Mark Perakh posted Entry 2471 on July 24, 2006 04:19 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2466

Once again, this is a guest appearance of Jim Downard, and, once again, I have not contributed to it but only post it here as a courtesy to Jim.

While William Dembski has proudly proclaimed his role as a contributor to the evolution chapters of Ann Coulter’s new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, when push comes to shove it turns out he is singularly unwilling to take responsibility for any of the many mistakes she has made. Follow James Downard as he ventures into the curious world of Dembski/Coulter “scholarship” and learn just how much “descent” one encounters at Dembski’s website “Uncommon Descent.”

Continue reading The Dembski Alert on Talk Reason

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #114492

Posted by DragonScholar on July 24, 2006 5:37 PM (e)

James Downard wrote:

Indeed, followers of Dembski’s antics may try holding his feet to the fire here. Remember he can’t crawl very far away, having obligingly and willingly shackled that quite heavy Coulterian anchor to his own ankle.

I think this point, humorously made, is very important. Dembski made certain statements, provided certain information, and made certain claims. Let’s hold him to it as best we can.

In addition, I think his enthusiasm for Coulter could actually be harmful to his misguided crusade. If he’s willing to ally himself with her, why not ask if he supports her other statements. Are the Jersey Girls, that group of 9/11 widows, ‘witches’ to him as well? Is he, like Ann, all for invading Muslim countries and engaging in forceable religious conversion? How much of a Coulterite is he?

He made his bed, and he’s sharing it with Ann Coulter.

Comment #114495

Posted by Wheels on July 24, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Is Jim insinuating that Mr. Dembski could, nay, DID IN FACT engage in a dishonest irresponsibility and silence when confronted with scientific inaccuracies presented in print for which he took such credit earlier, in fact engaging in nothing more than puerile character attacks, violation of privacy, and outright lies regarding the nature of the criticisms?
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that such charges could be levelled at our most trustworthy and reliable mathematician. What is the world coming to when a simple huckstervaluable contributor to the genuine scientific controversy of Darwinism can be targetted by such mean and entirely unwarranted attacks? Truly, this is the fruit that IDDarwinism bears, by which we shall know them!
Uncommon Descent

William Dembski wrote:

If Ann’s chapters on evolution are so riven with difficulties, let him elaborate them, point out the errors, and then hold me up to ridicule for the errors for which I take responsibility.

He already has, he’s already told you where to find them, and furthemore it’s not his aim to simply hold you up for ridicule but to have you actually respond to them in some fashion. Posting private correspondences of his complaints regarding a lack of response is not a response to the criticisms levelled.

I’m a big fan of people involved in published works taking into account the sort of social responsibilities that should ideally go with putting a work out for mass consumption, especially if they claim a degree of responsibility for the quality of information presented. Just as journalists should have an obligation to present facts which are checked rigorously, so too should any person claiming facts regarding politics, science, and history. Since Dembski has said publically, in writing, that he takes responsibility for all the sciency evolutiony stuff in Coulter’s book, there really is no excuse for dismissing valid criticisms of substantiative factual claims and putting the critic up for cheap ridicule instead.

In the future it might be worth it to include either the url of the specific articles where Jim’s criticisms appear, or repost the content in the e-mail so that Dembski can’t pretend he hasn’t been given any criticisms.
Well, okay, so it will be HARDER to pretend he hasn’t been given any.

DragonScholar: Dembski only claimed accuracy on all of Coulter’s material regarding Evolution, so why should we burden him with all the other lies in the book? He has his work cut out for him as it is.

Comment #114496

Posted by Coin on July 24, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

It really is fascinating how much of the response to Downard’s emails to Dembski seem to revolve around people actually taking offense at the presence of scientific terminology in an e-mail about science. Apparently if you can’t discuss something over a beer, it isn’t true. Why do these Bourgeoisie scientists persist in their elitism? They think that just because they know what “homeobox genes” and “endosymbiosis” are, they know more about biology than we do!

