A while back, two ladies visited the Discovery Institute, and wrote about their experiences afterwards. They admittedly did so under false pretenses, acting as if they were fellow travelers in creationism, but they did get interesting and amusing responses from the inhabitants.
They tried to do it again. They wrote a letter and were entirely upfront about their motives this time, and asked to have a real conversation about Intelligent Design creationism.
Casey Luskin wrote back. It would have been entirely understandable if he'd simply turned them down, but no … instead, he writes a long letter in which he stirs himself to defend the DI in a rambling reply that offers fascinating insight into how these people see themselves. Number one: they are civil. That seems to be all that matters. Never mind that they are calling almost every biologist in the world corrupt and deceitful; ignore the fact that they are a propaganda organization trying to poison the educational system of our country; it is entirely irrelevant that they are ignorant of biology yet want to dictate how all of science should be taught; they think they are being very, very nice. And Casey Luskin, of course, has been nothing but sweetness and generosity, a poor soul who has been rebuffed by the "Darwinist community", and who gets called mean names.
Then he makes demands. He's willing to meet and talk if:
-
The ladies apologize for their previous attitudes towards the DI.
-
They edit all of their past posts about their visit to the DI to add a disclaimer, saying that they were sorry, that they were naughty, and urging everyone else to be nice to the DI.
-
They make a new series of blog posts that call all those other "Darwinist" blogs on the carpet.
-
They cease saying mean things about all creationists henceforth.
Awww, doesn't that sound exactly like someone who wants to kiss and make up? Although I'm actually thinking the whole thing makes him sound like a whiny, pretentious pipsqueak.
Ooops, there I go again. I just violated the "culture of civility" in which Casey takes such peculiarly unself-aware pride. I am chastened, and need to revise my approach, I think. I therefore offer to get together and discuss reconciliation with the creationists if:
-
Casey Luskin immediately apologizes for the Institute's meddling in school boards around the country.
-
They edit all of their PR pieces at Evolution News & Views to include a disclaimer, saying that they were sorry, they really don't know what they're talking about, and they ought not to be peddling such nonsense.
-
They make a new series of blog posts at EN&V that tell all the ID blogs that they shouldn't be pushing propaganda anymore, and that their ought to be some actual science done for ID before they make further demands to change the culture to suit their ideology.
-
They cease saying stupid things about biology henceforth.
I think that's fair.
He'll probably turn me down. That's OK. The poor guy has just added to his own mythos with an obliviously pathetic email that adds pitiful whiner to his accomplishments as a credentialist toady and scientific ignoramus; maybe he'll learn his lesson, and realize that sometimes he needs to shut up, crawl into a corner, and lick his wounds.
(By the way, the two ladies will be on the Skepticality podcast in a week or two. I'll have to catch that one for sure.)
- Log in to post comments
Simply religulous.
I remember I had a good laugh at that story back when it came out.
The self-righteousness of the likes of Luskin et al is simply mindboggling.
Thanks for the podcast link!
I've read Skeptic for a while now, and had no idea they had a show.
Mostly OT
PZ, the Evolution and Entropy thread from 11/10 now has 1300+ posts. The latest troll says he will be back, and is a stupid persistent IDiot. Could you please close that thread and open a new one?
If already done, please delete this post.
They are counterfeiting civility. It's a cover to sucker the gullible.
My mother, a very religious creationist, asked me to go with her to Tenn. to see the creationist museum with her. I almost said yes just for the blog fuel, but then felt it wouldn't be fair to her and it would be several days that I wouldn't ever be able to get back.
Casey should also apologize to Judge Jones for falsely accusing him of plagiarism.
And Luskin should also apologize for misuse of another site's icon.
Remarks like this never cease to amaze me.
***
The concept of "civility" has come to be a weapon brandished by those with no or weak substantive arguments or those who already hold power or resources to bash down legitimate criticism and opposition. This is true on the blogosphere and in the larger political realm.
What is it about the religious that that causes them to expect automatic respect and deference? And the funny thing is, if they are not treated as such out of hand, they immediately recoil in surprise and whimper "but I'm a christian"... and then become even more surprised when they are treated with even less respect after that.
If you steal from me and lie to me, but do it nicely with a smile on your face and use kind words, you're still a liar and a thief.
