are!  Scott
noted that the base of the flagellum is used in the mechanisms that some
viruses use.  Thus, it is designed, but also designed to kill.  No one said
we lived in a pretty world.  Scott also made a great point that many people
often complain that design theory is just old arguments being
re-used.  Yes, Scott said!  And now those formerly dismissed arguments are
being revitalized by new data!

I could say a lot more on the conference, but as far as the talks go these
were definitely the highlights!  I missed the talk on ID in Public
Education and law, given by Tom Woodward, so sorry that I can't report on
it to you all.  Why did you go all the way from California to Florida for a
weekend conference on ID you ask?  Well, AS of UCSD helped to cover a good
portion of our trip costs, as we went as representatives of the IDEA Club,
a student organization which can receive AS funding for that stuff.  So, it
wasn't a free trip, but it was free enough so I'd go!  My friend Nate and I
had a great time, and really enjoyed meeting Scott Minnich and Paul Chien
in person!  The trip was an amazing blessing for me, and if you ever go to
Clearwater, go to Frenchy's on the Beach and try the grouper sandwich!

UCSD (anti)Creationism seminar Week 8:

Wesley Elsberry (San Diego chauffeur for Eugenie C. Scott), a graduate
student and marine biologist who works for the Navy came and sat in as the
resident expert on Intelligent Design.  This meeting started off VERY
INTERESTING. I walked in a bit late as I have a class beforehand that ran
overtime.  I sat down and what to my surprise did my little eyes see, but a
copy of the IDEA Club website being printed around!  It got passed to me,
and I passed it along.  I now am fairly sure I know what happened.

About 3 weeks ago Wesley Elsberry e-mailed the IDEA Club to suggest a link
for our links page.  It was a brief, but friendly e-mail correspondence. At
Scott's talk I introduced myself and said that I was the one he had just
been e-mailing with.  So now that Elsberry knew that I was in the class and
also the IDEA Club guy, he told the professor, who then printed out the
club website and brought it to the class the following week. The
intellectual doubters of evolution page had also been printed out, so
thanks to all of you who have helped me get it up to an impressive 125
people in just a few hours of work over the past few weeks!  Hopefully that
number can be tripled that before its completed.

Anyway, the discussion topic for last week was the Ch. 4 "Naturalism and
it's cure" from Dembski's book "Intelligent Design".  It's probably a good
thing I didn't know about the reading assignment, because if I had read it,
I would have probably been a little too zealous for the class.  Dembski's
chapter 4 is very Christian, and makes some very challenging points --both
on a personal level and on a philosophical level, to the naturalist.  These
points need to be made, but they are more of a Christian philosophical
discussion of Intelligent Design rather than a scientific one of what
Intelligent Design theory really is.  So needless to say a lot of the
people in the class probably didn't like reading about our sinful nature.

Dembski does make the point, that "neither theology nor philosophy can
answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is
empirically detectable. ... To answer this question we must look to
science" (Pg. 104-105)

Wesley Elsberry is convinced that God's interaction with the world, if it
ever happened, isn't detectable.  He apparently plans on submitting, or
already is submitting a pre-emptive paper to some journal somewhere in
which he distingiushes between what he calls "ordinary design" and
"rarified design".  Ordinary design is the design of things we
understand--sculpture, buildings, language signals, etc." while rarified
design would be design in the realm of biology, which he would probably say
we don't understand.  Elsberry says that "rarified design /= ordinary
design".  He calls equating the two an inductive leap.  As far as inferring
a simple intelligent cause, I don't think it's a leap at all, and I don't
think that Elsberry can rigorously distinguish between the two types of
design without assuming that biological design can't exist.

One girl said still didn't understand how the ID people didn't mean God
when they talked about the Intelligent Designer and she cited the fact that
Dembski constantly refers to God in "Intelligent Design".  I said that's a
valid point, but I said that while this may not be too constructive or
consistent as far as rigorously promoting ID theory goes, it is perfectly
legitimate in a popularized version of "The Design Inference", which is
basically pure math and doesn't even mention God.  Apparently no one in the
class had yet even heard of "The Design Inference."   Fortunately Wesley
Elsberry had brought a copy along, so he actually came to Dembski's defense
for mentioning God saying that Dembski did write another technical book
which is more rigorous and doesn't mention God, and that the "Intelligent
Design" book is meant to be a "bridge between science and theology" so it's
probably OK for him to mention God.

The anti-creationist professor said to the class that an evolutionary
worldview doesn't imply a personal God.  Oh no.  I'm confused!  Eugenie C.
Scott says it's OK to believe in evolution and God, but you, Dr. professor,
say I cannot!  Actually the AC-prof committed the very blunder that Scott
told him not to.  Enter William Dembski, with the bridge between science
and theology.