Anyway, this said, Uncommon Descent has updated, and apparently Dembski really does take responsibility for all of the errors in the scientific portions of Godless, and your offer to not hold him responsible for discussion of those subjects he did not specifically discuss with Coulter has been spurned. Mr. Downard, it would appear you are now free to blame Dembski entirely for the errors in “Godless”. All of them.

He also seems rather upset that you did not immediately understand that this was what he was trying to communicate by refusing to reply to your questions and instead posting your e-mails on his blog.

I look forward with great interest to part 3 of your series, Mr. Downard :)

Comment #114500

Posted by swalker on July 24, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Funny, this whole thing about sincerity and scientists quoted by D O’Leary from E Sisson in Uncommon Dissent.

But in science the rule is different. Scientists are supposed to be actually sincere. They are supposed to develop genuine, individual opinions about the data and then express those opinions.

—snip… now from W Dembski on UD…

In April I announced on this blog Ann Coulter’s then forthcoming book GODLESS (go here). There I remarked, “I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters.” Jim Downard, rather than simply taking me at my word, instead wants me to elaborate on my correspondence with Ann (go here); and for my refusal to elaborate, charges me with not really taking responsibility for errors in the chapters in question. But such elaboration is not my responsibility.

Yep, sincerity is WD’s strong point. Just like ID isn’t about religion.

Comment #114504

Posted by Registered User on July 24, 2006 6:56 PM (e)

Dumbski

In April I announced on this blog Ann Coulter’s then forthcoming book GODLESS (go here). There I remarked, “I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters.” Jim Downard, rather than simply taking me at my word, instead wants me to elaborate on my correspondence with Ann (go here); and for my refusal to elaborate, charges me with not really taking responsibility for errors in the chapters in question. But such elaboration is not my responsibility.

It’s those “pathetic details” again. Why do we bother the man?

In fact, no ID promoters will elaborate when it comes to actually showing how Dembski’s baloney can actually be applied to a real protein.

See Cornell’s reprehensible Evolution & Design blog here for a fresh, steaming example of creationist idiocy and laziness:

http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/07/24/specified-complexity/

Comment #114506

Posted by timco on July 24, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

I think it is also telling that Dembski’s new sidekick on UD is not a bona-fide scientist but some obscure religious journalist. Although she does seem a little more amenable to allowing dissenting comments, after trying a dozen times I stil have not been able to get a comment posted on UD. Stil at least hopefully she can get Dembski to grow up a little and dispense with the juvenile ‘humorous’ posts.

Comment #114507

Posted by steve s on July 24, 2006 7:13 PM (e)

Why do we bother the man?

Same reason you poke a monkey at the zoo with a stick? to provoke amusing responses.

Comment #114508

Posted by Coin on July 24, 2006 7:24 PM (e)

And the UD comment section says:

I agree. Which errors?

…apparently entirely unaware of the parts one and two of Jim Downard’s ongoing critique of Godless, which already point out quite a number of errors. (This of course, isn’t very surprising; Mr. jacktone just probably honestly doesn’t realize the other talk.reason articles are there. It’s a little puzzling on the other hand that Dembski seems oblivious to those same articles, since he clearly reads Panda’s Thumb and one would expect they had heard of them there.)

Perhaps someone who has already registered for an Uncommon Descent account could post a comment there providing links to the existing “Godless” critiques? If only to sate Mr. jacktone’s burning intellectual curiousity. I wonder if such a comment would make it through UD’s new, more-lenient comment filtration system…

Also, Mark Perakh: do you think you could consider adding to each of the three “Godless” articles on talk.reason (parts one and two of Downard’s critique plus this “Dembski alert” thing) navigational links to the next and previous articles in the series? At the moment were someone to simply find a link to this “Dembski Alert” article, it would not be immediately obvious that two articles in the series have already been published.