Respect and deference are not owed to you, Luskin.
First: PZ, thanks for sharing Casey's incredible arrogance and crywanking.
Second, hi everybody. This is our new site. http://visitdiscovery.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/casey-luskin-wants-skept…
We really, really want everyone who is in the area to take a trek down to the Institute, since Casey insists that they happily admit ID skeptics and give them just the same treatment they gave us. I think everyone should test that theory and it's load bearing capabilities.
:)
Thanks for mentioning the show P.Z., we can't wait to talk to them tomorrow. The episode should be coming out this coming Tuesday evening/afternoon for those that want to check it out.
But, but, but he's an attorney.
Hi Tiana,
Been reading your blog since the first post about your visit to the the DI. Kudos for exposing these people's religous fantasies. I always enjoy your humour and biting observations. Wish I could've been there to see your visit :-) Screw them if they can't take a joke, hehe.
Thanks for reminding me of this. Last time I visited Tiana's blog, the story had not yet reached its conclusion, so it was nice to go back and read the rest of it. I'll have to knock on their door next time I'm in Seattle.
From teh man himmselff:
In trying to understand what is most important, I have found that it really comes down to knowing God, and growing through that relationship with Him. What does that mean? If you're not a Christian, then knowing God basically means coming to a deeper understanding of God's perfect character and becoming more like Him in His selfless love. Judeo Christian religions teach that however God made us, we are made in the "image of God." That basically means that excluding qualities like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, we have a similar emotional and spiritual make-up to God (He's also morally perfect and holy and we are not). Some of the same things that hurt Him also hurt us, and we are made so we are fulfilled when we become more like Him. We humans are not perfect (me especially), but God wants us to grow so that we become more like Him.
Casey Luskin www.caseyluskin.com
I don't know what it is that makes people who try to emulate their deity such liars. Supposedly their deity wants them to tell the truth. Unless, of course, their deity is a wackaloon who no rational person could emulate.
Nope...! just making a gambit for the only high ground left for them to attempt to ascend.
Having realised that they for the most part their version of godwotdidit registers an 'epic fail' in their impact on the sciences, or should I say on the hard of thinking seeing as they are the real target for this nonsense, they have changed from promulgating bullshite to faking civility just to try and drum up sympathy to the cause from the undecided in the populace.
Being belligerent and aggressive has nose dived spectacularly, they totally misjudged being passionate in the delusion they ended up being outright obnoxiousness in general...they still make that error but now it is not deliberate just understandable if evolutionists sorely provoke them.
Do they think anyone will be fooled by their open door fake civility?...doubtful methinks but public opinion is a notoriously easy door to swing...more likely it is a tentative shot at gaining kudos in the media then a change of attitude as a cult.
A ranting sarcastic vitriolic barely legible e-mail would end up in the media...these bunnies know that...
luskin knew it was highly likely his rambling epistle would also end up as public...hence the background dirge as to what DI and his civil self are about...it was a promotional flyer more then a reply, but he still did not get the tone quite right the demands attached were a slip showing under their dogmatic and pompous petticoat.
But Babylon was not built in a day...
Pragmatic to the end? maybe.
Delusional? certainly,
Effective? well the mere fact they are trying this tactic means that a certain amount of confidence is evident in the ploy.
Leopard changing their spots...well evolution has been debunked by their 'scientists' has it not...anything is possible!
A civil ID proponent...wow!...that is evolution...and it's Macro!
Doesn't number 4 take care of the whole problem? If creationists and IDiots stop saying stupid things about biology their entire movement is over.
Well, what do you expect from a person whose cosmic worldview includes as a fundamental precept the idea that forgiveness requires killing a family member?
Casey Luskin: Arrogant, Ignorant, whiny little bitch and liar for Jeebus.
I think we should just demand they allow dissenting comments on all their sites. That would take care of everything else, which is, of course, why it will never happen.
Casey Luskin: Arrogant, Ignorant, whiny little bitch and liar for Jeebus.
You forgot "civil" and "nice." Those are very important. If he's civil, speaks in a calm, serious tone and dresses neatly and grooms himself, than it doesn't matter if he says earth-shatteringly stupid things. The important thing is, he's a gentleman about it. Hey, this formula works well for Bill O'Reilly!
