Casey Luskin has responded, apparently, to my post about his seemingly conspiratorial question for Judge Jones. I noted that he had clearly implied that Judge Jones had allowed someone else to write his ruling. The only alternative was that Luskin was making a terrible analogy. Now he says the latter was correct:
[Note added 5/5/06: Apparently this question has caused some controversy so I want to clarify: This post was a parody. My intent is not to imply that Judge Jones plagiarized, nor do I think he did. The point was that the arguments in his decision so-closely resembled those of the plaintiffs so much that it seems like he uncritically accepted anything they said-even patently, demonstrably false statements akin to “ID has published no peer-reviewed literature”-a claim which he made over 5 times in the decision, and is easily refuted by the existence of various papers. If the plaintiffs said it, then it went uncritically into the decision. The “pre-publication” drafts part was simply a take off of all the big deal made about pre-publication drafts of Pandas during the trial. Of course I do not think Judge Jones plagiarized. I’m sure he wrote his own decision. But it’s clear where he took his arguments from.]
This explanation only raises more problems with his claim. First, this claim about peer reviewed ID articles is a red herring. Clearly, Judge Jones is referring to the fact that there is no research published anywhere that supports ID as a model. In fact, DI fellow Michael Behe admitted as much under oath. From the ruling itself:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.
The list of articles that Luskin refers to easily refuting this claim does nothing of the sort. The first three are not from peer reviewed journals, but from a popular book, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, a book edited by two DI fellows, Meyer and Campbell. The fourth is Meyer’s article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an article that contains no research whatsoever but only a mishmash of claims taken straight from the creationist literature. And the board of that journal has publicly disavowed the article because the editor, Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures to make sure the article got in the journal (in his last issue as editor – how convenient, eh?).
The Lonnig paper argues only that Behe’s IC notion and Dembski’s CSI notion have potential applications – but of course, no one has ever actually attempted to apply them to the real world. The article does not argue for ID, nor does it even define an ID model that could be argued for. It also contains no research whatsoever. It’s just another ID advocate claiming that their arguments will, sometime in the future, lead to some research that might confirm those ideas. Wake us up when that happens; more predictions of the same mean nothing.
And among the books listed as being allegedly peer reviewed is Behe’s own Darwin’s Black Box – but off course the Dover trial established the fact that the “peer review” that book underwent was a joke. Of the three reviewers we know of for the book, two of them thought it was absurd and have written so, while a third admitted that he never even saw the book, only had a 10 minute conversation with the editor about whether it would sell. This is peer review in the ID world.
As for the rest of Luskin’s argument, it is patently absurd. Now he claims that while Judge Jones did write his own ruling it’s “clear where he took his arguments from” – meaning from the briefs filed by the plaintiffs. Well gee, that’s a shock. Both sides file briefs on every single legal argument in a case. The judge, in deciding the case, has to decide which one is right – meaning he has to agree with one of them in the end. Is it really a shock, then, that the judge’s ruling would concur with the arguments of one side or the other? If the judgement were reversed, his ruling would have taken up the arguments of the defense. Do you suppose Luskin would be bothered by that? Of course not. He’s bothered only because his side lost, and this is a silly attempt to distract attention from that fact. A judge’s ruling must concur with the arguments of one side or the other. This is only an issue for those attempting frantically to distract from the real issue.