We talked about the explanatory filter ideas, and how Dembski is arguing
that certain things are too improbable to have happened due to pure
chance.  I love how Dembski basically wrote a very long technical
mathematical book to take the excuse away from atheists that "It was just a
coincidence".   We didn't get too far into debating the technical aspects
of it, although I did bring up Specified Complexity at one point (not sure
if it would have come up otherwise).  Elsberry claimed that these ideas are
not good science because they haven't spawned any further papers or
research.  But aren't you responding to them in print Wesley?  If they're
so useless or bad science, why the needed refutations?  I didn't realize
this until after, but apparently nobody ever mentioned that "The Design
Inference" was printed by Cambridge University press.  I found that out
after the class, as a classmate was very surprised to find out who the
publisher was!

At one point the AC-prof said that the human backache affliction is
evidence of a history of natural selection (I happen to have one as I write
this as I've been sitting at the computer for 2 hours).  I noted that these
are theological claims, not scientific, and that there are many theological
answers for why we have backaches.  But the AC-prof mainained it is science
and evidence of natural selection because we have backaches because our
back uses parts that look like other parts in the body, and natural
selection can only build with things that are already there.  Is this
true?  Why do we have backaches (in a physiological sense?).  I'd really
like to know, and can somebody get me a tylenol right now while you're up?

Sersiouly, the AC-prof merely exchanged one theological answer for another,
as if to imply that the Designer can't re-use parts!  Perhaps there's been
some devolution over time--what do you all think of that?

Two last interesting points were that Elsberry said that the ACLU believes
that one day there will be a court case that they just won't win, because
these slippery creationists will be able to come up with something
legitimate.  That was interesting to hear--I wonder who is sources are!

Also, Elsberry said that we shouldn't teach ID because as Scott said, we
should "teach the best science that is avaialble."  This "best science" is
apparently determined by a "consensus" of scientists.  So now we decide
what is true and what isn't true by committee?  I know that's sort of how
science works, but who will be on the committee?  This sounds like the NAS
committee who wrote the book I'll be reporting on for the class next week
"Science and Creationism a vew from the National Academy of sciences".

According to an article in the Sept 99 issue of Scientific American, only
5% of NAS members believe in a personal God.  That says something when you
compare it to polls saying that 40% of practicing scientists at large
believe in God.  Plus, I think that Zero of that 5% were on the committee
that wrote, "Science and Creationism a vew from the National Academy of
sciences".  Regardless, next week it's my turn.  I get to present on the
booklet, so if any of you have any comments, or helpful suggestions for
strategy, it would be very much appreciated.  Does anybody know anything
about Rodhocetus, an alleged land-mammal-->whale transition?  That would be
very helpful.  In any case, I've got some good materials already, but I
might ask for some more help in a few days.  Take care all and be thankful
to the Designer for all you have this Thanksgiving--even the backaches!

Sincerely,

Casey

x x x x clip end x x x x

--TJT--




--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:14   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 05 2008,16:08)
I would encourage you guys to post some of these most excellent comments where Luskin can see them.

Someone already posted the darth vader attack. That's going to be fun.

Edit: Casey made a response, my resolve broke and I made a snarky comment. I couldn't help it.oops

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:19   

Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.

???

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:22   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:19)
Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.

???

He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:25   

Based on his comments in that thread it's pretty easy to conclude Case Luskin is a pussy.  Seriously.  Being the chief of propaganda for the DI is probably the most meaningful thing he's ever done in life.

And if there is any question, yeah that's a personal "attack".

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:26   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 05 2008,16:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:19)
Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.

???

He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere.

I'm sorry Casey. Please don't send your attack flagella after me.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:37   

Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:43   

Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 05 2008,17:37)
Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.

Given his recent foray into copyright infringement regarding other people's images of him...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:43   

Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 05 2008,16:37)
Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.

Casey Lushkin = the Joseph Goebbels of design Theory.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:48   

Quote
I am willing to consider further participation in this thread, if Mr. Munger is willing to start enforcing a moderating principle that removes any personal attacks from both past and future posts on this thread.

Don't do us any favors, Caseykins.

What are you willing to consider doing if we give you a pony?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:53   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:26)
I'm sorry Casey. Please don't send your attack flagella after me.

Dey comin' fer ya!



H/T: Albatrossity

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:53   

Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:01   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

It's easy to see why FtK thinks Casey's the man - his posts read pretty much like FtK's would if they were run through a spell checker.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,17:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

No doubt.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 
Quote

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.


Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

 
Quote

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


Source

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:56   

Quote (slpage @ Feb. 05 2008,17:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 
Quote

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.


Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

   
Quote

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


Source

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

I was tempted to ask that myself, but decided that it was going off on an irrelevant tangent and there were better things to discuss.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:03   

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,17:01)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

It's easy to see why FtK thinks Casey's the man - his posts read pretty much like FtK's would if they were run through a spell checker.

Drop dead...

Hey, this has always been my favorite Genie quote...

         
Quote
"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"


That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.  I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.

Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.