Aaaah, but they do have a very revealing disclaimer under every post:
"The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site."
;)
@ celtic evolution:
As a former Catholic, I personally think it's because they're raised to hold their own church elders to a level of automatic respect, and it's an offshoot of such conditioning (I can't call it anything else). So it's something of a case of, "I have to respect the people teaching me my beliefs; therefore, so do you!" Never mind their beliefs are nonsense.
"Hey, this formula works well for Bill O'Reilly!"
C'mon, there is a yawning chasm between this sentence and the ones preceding it, except perhaps for the parts about grooming. O'Reilly is the antithesis of "nice," and "gentlemen" don't yell over their guests and cut their microphones.
Ha! Winey Casey stopped by Panda's Forum blog ATBC (After The Bar Closes) a while back to forgive us for making fun of him.
What an ignoramus - but a funny ignoramus.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4928500e…
I have gone to read the DI propaganda at Evolution News & Views a few times and been disappointed there was no way to comment. I will admit that I was outraged enough that I might have missed it, but just in case, please add this to the list: Casey will allow comments to all articles at Evolution News & Views.
For about a sentence and a half--the part where he indicates that he doesn't want to meet with people who just make fun of him--he seemed reasonable. And if he'd left it at that--for example, Meet again? Screw you bitches--it would have been okay.
Instead, Mr. Just-Too-Civil-for-Words comes up with this gosh, if you just suck up to me, insult your friends, suck up to me, abjure your own beliefs and suck up to me, I just might, after 6 months or so of what I consider to be high-quality sucking up, think about allowing you access to this fabulous treasure.
Bizarrely, this is not an attempt to write a screw-you letter in a "civil" manner; Luskin clearly thinks this unctuous, martyred approach is a reasonable offer. (He's what the feminist blogs call a "nice guy.")
Please tell me this attempting-to-be-manipulative jerk-off doesn't have kids.
I would bet good money that Luskin is a teetotaler.
Or maybe they think their God is a liar, and therefore they should be too?
Is it uncivil to call Casey Luskin a fucktard?
That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Yeah, the right-wingers love to call themselves "civil," just like they love to refer to themselves as "conservative." Makes them sound so sensible and upstanding. Yet, they are the ones most likely to fill the email boxes of people who question them with death threats. And if PZ receives any threats because of his comments on Luskin, Luskin will probably resort to the typical right-winger's authoritarian line of "We gave you an opportunity to apologize" followed by "Choices have consequences."
Shorter luskin
What an unbelievable tool. Whoever put him in a position of power on the ID movement has got to be regretting it. This man is not only an embarrassment to himself, he's an embarrassment to anything he represents. I wonder how the DI feels about him demanding censorship...
Luskin certainly has a sense of entitlement:
One € says he's not.
I can't believe how poorly the guy writes. As I posted on Tiana & Kate's site, I have read more coherent, grammatical Nigerian bank-scam spam.
I loved this... the money quote:
In many instances, this culture of demonization has spread off the 'net into the real world. In one instance, elements of it got incorporated into a judicial ruling.
I'm gonna guess that he claims to be a teetotaler, but secretly drinks alone. A lot.
My favorite line:
"Dicking around with them" just struck me as such an adolescent phrase for a relatively formal letter, and especially out of place in one addressed to two women. The quotation marks are also funny, and the whole notion is simply ludicrous. Made me laugh. Do I get any points?
#30 - "Please tell me this attempting-to-be-manipulative jerk-off doesn't have kids."
Rumor has it that Casey is in a type of relationship where neither member is of the gender that bears young.
Ooooh boy, that might be more disastrous than piglet rape!
If you say so, but inasmuch as heterosexuality is sort of a default position (especially for "cultural conservatives"), someone as small-minded and self-referential as Luskin is likely to take his disinclination to sleep with women as an indication that, God-fearing boy that he is, he, at least, paid attention in all those abstinence-only classes.
Hey Science Avenger, your descenting comments are welcome at my blog. And if Kate and Tiana what to debate a small fish over coffee in Seattle I am open to that too.
As far as I'm aware, and that is only as far as Casey's word goes, he's got a wife.