Comment #114509

Posted by steve s on July 24, 2006 7:26 PM (e)

Comment #114506

Posted by timco on July 24, 2006 07:11 PM (e) | kill

I think it is also telling that Dembski’s new sidekick on UD is not a bona-fide scientist but some obscure religious journalist.

It’s not like they have much of a choice.

Although she does seem a little more amenable to allowing dissenting comments, after trying a dozen times I stil have not been able to get a comment posted on UD.

There is, and has only ever been, one rule at Uncommonly Dense. If you point out their obvious errors, they ban you. It can only be thus. Magicians doing cheap parlor tricks can’t allow skeptics on stage with spotlights and videocameras.

Comment #114511

Posted by Michael Hopkins on July 24, 2006 7:34 PM (e)

Dr. Dembski’s name is spelled as “Demsbki” in the article title.

Comment #114513

Posted by KL on July 24, 2006 8:08 PM (e)

Maybe he can invite Ms. Coulter to respond instead. I’m sure she’d be happy to, given that she has probably made a fortune with his assistance. Hey, she owes him that much.

Comment #114546

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 24, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

some obscure religious journalist

There’s a difference between a religious commentator and a journalist. Is there anything showing actual journalism training and experience for this person?

Comment #114573

Posted by steve s on July 24, 2006 11:04 PM (e)

July 24, 2006
What is a “pseudo-journalist”?

Wesley Elsberry, in blogging about Denyse O’Leary’s recent coming on board here at UD, refers to her as a “pseudo-journalist” (go here)? What a curious designation. Does Wesley’s use of the prefix “pseudo” simply indicate his disapproval of O’Leary and, in particular, her failure to accept his brand of evolution? Or does the prefix indicate something substantive (Denyse, did you come on board here under false pretenses? Are you really a journalist at all? What exactly have you published in recognized media outlets?)

If Denyse is in fact a real journalist, does that make Elsberry a “pseudo-blogger”?
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Just For Fun — William Dembski @ 10:47 pm
Comments (0)

Hard to know where Dembski found the time to blog this. He’s usually in the lab, performing ID experiments….

Comment #114578

Posted by richCares on July 25, 2006 12:27 AM (e)

here’s a link to a previous post on Denyse O’Leary. Should provide some clarificatiom.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/denyse_oleary_o.html

Comment #114580

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 25, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

DOL has published various pieces in popular media. So has Dembski. Dembski may even have a more extensive list of such publications than DOL. But Dembski hasn’t tried to lay claim to “journalist” as a title. There’s more to being a journalist than getting stuff published in daily, weekly, or monthly media.

Comment #114607

Posted by qwerty on July 25, 2006 5:55 AM (e)

Dumbski has been pwned.

Comment #114616

Posted by Chris Lawson on July 25, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

So when Jim Downard asks Dembski to comment on scientific concepts that IDists don’t understand, he is an elitist with all that hi-falutin scientific jargon. But when Dembski uses impenetrable mathematics out of context that IDists don’t understand, it is because he is a genius. Got it.

Comment #114630

Posted by Laser on July 25, 2006 8:04 AM (e)

Why do we bother the man?

Yeah. Doesn’t he have, um, a vigorous ID research program? Surely he can’t waste time with a blog.

Comment #114656

Posted by KL on July 25, 2006 9:52 AM (e)

He appears to have enough time to ban TANSTAAFL for urging him to engage Downard directly:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1351#comments

Comment #114659

Posted by Erasmus on July 25, 2006 9:55 AM (e)

my stars what a fisking. if i was Wild Bill I wouldn’t respond either. it’s like being stuck between a steaming pile of scat and a cold pool of poop. which way do we go which way do we go george which way do we go

the presumption of integrity on behalf of the feeble opposition is perhaps an overestimation but hey that’s an old point. three cheers for Jim Downard! i laughed my hindquarters off.

i’ve about quit lurking over there at uncommon. it’s like going to see the circus three nights in a row, same ol show. it’s beyond me why people take these boot licking clowns seriously. what flavor of kool aid are they a drinkin on?