[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]

Hey, Dave:  Kaboom!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:10   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.

Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?

Quote
I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.


So contradicting a lie that creationists commonly spread is being dishonest?

Quote
Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.


Considering I've never met a creationist who can accurately or fairly represent the science they are criticising, I find that more than a little humorous.

Quote
[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]


Which God, the one that tells you not to bear false witness? He doesn't seem popular with creationists these days.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:28   

Quote
Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?


That. is. a. riot.

Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.  I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.

Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.  She said yes, and said some of her friends believe that the anthropic principle lends support that there may be a designer of the universe....she smiled condescendingly, waved her hand, and said that the AP doesn't sway her in the least.

She got an A+ from the secular humanists with that little lecture for sure...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.

For the millionth time, here's something you agreed to, but apparently have now forgotten

SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM.

So turning people on to science, whether via clergymen or via blogs or via the brain transplant that it would take in your case, is not "evangelizing for atheism".

Quit tilting against this windmill, and you might start to make sense sometime soon.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10226
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:01   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
Hey, Dave:  Kaboom!

That's what Jesus would do.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:21   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
That. is. a. riot.

I know, you'd have to wonder why creationists keep repeating it if it's so easily shown up to be a complete lie then wouldn't you?

Quote

Eugenie IS an atheist.


Who cares.

Quote
She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.


So? In the end, there are a great number of religious people who have no issues with evolutionary theory (or science in general, creationism doesn't just completely ignore basic facts of biology, but also physics, chemistry and nearly every other field of science). It is irrelevant as to her personal opinions beyond this, even if the great atheist conspiracy declares religion and evolution is incompatible it doesn't actually change this fact. The opinion of the great atheist conspiracy is irrelevant to the basic fact that a large number of religious people have no issue with evolution.

That makes the creationist dual model canard of either creation (God) or evolution (atheism) a lie.

Simple.

Quote
Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.


Again.

Nobody cares (certainly not me, my faith has or was never challenged by anything I learnt from science. People lying for Jesus (IE the Discovery Institute), people dying in my life in absolute pain, the awful actions of others to me and people I care about etc, did more than ANY scientific book ever could).

The factual statement I have said above is X. Your irrelevant babble in this post is Y.

X (the point) ----------------------------------------------------------- > Y (your argument).

Can you see the problem?

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:21   

Go blow wind somewhere else, Dave.

Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.  

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...

“...received the Isaac Asimov Science Award from the American Humanist Association, the First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation, the James Randi Award from the Skeptic Society.”

Go Genie.  She has her mission....mission impossible.

She's more than welcome to preach from the university podium, but she has another goal...other than a scientific one.  She's out to "enlighten".

Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  

There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:26   

Hey FtK I have a question for you.  What's wrong with being an athiest or advocating atheism?

Either seems to get your panties in a bunch.  How come?

Why do you seem to hate or at least fear atheists?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Zarquon



Posts: 71
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:29   

Quote
There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.


Of course there fucking is. Dembski doesn't have any scientific inferences. He's just another scamming preacher.

edited: spelling

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:29   

Notice how FtK is using one of her common tactics - attempting to change the topic of the discussion away from one she finds uncomfortable.

So, FtK, do you agree that perhaps, on just this occasion, Luskin has done something that does not meet the highest standards of honesty? (Predicted reply, if any, along the lines of 'I see far worse every day on AtBC'.)

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:32   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)
Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.

And still, nobody actually cares. I could meet her in person, I wouldn't come away thinking any differently about my faith than I had before.

Quote

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”


So?

Who cares.

Are you going to point out where this is relevant to her pointing out the [solid] argument that many people of religious belief do not feel there is a conflict between their beliefs and science?

Are we going to be treated to more inane babble?

Quote
So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...


OH DEAR.

Again, you argue so far away from any relevant point it's rather disturbing.

Quote
Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  


Because they do. It's that simple and it's been proven again and again. It didn't take the Wedge Documents hillarious leaking out onto the internet to clearly show Intelligent Design as nothing more than poorly dressed creationism.

On the other hand, as has been stated time and time again

Quote
There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.


Atheists reject creationism: News at 11.

That just about the only people who accept Intelligent Design and Creationism [in it's biblical Christian form] are Christians is also News at 11.

The difference is that evolution (as a science) is accepted by a large number of religious faiths (including individuals who do not possess such a faith), based entirely on the strength of their evidence. It was after all, people who were originally creationists themselves who realised the geological record was in direct conflict with the biblical records about things like a global flood. Evolution won on evidence and has become the dominant scientific idea on the origins and mechanisms of change in life today because  it's one of the most successful scientific theories developed.

If there was any merit to creationism or intelligent design they would have done more than whine about a scientific orthodoxy, would have gone into some labs and produced some actual science. That they have failed to address critical problems with their biblical based theories, have not developed practical testable predictions (in the case of ID, biblical creationism has testable predictions that are found to be false, which is at least an improvement) and have become dead ideas worldwide except with certain minorities and the fundamentalists in America.