I'd also point out that comments on his sexuality, like those above, not only miss the point but veer dangerously near that lovely custom of employing the intimation of homosexuality as a slur. Which is some pretty wack shit.
Hey Randy, why do you want Science Avenger to post on your site about removing the musk producing anal glands of creatures such as ferrets. Enquiring minds want to know :)
Tiana,
I agree that using sexuality in ANY way as a slur isn't right but when discussing the sexuality of someone like Casey or his ilk, anything deviating from the straight and narrow adds delightfully to the hypocrisy. That's how I read it anyway.
Is anyone else really tired of reading about people waiting with "baited breath"? What, they ate some cheese and waited by the mousehole?
Would someone please inform that Darwinist intellectual PZ Myers that the term is not "DI", but rather "ID". Inform him that it refers to "Intelligent Design". He evidently has not yet completed his remedial reading class.
Gerald Berry,
DI id the Discovery Institute, major purveyor of ID, (non)intelligent design
Pwned.
Gerald Berry,
nice one....
You will make a good drone.
Baited breath is having worms in your mouth. Bated breath refers to a state in which you almost stop breathing as a result of some strong emotion, such as terror or awe. While "bate" is obsolete as a verb, it's the root of the legal term "abatement," meaning "suppression or termination:" abatement of a nuisance.
As with so many idioms and cliches, "bated breath" was coined by Shakespeare. In The Merchant of Venice Shylock says to Antonio: "Shall I bend low and, in a bondman's key, / With bated breath and whisp'ring humbleness, / Say this ..."
You've just described one of the major tactics of religion in general, not just Intelligent Design. As I've stated (ranted) before, there is this huge public tendency to mistake Style for Substance.
Many people fall into what I secretly call the "Bliss Ninny" category. They're looking for comfortable surfaces that smooth over relationships and give the appearance of harmony and happiness, for Truth must be palatable, and make everyone feel good. Bliss Ninnies seem to think that an argument is more likely to be correct if the person making it is nice. Therefore, it's more important to try to understand the people making the argument than it is to understand what the argument is really about.
Civility is their hermeneutic, the secret shortcut to insight and discernment. Forget evidence. It's never really about the evidence -- it's about personal motives. People who get angry are acting selfish and proud, so their beliefs must be self-centered and their reasoning can't be trusted. People who smile and are relaxed are comfortable with others because they want to help people, so the truth must be on their side. Polite, gentle, kindly explanations of eternal damnation will beat out heated, intemperate, hostile denunciations of never-ending torture in the Niceness sweepstakes. Buzz words like "caring," "respect," and "higher values" can sell witch burnings. In Bliss Ninny World, what is Nice, is True.
You swear, you lose. They shut you out. Flatter them, you can get away with murder.
* -- Handy tip for dealing with Bliss Ninnies: whatever the issue, be sure to stick in a phrase like "It's really all about love." Doesn't matter if it makes sense. Either you -- or they -- will find some way to connect it, and it gives major Brownie Points.
"If there's no God, then how can there be any objective right and wrong?"
"Well, it's all about Love, really. Evolutionary psychology demonstrates that empathy evolved in group-dwelling species blah blah blah."
"How could something as complex as the eye evolve? What good is half an eye?"
It comes down to Love. A half an eye is better than no eye at all. Examinations of the paths of evolutionary development in different species blah blah blah."
"How come atheists like Dawkins are so mean and snotty?"
"Love."
Say the word "love" before they say the word "love." It disarms them, and throws them off. They think "that fucker just stole Love. Shit. Now what do I do?"
Am I alone in thinking that Luskin's not completely off the wall with this? I'm no creationist, I think it's nonsense, but a) it's sad that I felt like I had to mention that in order not to be laughed off the blog, and b) regardless of whether someone is being intellectually responsible, they ought to be entitled to a baseline level of personal respect. You could re-cast Luskin's requests like this:
1) "Say that you are sorry for being deceitful to me and my co-workers." (Lying is bad even if you do it to people who are massively mistaken about biology!)
2) "Make amends for being deceitful and rude, by using your influence in the evolutionist community to tell everyone to quit being so personally unkind and that you are sorry to have been unkind yourself." (Being unkind is bad even if you do it to Creationists!)
3) 2, cont'd.
