Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Casey Luskin Thread started by stevestory
Posted by: stevestory on 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?"
Posted by: Altabin on 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?" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two more than Dembski (who scores a "9")?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on 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.
Posted by: ericmurphy on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 14 2006,12:19
I hearby nominate Casey Luskin for the Joseph Goebbels Award.
Posted by: mcc on 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?" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this a linear or a logarithmic scale?
Posted by: stevestory on 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?" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two more than Dembski (who scores a "9")? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ANSWER IS TWELVE AND A HALF.
ELEANOR CLIFT!
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He enjoyed it for its soporific effect.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,02:25
< Carl Zimmer vs Casey Luskin continues to look like Evander Holyfield vs Screech. >
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on Nov. 21 2006,01:07
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...
Posted by: mcc on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Huh. Did Donald M steal that from the DI or did the DI steal that from Donald M?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 21 2006,18:28
< http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat...._or.php >
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 21 2006,21:05
< Mike Dunford! >
Posted by: qetzal on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dunno. What holds up the clouds?
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 26 2006,13:15
< Casey hates the FSM >
May Casey realize the error of his ways and be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 01 2007,13:43
"ISSUE FOUR. NEW ALLEGATIONS BY LUSKIN THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SINCE KITZMILLER, VINDICATES ID...
< ED BRAYTON!!!!!!! >"
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 22 2007,23:02
Poor J-Dog has been Luskinized:
(first comment)
< http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/01/how_generous.php >
Posted by: Mike PSS on 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?” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thoughtful and challanging questions that Mr. Luskin certainly had to tread carefully with his answers.
[innocence] "Maybe I'll write some questions to Mr. Luskin. Then he'll publish the answers for ALL to see." [/innocence]
Posted by: J-Dog on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: J-Dog on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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....
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 10 2007,15:26
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2007,14:10) | He certainly looks microcephaloc to me... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He looks PHALLO-cephalic to me . . . .
Posted by: snoeman on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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."
Posted by: J-Dog on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He looks PHALLO-cephalic to me . . . . ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Calling Casy a PHALLO-cephalic is an insult to dickheads everywhere.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 12 2007,14:36
---------------------QUOTE------------------- May Casey realize the error of his ways and be Touched by His Noodly Appendage. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well, maybe Casey was abused by what he thought was a noodly appendage as a child?
We should interview his childhood priest/pastor.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: stevestory on May 17 2007,18:52
< A question for Luskin
Category: Evolution Denialism >
Posted by: J-Dog on 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".
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php >
Posted by: J-Dog on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know. Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology. Dembski, on the other hand, is just sad...
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 14 2007,19:35
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2007,20:30) | Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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 >
Posted by: stevestory on 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
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
boo fricking hoo
Posted by: stevestory on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your point?
Posted by: J-Dog on 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 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
boo fricking hoo ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, give him a little credit - self-knowledge is very important.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,18:42
< I say decrepit because Luskin's post is, to put it charitably, pitiful. >
Posted by: Ftk on 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??!
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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??! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you have to be smart, which is perhaps why creobots are not?
Smoochies!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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??! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: stevestory on 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??! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, there's this one dude, whose site your currently at....
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 22 2007,21:26
I don't think Wilkins is a theist. Was there something in particular that made you think so?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,21:31
Ed's a Deist. MarkCC is Jewish...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Ftk on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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?
Posted by: stevestory on 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
Posted by: Ftk on 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?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:23
Yes, we will bet that some sciencebloggers aren't atheists.
Ed Brayton. What do we win?
Posted by: Ftk on 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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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. . ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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??! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism >
Hope this helps.
Deism <> Atheism.
Posted by: stevestory on 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??! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you say
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,23:55
HAR HAR I JUST SPOONED SCOOPED STERNBERGER STORY.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,00:16
There are about 70 people blogging at ScienceBlogs.com. How many of them, FtK, have displayed the atheist logo?
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Jasper on Sep. 23 2007,01:20
Rob Knop of < Galactic Interactions > is a Christian.
Added in edit: Here's a < post > that provides evidence.
Posted by: stevestory on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We never got that bottle of scotch, FtK, and we sure are thirsty.
Posted by: stevestory on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That means he's not just Jewish just for the jokes.
Posted by: someotherguy on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,17:09
A plethora of Luskinalia:
< Luskin's Latest Lie >
< Fiskin' Luskin >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 04 2007,21:46
< Casey, Your Slip is Showing >
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:10
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,21:46) | < Casey, Your Slip is Showing > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Grow up.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 04 2007,22:13
Watch out! Casey has FtK to protect him!