Therein lies the key difference between Dembski and Scott.

And none of this at all changes the original point Scott made that many people of religious faith have no problem with evolution. You can whine about that point all you want. It's not changing.

Edit: Just for curiosities sake, as I'm not 'atheist', does that mean that I can say whatever I want about the obvious parallels between biblical creationists and the members of the Intelligent Design movement?

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:37   

Mr Luskin has spoken his last at BPR3.  And he's gloating about upcoming posts where he'll portray himself as a persecuted victim.

Sweet!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:40   

Casey got caught with his pants down, AGAIN, for copyright violation and procedure violation and had to both recant and beg forgiveness.

What a total loser.  He received a Masters in Prevarication, right?

Certainly earned THAT degree!

The sordid story is here.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:44   

omg you guys-- that is the BEST THREAD EVAH!!!  Poor David Dude has no idea what hes gotten into.

Also funny-- Caseys 'excuse' post mirrors his hitman letter to Mike LaSalle about me.  Same damn sentences/phrases-- its very odd.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:45   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)
Go blow wind somewhere else, Dave.

Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.  

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...

Sorry, but the wind is blowing back at you.

Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"? None of the stuff you cite above has any evidence in your favor on that point. The fact that she signed a document, and may or may not be an atheist, does not translate (in any logical mind, at least) into the conclusion that in her day job as an advocate for science, she is also advocating for atheism. That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists. And, again for the millionth time, please let us know what difference it makes if a person is a Buddhist, Baptist, Anabaptist, or atheist. We still have the right to our own personal beliefs in this country, don't we?

So prove it. Cite me one place where Eugenie Scott has said, in her capacity as an advocate for science, that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to understand science. We'll all be waiting for that evidence while we watch Casey climb up on his cross (again).

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:54   

Wasn't that the point from the beginning in all honesty? Either they can keep the icon and give themselves the impression of reporting scientifically, or they get a nice persecution story.

In either event, my post there (which I'll reproduce here) sums up what I thought (all quotes are from Luskin):

“It’s amazing to me how angry some Darwinists are eager to get over a 117 X 87 pixel graphic that was immediately removed after an ID-proponent learned that he had unknowingly used it — for only about 2 days — in an inappropriate fashion. ”

To be honest. The “unknowingly” part is being disputed, given the obvious and large “Researchblogging.org” website label on it. I still find it incredibly hard to believe you failed to notice that or check it before using it, being as familiar with copyright law as you like to appear when you threaten others with it…

“(1) A large number of the people on this thread continue to oppose approving my request for registration, explicitly admitting that they simply don’t want to allow ID proponents to be part of these discussion”

In many cases from individuals in this thread, this is certainly not the opinion that was expressed and is a gross simplification (in fact strawman) of many of the arguments presented. The simple fact of the matter is that you did not appropriately represent the original paper or discuss the authors opinion in a fair context.

Others expressed that they do not agree with allowing a news blog that does not permit comments or opposing views on it (despite complaining about such things itself) to use the logo. Again, another fair argument that you have not properly addressed.

“This thread has given another example of the intolerance that ID proponents face in the academy. ”

If we completely ignore that the primary arguments against your allowance of using the icon were not the inappropriate use of it originally, but that you do not permit comments on the blog in question and that you did not present the authors opinion fairly. At the moment, all you are doing is convincing us that you are not going to address the arguments presented and are merely taking the persecution angle.

“If ID proponents aren’t even allowed to “officially” blog about peer-reviewed research on the internet, who can say that their research would get a fair hearing from the actual peer-reviewers in the real world of science?”

If this had any relevance to the two primary arguments bought up by a large number of people in this thread, then it would be worth answering. Perhaps before asking us this you should first address the questions already posed to you.

Again, you are showing a flagrant dishonesty if this is going to be how you discuss this in future, because you’ll be ignoring the substantial critiques of what you did do in favour of a fantasy ‘oppression’ scenario that never occurred as you will claim.

For what it’s worth, your final post and refusal to acknowledge the points raised have convinced me you shouldn’t be allowed to be registered.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,20:51   

Jesus FtK if you are going to change the subject at THE VERY LEAST tell us whether or not Jesus yanked his own chain.

We need to know, so that we can evaluate the claim that he was fully human and fully god.

If he was fully human, then he without a doubt punched the monk, which is a sin.

If he was fully God, then he could not have sinned, so he could not have beat the donkey.  

Mutually exclusive.  Just like you like them.  Will you at least explain to me how it is possible for both to be true?  You can cite Walt Brown I don't give a damn.  Inquiring minds simply need to know.  And your current topic is stupid and shows that you aren't paying close attention.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,20:52   

Quote
Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"?


Where, exactly, has Dembski shoved religion on the  public when addressing science and ID in a secular setting as Scott does when she lectures at universities, etc. on Darwinism?  