4) "Prove that you are sincere about not being unkind anymore, by not being unkind anymore. Oh, and don't publish this private correspondence." (Posting communications intended to be private on the Internet without the person's permission is mean, even if you really want to give your audience yet another excuse to ridicule your opponent!)
Creationists are people too. Being nasty to them is, for one thing, preaching to the choir and alienating everyone else (I've never heard a deconversion story that went "well, I was a Christian, but I got picked on by atheists on the Internet a lot, and by golly, an opinion shared by that many jerks has just got to be worth further investigation; that's why I'm an atheist now.") For another thing, being nasty to people because they don't believe the same things as us is - well - nasty. Why do we instantly cry "see? See? They're not nice at all!" when people of different religions attack each other, but applaud ourselves for attacking the same targets?
Alicorn #57 wrote:
Well, it really all comes down to love, I think.
Alicorn, ridicule is the only effective weapon against charlatans and crooks, and I use the terms deliberately, like the IDiots from the Dishonesty Institute. When you have dealt with their lies and deceit for the umpteenth time, you run out of patience. Especially when according to their own Wedge document, their real intent is to turn the USA into a theocracy and ID sneaking into the science class is just one of the methods they intend to use. They deserve no respect as respect has to be earned.
Ha-hm. Reminds me of this:
Interestingly, in the original context, she was observing that saying anything at all about being an atheist was discomfiting to theist listeners, no matter how nicely it was phrased.
Of course, that's kind of your point: That particular subset of theists will retire in confusion (or will at least be baffled for a while) precisely because they are discomfited by noble sentiments arising in conjunction with not believing in God.
It's your only weapon because you are stupid.
Randy Stimpson Stimpy.....
Do you realize how monumentally stupid it is to use an alias that links back to your own blog?
Sheesh.
"Even though I have drifted away from Christian belief my thoughts about evolution haven't changed so I decided to explore the topic again. Maybe you will be the one to change my mind, but if your best argument is to call me stupid or tell me to "go read a book", then fuck you. (I didn't say that. My alternate personality did ;-)." Stright from the horse's mouth (stimpy) But there was more back and forth happening here:
At 4:48 PM, November 10, 2008, Rickr0ll said...
go to talkorigins.com
ID is not a competing theory.
It's not irreducable complexity, it's interlocking complexity, which was predicted by an evolutionary scientist in 1903. Furthermore, it is an Argument from Incredulity, and holds no water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
This stuff is alot heavier than eigth grade level. I won't insult your intelligence
"At 1:51 PM, November 11, 2008, Intelligent Designer said...
Hi Rickr0ll,
I skimmed the Abiogenesis article on Wikipedia. It looks interesting. I'll get back to it when I have more time. Is there any part of it you think I should take special note of?
I have read quite a bit at talkorigins.org. I don't consider it to be a credible source of information.
At 2:13 PM, November 11, 2008, rickr0ll said...
how is talk origins not credible? the Index to Creationist Claims is worth the trip alone! besides they cite everything. you don't have to believe they are credable, just accept that thier sources are.
but on the abiogenisis article, it is all roughl of equal merit because none of the hypothoses are verified yet. see you soon!
At 10:38 PM, November 22, 2008, Rickr0ll said...
i see that you still Are trolling pharnygula, yet as much space as you waste there spouting unscientific nonsense, you ignore your own Blog! You never properly dismissed talkorigins, but merely made an argumentum ad authoritatum then proptly left. WELL, i'm waiting!
At 11:20 PM, November 22, 2008, Intelligent Designer said...
I am not interested in having a silly conversation about the credibility of talkorigins.org. And you forgot to read the last two lines of this blog entry.
---+--
I made another comment in response to this, something along the lines of:
"you ignorant fucktard, if you can't disprove the credability of Talkorigins, then "silly conversation" is merely code for "unwinnable argument." And since this is indeed the case until proven otherwise, there is no way that you could have ANY intellectual integrity. YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!!"
It would appear i had to go back on my word, but this is perfectly fine since:
#61Posted by: Troll | November 23, 2008 10:27 PM
"Alicorn, ridicule is the only effective weapon against charlatans and crooks, and I use the terms deliberately, like the IDiots from the Dishonesty Institute."