Comment #114690

Posted by Dr. Bill Quincy on July 25, 2006 10:52 AM (e)

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind. I have found throughout my studies, many anthropologists and the eye doctor community as a whole who disagree with the Evolutionary standpoint. I say this after first being an Evolutionist for the first 18 years of my career. I believe that the Intelligent Design theorum is one of the best laid out theorums known to mankind. The impact it is already having across the world is amazing, and not many Americans are open to this idea. It is primarily the Biologist community and not the Scientific community as a whole that disagree with irreducible complexity as a Science. The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic. As such, I believe it important for our people to realize that ID is and will be the Science that overtakes the Evolutionary viewpoint (and yes Glenn Morton is very and deadly wrong on this issue to I might add).

Dr. Bill Quincy
Cellular Biologist, GSD

Comment #114701

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 25, 2006 11:03 AM (e)

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years.

No you weren’t.

Conversely, I used to be a fundamentalist Christian who believed in the literal Creation in Genesis until I actually read stuff on evolution.

I’m also quite happy to say that this is a LIE. I used to have a policy of not admitting to fundiness even in jest and now I am ashamed.

The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic.

I’d think “Steve” would have something to say about that.

Comment #114726

Posted by steve s on July 25, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

You probably have some other Steve in mind, but I don’t have anything to say about that guy. It’s just babble.

Comment #114745

Posted by Timcol on July 25, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

Bill Quincy wrote:

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind.

I guess I’m slightly incredulous that in 30 years you haven’t learned the correct way to spell theorem, although the rest of your spelling seems fine. Besides, even being charitable, ID is no more than a hypothesis…

Comment #114754

Posted by Timcol on July 25, 2006 12:00 PM (e)

He appears to have enough time to ban TANSTAAFL for urging him to engage Downard directly

After seeing this I went back to re-read the UD comments by TANSTAAFL to see what the fuss was all about. As far as I could see, TANSTAAFL made no ad hominem remarks, his comments were well written and easy to understand. In fact I thought his (or her?) posts were dignified and provided a good balance to the discussion. Sure he makes some pointed remarks (he is talking about Coulter after all), but nothing that on a thousand other blogs would be just an everyday occurrence that would easily slide by.

Of course I’m pointing the obvious here, but it is apparent, once again, that Dembski does not want to encourage free-flowing and open discussion of ID, and freely and openly practices censorship to anybody who dares pull back the green curtain…one can only imagine want it must be like in one of Dembski’s classes if somebody tries to disagree with him…

Comment #114763

Posted by J-Dog on July 25, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

Dr. Bill Quincy, writes like an eighth grader, so I have a few questions for the good “doctor”:
What did you say your degree was in “Doctor”? What university issued it to you? When did you graduate? Where do you currently practice?

Anxiously awaiting your designed answer.

Comment #114771

Posted by Laser on July 25, 2006 12:42 PM (e)

There is a post similar to that of Dr. Bill Quincy on Jason Rosenhouse’s blog. On Jason’s blog, it is written by a “Dr. Morgan Greenwood”. Interestingly, both posts misspell theorem the same way.

Comment #114778

Posted by Timcol on July 25, 2006 12:50 PM (e)

“Dr” Bill seems to have some strange similarities to “Dr” Morgan who posted at EvolutionBlog:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/07/the_state_of_id_research.php

How bizarre – neither of them can spell theorem correctly!!

Even stranger – I googled “Dr” Bill and despite the fact that he has been a research scientists for 30 years, apparently he has left zero trace on the Internet.

Comment #114781

Posted by KL on July 25, 2006 12:54 PM (e)

You think this might be Larry again?

Comment #114782

Posted by KL on July 25, 2006 12:57 PM (e)

Scratch that; Larry was already posting on Jason’s blog. Can’t be him.