When asked, Scott will give her philosophical views when lecturing just as, when asked, Dembski will give his philosophical views when lecturing.  

Quote
None of the stuff you cite above has any evidence in your favor on that point. The fact that she signed a document, and may or may not be an atheist, does not translate (in any logical mind, at least) into the conclusion that in her day job as an advocate for science, she is also advocating for atheism.


Sigh...are you being deliberately dense?  I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job, but her science supports her philosophy perfectly.  BTW, she *is* an atheist...there is no "may or may not" about it.  

Again, no different than Dembski....in the secular setting, like Genie, Dembski is all about science.  On his own time, like Genie, he advocates his on philosophical or religious ideas...and, for both Genie and Dembski, their day jobs support their private philosophies.

Quote
That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists.


That connection is not just in my head, dear.  The debate rages ALL OVER THE WORLD.  There are even atheists and agnostics who think that Darwinism is a crock.  Why the heck would they question Darwinism unless there were really good scientific reasons.

Quote
And, again for the millionth time, please let us know what difference it makes if a person is a Buddhist, Baptist, Anabaptist, or atheist. We still have the right to our own personal beliefs in this country, don't we?


Oh, my freaking goodness....red herring.  Who in the bloody hell said that you don't have rights?  I'm trying to stand up for my rights, not stifle yours!  For the "millionth time", I have no intention of banning evolution from the classroom.  Why do you throw in these ridiculous statements?

Quote
So prove it. Cite me one place where Eugenie Scott has said, in her capacity as an advocate for science, that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to understand science. We'll all be waiting for that evidence while we watch Casey climb up on his cross (again).


Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:03   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

You mean like writing textbooks filled with creationist dreck intended for classrooms? I think that's a big strike against the "Dembski not trying to push religion into classrooms" column there.

Incidentally, something I'm wondering, would you mind having Buddist, Muslim, Hindi, Scientologist and other forms of creationism/religious origins/religious 'science' introduced into classrooms. After all, Scientologists claim they have evidence that psychology is all a lie and that it doesn't work (just covered up by an orthodoxy...hey this nonsense sounds familiar).

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:07   

FtK

Listen carefully.

Intelligent Design is All Creationism and No Science.

Since that is true and has been demonstrated over and over and over and over and over, everything you say about Dembski leaving his God-complex in his street clothes while he is in the lab sciencing and stuff is bullshit.  

Of course you know that it is bullshit.  you are more than happy to take a bullshit line of reasoning and run it into the ground rather than think for yourself.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:13   

Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 
Quote
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
Then less than an hour later says,
 
Quote
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:20   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
   
Quote
Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"?

Where, exactly, has Dembski shoved religion on the  public when addressing science and ID in a secular setting as Scott does when she lectures at universities, etc. on Darwinism?  

Quit evading the question. You made the claim about Scott. Back it up.
 
Quote
Sigh...are you being deliberately dense?  I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job, but her science supports her philosophy perfectly.  BTW, she *is* an atheist...there is no "may or may not" about it.

No, I'm not dense, but according to you I am mentally ill, remember? Again, her personal beliefs about a deity are irrelevant to science, protected by the Constitution, and may or may not be a cause or an effect of her scientific outlook.
 
Quote
 
Quote
That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists.

That connection is not just in my head, dear.  The debate rages ALL OVER THE WORLD.  There are even atheists and agnostics who think that Darwinism is a crock.  Why the heck would they question Darwinism unless there were really good scientific reasons.

The fact that others share your delusion does not make it any less delusional. And as for your last rhetorical question, please consider the possibility that they question "Darwinism" (a word you have never been able to define other than as a synonym for atheism, BTW) for the same reason that you do. They have an irrational fear, based on an ignorance about the science, that their religious worldview is threatened by acknowledging biological facts.
 
Quote
Oh, my freaking goodness....red herring.  Who in the bloody hell said that you don't have rights?  I'm trying to stand up for my rights, not stifle yours!  For the "millionth time", I have no intention of banning evolution from the classroom.  Why do you throw in these ridiculous statements?

Then why do you continually use "atheist" as a pejorative? Why does it matter to you what the religious views of a scientist (or anyone else) might be? Your rights are not endangered in the slightest by the religious beliefs and practices of scientists, and yet you seem to act as if they were. Guess what? You're wrong about that too.
 
Quote
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

In other words, you have no evidence for your statements about Scott being an evangelical atheist, and you hope to cover your tracks with a red herring named Dembski.

You said she was an evangelical atheist. Prove it.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:26   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 05 2008,21:13)
Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 
Quote
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
Then less than an hour later says,
 
Quote
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...

Oh, for the love of Darwin...

sigh...

How to communicate with a DD (Darwinian Dodo)?

hmmm....

Okay, let's try this...