It's your only weapon because you are stupid.
-----+----
PCKB, Pot Calling the Kettle Black. Dumbass. Couldn't even spell "Pharnygula" correctly.
They are indeed, seriously ignorant or misinformed people. If creationists were kind, courteous and actually were willing to learn, then there would be no problem. Intead there's the situation where those who are profoundly ignorant and lacking in even the most rudimentary scientific knowledge are trying to tell those who actually do have some knowledge that they are right. It's an inflated sense of arrogance compared to their abilities that brings shit on them. There's a reason why creationists get the short end of the stick compared to other nutty beliefs - because those other nutty beliefs don't have followers who think that despite knowing absolutely nothing that they know better.Show me a creationist that's willing to learn and I'll soften my stance. But while they all have their heads wrapped around the conclusion that "Goddidit", then there's no compromise. These are people who take pride in being intellectually retarded, they take solice in believing on faith and that others are doing the same. These are not virtuous traits, Creationists are not virtuous people.
Would someone please inform Gerald Berry that if you are going to make a point by being a condescending arse, it's important to get the basic facts of that point straight. Otherwise you just come off as a total fool.
coming off as a complete fool is par for the course, kel. Being a condescending arse though ought to give him a birdie lol
Abbreviations:
ID = Intelligent Design
IDC = Intelligent Design Creationism (the more accurate term)
DI = Discovery Institute
HTH. HAND.
Troll[ing for jeebus] calls me stupid, I am crushed, crushed I tell you.
@68
Considering an IDiot just proved that you're a bigger idiot than he is you should be crushed. Hopefully you'll evolve enough in the near future to not be a total fucktard to everybody who disagrees with us. We will not win the war by shitting on everybody indiscriminately.
We will not win the war by shitting on everybody indiscriminately.
But mollycoddling the likes of Casey Luskin, that's sure to help.
The man is a paid liar. He is a hired goon for some of the most despicable, dishonest, authoritarian-sympathizers and culture warriors there are. His every utterance in public should be subjected to derision and ridicule. He should be "shit on" at every opportunity, along with his employers and all other professional or semi-professional creationists as well as their more dedicated amateur shills. They are not misled. They are not sincerely mistaken. They are liars. There is nothing "indiscriminate" about it. These assholes have made their bed of execrable lies, and now they lie in shit. Boo hoo.
All this is by way of noting your concern.
*snicker
Poor gerald, thought he was going to set us straight and instead showed his ass.
A scary though: The Evolutionary advantage of Creationism.
We as Non-Theists need to understand a frightening fact. Evolution favors Fundamentalist Creationists over Skeptics and Atheists. You're scoffing I know but consider the following;
1: Evolution is the ability of one member of a species to successfully pass on not only its genetic traits but its learned social behavior.
2: Skeptics and Atheists are more likely to believe that Birth Control and Abortion are acceptable.
3: Christian Fundamentalists are more likely to teach abstinence only education (and we all know how well that works).
4: You never hear about the Atheist that gave birth to 18 children in the news but there are growing accounts of Christian Fundamentalists having huge families that keep showing up in the news. They teach those children that Birth Control and Abortion are wrong, and God will punish you if you don't do as I say.
Now ask yourself, how long before they simply out breed us? The idea just scares me.
1: Evolution is the ability of one member of a species to successfully pass on not only its genetic traits but its learned social behavior.
No it is not. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. You are roughly describing some measure of fitness. Learned social behavior(s) are not inherited genetically. What is your point anyway? Are you saying that we should organize a massive atheist orgy to boost our numbers?
1: Evolution is the ability of one member of a species to successfully pass on not only its genetic traits but its learned social behavior.
Um, no. If that were so, what would be the meaning of "learned" in the sentence?
Even if all your assumptions were you, you are ignoring that simply having a greater number is the only successful survival strategy. Family planning, having small numbers of children to raise, these things may be in fact better survival strategies in the long term and allow for a greater likelihood of those genes passing successfully down through generations. It's not simply a numbers game.
Just look at the largest nations on earth and the overall well-being of the population as a whole. Quite simply, having more children and forsaking the use of birth control leads to resource shortages, starvation, and the spread of disease. Be fruitful and multiply is useless on the long term survival success for those genes.