Comment #114783

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 25, 2006 1:02 PM (e)

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind. I have found throughout my studies, many anthropologists and the eye doctor community as a whole who disagree with the Evolutionary standpoint. I say this after first being an Evolutionist for the first 18 years of my career. I believe that the Intelligent Design theorum is one of the best laid out theorums known to mankind. The impact it is already having across the world is amazing, and not many Americans are open to this idea. It is primarily the Biologist community and not the Scientific community as a whole that disagree with irreducible complexity as a Science. The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic. As such, I believe it important for our people to realize that ID is and will be the Science that overtakes the Evolutionary viewpoint (and yes Glenn Morton is very and deadly wrong on this issue to I might add).

Dr. Bill Quincy
Cellular Biologist, GSD

OK, on the other thread you claim to be a writer. Not that we believe either one, of course, but you seem not to even be able to keep your stories straight.

Btw, what is “the Intelligent Design theorum”? We fail to recognize anything that makes it into a scientific theorem. Perhaps you mean that it is an excellent religious theorem. I have my doubts, but then religion isn’t my concern.

So give us this theorem. We’d like to have an actual theorem to deal with, since we ought to be able to have a discussion with someone who has an actual theorem.

Okay, for a “writer”, you don’t spell especially well, but your use of incorrect forms of words is all the worse:

The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic.

Btw, an actual scientist would discuss not only evidence behind ID, but evidence for rapid growth of ID in science. Seeing that you are a cretin, dishonest, and lie about what you are, I’m sure that you don’t care about evidence at all, or at least not when any of your prejudices are threatened.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #114827

Posted by jujuquisp on July 25, 2006 3:54 PM (e)

Dr. Bill Quincy is pulling your legs, guys. It is called satire, not very good satire, but satire nonetheless. I call Poe’s Law.

Comment #114860

Posted by GuyeFaux on July 25, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

I have no problem with ID if we call it a scientific theorum. Dembski then is an ID theorust.

Comment #114916

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 26, 2006 1:49 AM (e)

We shouldn’t let on that we know about this guy. We need him to continue to spell “theorum” so that we can identify him later on.

Comment #114950

Posted by J-Dog on July 26, 2006 8:33 AM (e)

Anonymous - I wouldn’t worry about it. It doesn’t matter if the troll calls itself “Dr. Quincy” or “Dr. Greenwood”… it will always betray itself by writing with it’s 8th grade education and thoughts. Unless it actually reads a book (not by Coulter or Wells) and gets educated. Of course, once it’s really educated, it wouldn’t be a troll!

Comment #114957

Posted by fnxtr on July 26, 2006 9:00 AM (e)

I wonder if Dr. QuincyMorgan is the same jester who posted such a slick parody a couple months ago, the one who had everyone convinced he was genuine… until the link to timecube. What was his name again….

Comment #114971

Posted by Darth Robo on July 26, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

I remember that one (just not the name!). I don’t think he was a real troll, while I reckon “Dr” Morgan here is.

Comment #115009

Posted by William E Emba on July 26, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

GuyeFaux wrote:

I have no problem with ID if we call it a scientific theorum. Dembski then is an ID theorust.

You mean Dumbski then is an ID theorust.

Comment #115086

Posted by Wheels on July 27, 2006 12:39 AM (e)

I thought the name TANSTAAFL looked familiar, I know somebody who uses that name in another venue. A quit private message confirmed that they were indeed the same person.
The internet gets smaller every day!

Comment #115087

Posted by Wheels on July 27, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

And by “quit,” of course, I mean “quick.”
I’m not very quit-witted at this time of day.

Comment #115158

Posted by fnxtr on July 27, 2006 9:34 AM (e)

Wheels: Sorry. I had the notion that the good “Doctor” Quincy was you yanking our collective chain. Again. :-)

Comment #115240

Posted by stevaroni on July 27, 2006 3:03 PM (e)

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design

Well, then I’ll have to deffer to your opinion - But only because you had that cool TV show a few years back.