When you equate ID with religion and claim that Dembski is trying to push religion onto our poor public school children (evangelizing), I will continue to assert that Genie is also pushing her philosophical beliefs (philosophical naturalism) in our science classrooms (evangelizing).

Capisce??!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:28   

I thought this was a Casey Luskin thread.  Wrong door, apparently...

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:28   

I think asking FTK to prove anything other than how she hasn't a clue is not fair.  Only because, well, she truly is clueless.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:29   

Although off topic relative to Luskin's use of the icon in question (itself a tempest in a teapot - although watching him don a halo during his notpology was fun), I think some here understate the implications of evolutionary theory for aspects of faith, and overstate their compatibility.

As I understand it, the statement that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change," taken together with the reality of common descent, absolutely DOES correctly encapsulate our understanding of human evolution and does contradict the central tenets of many faiths: man was created in God's image; human beings have a special ontological status, as possessors of souls, that is distinct from that of other animals; there is a moral structure to the world that mirrors the hopes expressed in our traditional belief systems, etc. Scientific causality more generally excludes theism (to the extent that it postulates a God who intervenes). These views may leave a detached deism intact, but present severe challenges to theism. I don't see theistic views of the human being coexisting easily with these realities.

What is important to understand is that it isn't Eugenie Scott or other adovates who present this disquieting challenge to believers; it is the natural world itself, and the history of same.

Joseph Campbell:
 
Quote
There is no hiding place for the gods from the searching telescope and microscope...this work cannot be wrought by turning back, or away, from what has been accomplished by the modern revolution; for the problem is nothing if not that of rendering the modern world spiritually significant - or rather (phrasing the same principle the other way round) nothing if not that of making it possible for men and women to come to full human maturity through the conditions of contemporary life.  Indeed, these conditions themselves are what have rendered the ancient formulae ineffective, misleading, and even pernicious. (The Hero with a Thousand Faces)

Foremost among these conditions are the revelations of science of the last several centuries, revelations which have rendered many previously viable mythologies untenable - includuding Christianity as literally construed. Campbell describes the current dilemma as the presence of too much light, rather than too much darkness.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:31   

Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:32   

Casey Luskin is immensely frustrating to deal with I've discovered. I don't think he's even addressed the original point I actually made quite a few posts ago. There is no way he can possibly argue he's represented Orgels opinion fairly before inserting his own into the post, clearly breaking rule #5 (which does not prohibit one discussing the post from their viewpoint, only presenting the authors viewpoint in the authors OWN words first or fairly).

That he can't see this is rather mind boggling.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,21:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Herrings aren't birds. My favorite bird, the Wandering Albatross, might eat herrings...

Your favorite must be the ostrich.

But sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the world go away. Here it comes again.

You said Eugenie Scott was an evangelical atheist. Prove it. Help us "follow the evidence".

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:36   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,21:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!

I want you to know, that people like you convinced me Christianity was false.

Just so you know.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:43   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,22:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!

My favorite bird? The sardine. Nothing like a bird on a cracker.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,22:13   

Ftk,

Here, you said

   
Quote
Okay, Dave, you need to WAKE UP.  Seriously.  There is no one “lying” in the pulpits or anywhere else.  They believe what they put forth.  So, if they are wrong, it’s not deliberate.  And, to refuse to acknowledge the part that Dawkins, et. al. plays in this deliberately burying your head in the sand.  The other side thinks that Dawkins et. al. are a bunch of liars as well - I don’t.  I believe that they support their true beliefs on the topic just like the preachers from the pulpit do.   The point is that BOTH sides believe the other to be devious liars so it’s kind of ridiculous for you to make a statement like evolution is “seen by some as a threat to their religious beliefs”.  While that may be true, those from the opposite end are just as threatened by the notion that evolution may not answer the question as to how everything in nature came to be.  They base their philosophical and faith beliefs on this “fact”, so anything opposing it brings about as much tension and repulsion to them as it does to those who believe their religious beliefs are threatened by evolution.


Beginning about here, you spent pages and pages defending the indefensible and reprehensible attack Sal made on Skatje Myers with outright lies like

   
Quote
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  


Now, over the last few pages you've made quite a few scurrilous accusations against Eugenie Scott, such as

 
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:28)

That. is. a. riot.

Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.  I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.

Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.  She said yes, and said some of her friends believe that the anthropic principle lends support that there may be a designer of the universe....she smiled condescendingly, waved her hand, and said that the AP doesn't sway her in the least.

She got an A+ from the secular humanists with that little lecture for sure...


which doesn't jibe at all with the first quote about both sides truly believing what they say.

You are a liar, and I'm calling you on this one.  You are weaseling and hold advocates of the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax to a standard of honesty so low that I'd have to tromp around in the sewers to find it.  You then have the audacity to question the integrity of Eugenie Scott, and accuse her of deception?  I think not.

Now you can defend that third statement with actual evidence, or you can retract it and apologize, or you can talk to the bathroom wall until you do.