Posted by: Ftk on 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.
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:15
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 04 2007,22:13) | Watch out! Casey has FtK to protect him! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jealous.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 04 2007,22:16
FTK, what is this daddy complex you seem to have with Luskin? It's messed up.
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:21
Edit: indoctrination / indoctrinated.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2007,22:26
Casey is the IDers' jarhead.
Anyone who's seen him in person knows what I mean. 1000-yard-stare.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Dec. 04 2007,22:35
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:15) | I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you buzz around him in an elliptical orbit?
I think you make a good couple!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Duh! It was a mental typo, Ed. Like that fella who said "creationism" when he meant "ID" on the TV..
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Duh! It was a mental typo, Ed. Like that fella who said "creationism" when he meant "ID" on the TV.. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< You mean this guy? >
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Mister DNA on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: olegt on 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.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya don't say?!!
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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:
Posted by: J-Dog on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wouldn't it always come down to Casey vs Denyse?
Posted by: nuytsia on Jan. 29 2008,03:22
< LOL! >
Posted by: guthrie on 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".
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Poodle
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 29 2008,10:02
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,09:33) | Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Poodle ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I obtained this secret photo from a recent seminar...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 29 2008,15:19
q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")? a: Not Casey Luskin
I love it!
Posted by: Steverino on 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 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Grow up. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTK, you really are pathetic.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I missed that piece, which makes it even funnier :-)
Posted by: BopDiddy on 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?
Posted by: J-Dog on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, but he acts like an orc, and speaks like Grima Wormtongue.
Posted by: ERV on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 03 2008,19:10
Sums up Casey perfectly: Mayor of Loserville
Posted by: olegt on 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.
Posted by: Bob O'H on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do I detect the merest trace of irony here?
Bob
Posted by: JohnW on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: sparc on 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?
Posted by: Mister DNA on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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>
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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?
Posted by: ERV on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
omg.
LUV!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,10:49
Has you seed this:
< http://www.caseyluskin.com./ >
?
Posted by: Mister DNA on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
omg.
LUV!! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 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.
Posted by: Bob O'H on 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) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 05 2008,13:02
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,11:49) | Has you seed this:
< http://www.caseyluskin.com./ >
? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, nothing says quality control like having a superfluous dot after your URL ("caseyluskin.com."), or a top-notch graphic like this:
Ouch.
Posted by: Mister DNA on 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) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So... first he pubjacked, now he's offering a notpology. What's he gonna do to pull off the hat trick?
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's hoping they Sternberg him.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,14:14
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,13:55) | < What an ass > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From whence he speaks:
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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?
Posted by: sparc on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
preparing to sell himself as EXPELLED!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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-------------------
---------------------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-------------------
---------------------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-------------------
---------------------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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 05 2008,14:51
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,14:37) | Casey: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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."
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 05 2008,14:55
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,14:37) | Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Casey's defense, he was too busy typing "Casey Luskin" into Google's image search engine.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,15:18
Lushkin is now yapping at < BPR >
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 05 2008,15:19
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Luskin's reading comprehension skill is only matched by his keen legal prowess.
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey's < response > is now up at bpr3.org.
It has a AFDave vibe about it.
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: stevestory on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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. ;-)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 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".
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on 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.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 05 2008,16:04
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,15:14) | His post is up... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on 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...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,16:08
I would encourage you guys to post some of these most excellent comments where Luskin can see them.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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--
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,16:19
Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on 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.
??? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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".
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
??? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry Casey. Please don't send your attack flagella after me.
Posted by: Nerull on 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.
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given his recent foray into copyright infringement regarding other people's images of him...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Lushkin = the Joseph Goebbels of design Theory.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't do us any favors, Caseykins.
What are you willing to consider doing if we give you a pony?
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dey comin' fer ya!
H/T: Albatrossity
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,16:53
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.
Posted by: Mister DNA on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No doubt.
Posted by: slpage on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Ftk on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! >
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which God, the one that tells you not to bear false witness? He doesn't seem popular with creationists these days.
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,18:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 05 2008,18:39
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28) | Eugenie IS an atheist. She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,19:01
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03) | Hey, Dave: < Kaboom! > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's what Jesus would do.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,19:21
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28) | That. is. a. riot. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who cares.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: Ftk on 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.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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?
Posted by: Zarquon on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course there fucking is. Dembski doesn't have any scientific inferences. He's just another scamming preacher.
edited: spelling
Posted by: Richard Simons on 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'.)
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,19:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|