Comment #115326

Posted by Wheels on July 28, 2006 12:01 AM (e)

I would never lower myself to using sock accounts.
I always post my parody in the open!

Comment #115339

Posted by Jim Downard on July 28, 2006 2:19 AM (e)

It appears that another UD poster is trying to prod Dembski to respond to the particulars of my criticisms. We’ll see how far that gets. I sent an email of my own to UD some days ago, summarizing the dozen criticisms I’d made in Parts I & 2, but it hasyet to be posted.

As the dust continues to settle, I will post periodic updates on the “progress” of Dembski’s aptitude to turn his acceptance of responsibility into a concrete connection to facts.

Comment #115431

Posted by Casey Luskin on July 28, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

Well guys, I have to tell you, being a former Evolutionist myself, I don’t believe you quite have a firm understanding of the Intelligent Design Theorem. Lets begin by actually defining what it is. ID is as referred to on ideacenter.org, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.” Again, no attempt is manifested to explain who or what the Intelligent Cause is. We have several criticisms to actual Evolutionary standards: . Common Criticisms of evolution:

1. The “Origin of Life”(not exactly the “evolution of life,” but the chemical starting point of life)

This illustration shows a portion of an Escherichia coli cell, one of the “simplest” known bacteria. Many necessary parts are shown including the cell wall, flagellum, ribosomes, tRNA, mRNA, enzymes, and nucleus with DNA and its machinery. From http://www.scripps.edu/pub/goodsell/illustration/public for your viewing pleasure.

Life has never been created in a laboratory, contrary to popular belief.
If life is ever created in the lab, how would we know it could or would happen that way in the natural world? In regards to irreducible complexity: There are many biological parts which function like “machines.” These machines only work if all the parts are present (for an example, see the Bacterial Flagellum). If one part is removed, the entire machine “breaks down.” The word “irreducible” means: “Impossible to reduce to a desired, simpler, or smaller form.” Such machines are “irreducibly complex,” because if they had any fewer parts, they would not work properly. Evolution cannot build irreducibly complex organs because evolution requires that all things arise in small steps, each of which are functional. For irreducibly complex organs, small steps are impossible because the organ is only functional if all parts are present. In this “all or nothing” game, “intermediate stages” of evolution are impossible because they would not function. Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a “step-by-step” evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, “How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?”
To categorize an Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is incorrect. It is Scientifically testable! I am greatly disappointed with this site, simply because it misleads its audience into believing that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience. Indeed, this is a direct attack and a rather dishonest one.

Casey Luskin

Comment #115432

Posted by creeky belly on July 28, 2006 6:24 PM (e)

Wow! Casey Luskin, is it really you?! I have so many questions, where to start?

How do you explain the fact that the immune system, which had been described by IDers as irreducibly complex, now has a multipart, evolutionary pathway? Where does this fit into the “theory”?

Comment #115437

Posted by Coin on July 28, 2006 7:03 PM (e)

Casey Luskin wrote:

Well guys, I have to tell you, being a former Evolutionist myself,

Ah, the “yoosta bee” argument. “You can tell my current convictions are strong, because my old convictions were apparently weak enough I gave up on them”. Wait, is Casey Luskin “a former Evolutionist”? Is this really Casey Luskin?

Casey Luskin wrote:

I don’t believe you quite have a firm understanding of the Intelligent Design Theorem.

The Intelligent Design Theorem, huh. That’s such an odd choice of words I’m inclined to bet this isn’t really Casey Luskin, considering that the site is currently in the crosshairs of an account-hopping troll whose calling card seems to be misuses of the word “Theorum”. Well, just in case this is really Mr. Luskin, I shall plow ahead anyway.

Casey Luskin wrote:

Lets begin by actually defining what it is. ID is as referred to on ideacenter.org, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.”

Is that the whole theory? Really?