ETA:  Notpologies not accepted.

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,23:17

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 328
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,22:18   

I dropped by to read a bit, and found this about Genie Scott on the previous page, from ftk:

Quote
I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.


I know Genie well, and I know that the bolded part above is not true.

Of course, I could ask for some evidence from ftk to support her statement, but I know that is entirely fruitless.  Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.

  
sparc



Posts: 1710
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,22:29   

Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,22:44   

I also know Genie Scott and will confirm that FtK is lying, again.

Making stuff up, FtK, when will you learn?  Are you really that stupid?

Scott's religion bashing record is less than mine.  How about my record, FtK? Where do I stand on your Scale of Piety?

As we have said many times on this thread, FtK, put up or shut up.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,22:50   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
 
Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".


Yep.

FtK:

 
Quote

Hey, this has always been my favorite Genie quote...

       
Quote
"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"


That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.  I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.

Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.

[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]


That wasn't a statement of disagreement, or that Genie Scott was wrong.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,23:06   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 05 2008,22:32)
Casey Luskin is immensely frustrating to deal with I've discovered. I don't think he's even addressed the original point I actually made quite a few posts ago. There is no way he can possibly argue he's represented Orgels opinion fairly before inserting his own into the post, clearly breaking rule #5 (which does not prohibit one discussing the post from their viewpoint, only presenting the authors viewpoint in the authors OWN words first or fairly).

That he can't see this is rather mind boggling.

I have dealt with Casey a few times in person, and I know what you mean. The best way to deal with him and not get enraged is to treat him as if he's completely insane. For instance, when he presides over a club, and in order to be an officer in his club you must be a christian, and the club used to be called the Creationist Club and is now called the ID Club, and the web page for the club says "Don't be afraid of us creationists", and he looks you in the eye and says the club has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion or christianity, and how on earth could you possibly think it did, there's no reason to be mad or upset that he's lying to you. When the guy over at Dorothea Dix Mental Institution sticks his hand in his shirt and tells you he's Napoleon, you can't get mad at him. He's not lying to you. He's just fucking crazy and doesn't know any better.

   
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,00:39   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".

Indeed!

If anyone can find it, the essay "On Bullshit" by H.G. Frankfurt is an interesting read.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,02:36   

Quote (UnMark @ Feb. 06 2008,00:39)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
 
Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".

Indeed!

If anyone can find it, the essay "On Bullshit" by H.G. Frankfurt is an interesting read.

He ended up publishing it as a book.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,05:32   

Well, I think we have the answer. Casey, in part:
 
Quote
So, based upon what I was told, I had no reason to presume there were “rules” behind using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic that would result in the eruption of much anger when they are violated.

When various blogs erupted in a firestorm yesterday because I used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic for about 24 hours, I first learned that there were rules about using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. It was then that I first visited ResearchBlogging.org, and it was at that time that I tried to register with ResearchBlogging.org so that I could legitimately use the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. This morning, when I learned that Mr. Munger felt I had used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic inappropriately, I immediately removed the 117 X 87 pixel graphic.

This isn’t complicated: I never knowingly misused the 117 X 87 pixel graphic, and as soon as I learned I had misused it, I removed it. Thanks again.


Darwinists are so mean and nasty that they forbid me to use a 117 x 87 icon.  117 x 87!! That is tiny!  Miniscule even!  Is there nothing so insignificant that the materialists won't use it to persecute (dare I say EXPEL!) the ID proponents in order to shore up the crumbling edifice of their discredited theory!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,06:50   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 06 2008,05:32)
Well, I think we have the answer. Casey, in part:
 
Quote
So, based upon what I was told, I had no reason to presume there were “rules” behind using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic that would result in the eruption of much anger when they are violated.

When various blogs erupted in a firestorm yesterday because I used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic for about 24 hours, I first learned that there were rules about using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. It was then that I first visited ResearchBlogging.org, and it was at that time that I tried to register with ResearchBlogging.org so that I could legitimately use the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. This morning, when I learned that Mr. Munger felt I had used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic inappropriately, I immediately removed the 117 X 87 pixel graphic.

This isn’t complicated: I never knowingly misused the 117 X 87 pixel graphic, and as soon as I learned I had misused it, I removed it. Thanks again.


Darwinists are so mean and nasty that they forbid me to use a 117 x 87 icon.  117 x 87!! That is tiny!  Miniscule even!  Is there nothing so insignificant that the materialists won't use it to persecute (dare I say EXPEL!) the ID proponents in order to shore up the crumbling edifice of their discredited theory!

If he really feels argumentum ad file size is acceptable, perhaps someone should point out that the text 'THIS SITE IS ENDORSED BY THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE' is far smaller than that tiny icon.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,08:12   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 05 2008,19:29)
So, FtK, do you agree that perhaps, on just this occasion, Luskin has done something that does not meet the highest standards of honesty? (Predicted reply, if any, along the lines of 'I see far worse every day on AtBC'.)