Which features of the universe and living things? What intelligent cause? Where did this intelligent cause come from? What are the abilities and limitations of this intelligent cause? How may we predict which features are and aren’t designed by this intelligent cause, and how can we be certain that the intelligent cause did or didn’t design that feature? And why do you say that “an intelligent cause” and “undirected, chance based process” are mutually exclusive options?

If you don’t have answers to at the least these questions, you don’t have a theory.

Casey Luskin wrote:

Common Criticisms of evolution… the chemical starting point of life

That would be a criticism of abiogenesis theories, or a criticism of mainstream biology, but not a criticism of evolution, surely? The theory of evolution, more or less by definition, describes what happened after the chemical starting point of life. Why not just claim the Big Bang itself is a part of evolutionary theory? (Wait, doesn’t your Dr. Behe do that already?)

Casey Luskin wrote:

Life has never been created in a laboratory, contrary to popular belief.

Depending on what you mean by this, this is either an obviously false statement (mice are bred in laboratories all the time), or a statement so obviously and inarguably true as to be entirely unhelpful (capital l Life, the final end product of any theory of abiogenesis, has never been replicated in a laboratory from scratch; as far as I know we’ve gotten only as far as polypeptides).

Casey Luskin wrote:

Evolution cannot build irreducibly complex organs

I seem to remember your Dr. Behe was entirely unable to convince the judge of this at Dover.

Casey Luskin wrote:

To categorize an Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is incorrect.

I seem to remember your Dr. Behe was entirely unable to convince the judge of this at Dover either.

Casey Luskin wrote:

It [ID] is Scientifically testable!

How?

Casey Luskin wrote:

Casey Luskin

Problems with paragraph breaks, signs the post with his name at the end. Sounds familiar. I don’t think this is really Casey Luskin. I think this is just Dr. Theorum again, who is apparently altogether too incompetent of a troll to significantly vary his writing style. Disappointing :(

Creeky Belly wrote:

Wow! Casey Luskin, is it really you?!

That’s the crazy part. It’s totally impossible to tell the difference between Casey Luskin and some guy parodying Casey Luskin. We just don’t know.

Comment #115441

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 28, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

Yeah, and here’s a question for Casey (real or phony, I doubt it’ll make much intellectual difference) from this pinhead:

Hey, Casey baby-lawyer Luskin, what “legal” expertise did you think you had built up–after your massive eight months’ experience as a California lawyer (and that’s now, not when you wrote it–that suggested to you that you had the props to plausibly critique Judge Jones’ superbly-reasoned and written Kitzmiller decision?

Just curious–because to the reality-based community it looked (and read!) a lot like a wittle bittie kittie taking a swipe at a junkyard dog–not a pretty sight!

I hope the Disco Institute “research facilities” is better equipped with bandages, absorbent pads, and other first-aid material than it seems to be with, uh, laboratory equipment.

Comment #115442

Posted by steve s on July 28, 2006 7:14 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'blockquote'

Comment #115446

Posted by Darth Robo on July 28, 2006 7:47 PM (e)

Casey Luskin(?) wrote:

“How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?”

Keyword being ALMOST. I’m curious as to why the intelligent designer made birds that can’t fly.

Comment #115448

Posted by steve s on July 28, 2006 8:14 PM (e)

To categorize an Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is incorrect. It is Scientifically testable!

This is not the real Casey Luskin. Luskin, dumb as he is, is not dumb enough to say that.

As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, “How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?”

Well, you could listen to a religious zealot lawyer tell you it can’t be, or you can listen to actual scientists talk about the development of wings.

Comment #115449

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 28, 2006 8:16 PM (e)

As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, “How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?”

It’s not often you hear the argument “I don’t understand how it could have happened, so therefore it’s impossible!” stated so baldly.

Comment #115451

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 28, 2006 8:20 PM (e)

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.”

Blah blah blah. Tell it to the judge.

Oh, wait, you already DID.

How’d that, uh, turn out for you …. ?