How about it, FtK? So far, it looks like my predictive success is at least as good as that of ID.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,09:15   

I always assumed Casey Luskin was a reasonably bright guy who was purposefully dishonest in order to advance his religious cause.  We see people like this all the time, those who will stoop to anything as they answer to a "higher calling".

After reading his comments at BPR3 I'm now convinced he's simply dumb, I mean really dumb.  He's no different than FtK, sceptic, afdave tard, or vmartin.  The only thing they don't have in common is Casey does stupid for a living, the other tards do it as a hobby.

The thread at BPR3 goes down in my book as the best ever.  At least for now.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how Lushkin spins this into an example of IDC persecution.

Casey, thanks for the memories!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,10:00   

I have no reason to presume there are “rules” behind using any 117 X 87 pixel graphic.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,16:49   

New thread on Luskin at BPR3 here

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,17:24   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2008,16:49)
New thread on Luskin at BPR3 here

I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,17:25   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2008,16:49)
New thread on Luskin at BPR3 here

Should I just copy and paste what I already pointed out about the deficiencies in Caseys first post? There doesn't really seem much more to discuss, especially as his second part isn't much better.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,17:31   

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.

Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,17:49   

Whether they planned it or not the DI needs to be hammered at every opportunity.

Expel?  Yes!  Kick their asses out.

I have no problem with this.  Luskin and the other DI minions need to be called out at every opportunity.

Quite simply, Luskin violated copyright by using the BPR3 logo inappropriately without following any of the guidelines.

Luskin did it intentionally and was caught.  He deserves any thrashing he gets.

Obviously, the heat was a little too much for our attack gerbil Luskin as he has pulled the logo from his original posting.  Luskin is dishonest.  How he lives with himself I have no idea.  Must be a small planet, his world.

  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,18:06   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 06 2008,17:31)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.

Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.

Yeah, it was a win/win scenario for Luskin. If he got accepted, it would make ID seem more "sciencey" to the rubes. If he got denied, it's another opportunity to play the martyr.

Since the persecution card is such powerful currency in the ID world, Luskin's probably quite satisfied with the decision.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,18:15   

I bet luskin is laffing his ass off about the whole ordeal.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,19:01   

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,18:06)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 06 2008,17:31)
 
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.

Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.

Yeah, it was a win/win scenario for Luskin. If he got accepted, it would make ID seem more "sciencey" to the rubes. If he got denied, it's another opportunity to play the martyr.

Since the persecution card is such powerful currency in the ID world, Luskin's probably quite satisfied with the decision.

Yeah, it seems "designed" for this outcome from the start.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,22:01   

I am laughing mine off.

What a douche bag.  

That's the important part.  Showing your ass in public, for free, upon provocation:  Priceless.

Smile, asshole.  You be on candid camera.  At least that is what they say at ye olde 4-way intersections around here in this Free State.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,22:31   

I don't think Casey's exactly laughing, because he was forced to remove the icon from his posting.  The DI got a public whipping.  Again.

Casey wasn't expelled from discourse;  none of his comments were censored or removed from the BPR3 thread.  In fact, Casey was invited to the dialog.  He chose to slink off on his own accord.

By the same token, Casey, Behe, Dembski and the entire Rat's Nest is invited to participate at PT or PZ's blog or at ERV or any science blog.  Nothing's stopping them.

By the way, that reminds me, whatever happened to Paul Nelson?

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,22:40   

Quote

By the way, that reminds me, whatever happened to Paul Nelson?


Brave sir Nelson has bravely run away from the looks of things.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,23:33   

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyiiiiiiiit.

Casey don't give a damn as long as jesus be the reason he be skeezin'.  you bettah recognize fool.

Paul, bless his little old shriveled up trepidatious old jump startin heart, he can't be standing up to the Spanglish Inquisition and shit.  Y'all be screamin evidence, that nicklah be frontin on some ol Genesis and whatnot whatall whathaveyou whatsaysyouns whattyaknow etc etc insert the power of christus here.  

liars for jesus have already gone and warranted justified etc etc their own moral eschatology.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2008,08:08   

Larry "I'm not mentally ills" farararafafafaman just weighed in.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2008,20:14   

For all you bloggers, Mr. DNA gives us this at The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog:



 
Quote
Because Intelligent Design provides us with a never ending cycle of asshattery, because there are so many variants of woo available on the internet and because there are those of us who love vivisecting all forms of pseudoscience, it had to be done.

Inspired by Casey Luskin’s recent bout of Douchebaggitude, I created a little graphic “riffing on” - as Denyse O’Leary would say - BPR3’s “Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research” icon. Here is the “Blogging on Pseudo-Scientific Douche-Bags” graphic, Mark II.


More at the link...

ETA- He's even registered the pictured url for future use.

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 07 2008,21:16

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007