Comment #115460

Posted by Henry J on July 28, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

Re “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

What IS that explanation, already? For some reason they never seem to get around to telling anybody what their explanation is

Henry

Comment #115469

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 28, 2006 11:07 PM (e)

What IS that explanation, already? For some reason they never seem to get around to telling anybody what their explanation is…

Oh no, they said it, it’s just that you missed it because ‘Goddidit’ goes by awfully quick.

Comment #115488

Posted by Mark Perakh on July 29, 2006 1:53 AM (e)

A funny detail: The email address given by Casey Luskin (comment 115431) is exactly the same as given before by “Dr. Griffin” (JesusMarine2005@yahoo.com). In its turn, both “Dr. Griffin” and “Dr. Quincy” posted from the same computer. It looks like either both monikers (Griffin and Quincy) were used by Luskin, or the troll using those two “names,” being banned from PT, signs now as “Luskin” and uses one more computer in order to continue clogging PT with his drivel. Whichever guess is correct, in any case this is a case of an impudent and despicable troll.

Comment #115533

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 29, 2006 12:53 PM (e)

Well guys, I have to tell you, being a former Evolutionist myself, I don’t believe you quite have a firm understanding of the Intelligent Design Theorem. Lets begin by actually defining what it is. ID is as referred to on ideacenter.org, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.”

Admittedly, my qualifications are not too great. But THAT, for a fact, does not match any currently accepted definitions for a scientific theory. THAT is more of a “theory” along the lines of “I reckon the Ancients built Atlantis on Antarctica and then moved to the Pegasus Galaxy, only to move back to Earth and ascend the hell out of this plane of existence”.

Bloody hell. I’d rather convert to “Origin”.

Comment #115537

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 29, 2006 12:57 PM (e)

A funny detail: The email address given by Casey Luskin (comment 115431) is exactly the same as given before by “Dr. Griffin” (JesusMarine2005@yahoo.com). In its turn, both “Dr. Griffin” and “Dr. Quincy” posted from the same computer. It looks like either both monikers (Griffin and Quincy) were used by Luskin, or the troll using those two “names,” being banned from PT, signs now as “Luskin” and uses one more computer in order to continue clogging PT with his drivel. Whichever guess is correct, in any case this is a case of an impudent and despicable troll.

If it is Casey Luskin, then that only goes to show that IDiots need to resort to such tactics as faking users. I must say it would have been a good application of Sunzi with regards to making your numbers seem frighteningly large.

Given this evidence of such tactics, we have to wonder how much of their “Scientists against Evolution” list is actually genuine.

Comment #115607

Posted by Henry J on July 29, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Re “Oh no, they said it, it’s just that you missed it because ‘Goddidit’ goes by awfully quick.”

Well yeah, maybe, but ‘Goddidit’ doesn’t necessarily contradict the basics of evolution theory anyway. So if that’s all it was, what’re they fussing about?

Henry

Comment #115697

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 30, 2006 10:58 AM (e)

Well yeah, maybe, but ‘Goddidit’ doesn’t necessarily contradict the basics of evolution theory anyway. So if that’s all it was, what’re they fussing about?

Which is part of the point.

There is no cohesive theory (or hypothesis).

They change their tune according to the crowd.

“We’re not about religion” when they talk to scientists.
“We want to get rid of materialism and secularism” when they talk to religious ignorant people.

Didn’t Michael Behe say that he didn’t have problems with some parts of evolutionary theory? And didn’t other IDiots say they have a problem with all of evolutionary theory?

“Goddidit” doesn’t necessarily contradict the basics of evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory is about the how, not the who.

ID ranges from implying “whodunnit” to “whodunnit must have dunnit dis way”.

Comment #115857

Posted by fnxtr on July 31, 2006 10:13 AM (e)

Crazy Luddite:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.” Again, no attempt is manifested to explain who or what the Intelligent Cause is.

Then what possible use can it be?
You don’t really want answers, do you?
You like keeping everything all mysterious and medieval.
So sad for you.