Luskin is continuing to lie about what the ID scam has been for the last quarter of a century

99 views
Skip to first unread message

RonO

unread,
Apr 28, 2022, 9:15:58 PMApr 28
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/outlining-intelligent-designs-positive-argument/

This is Glenn's favorite creationist news site, but he can't stand the
articles that Luskin has been writing on what the ID scam is.

In this article Luskin is trying to outline what the ID scam was
supposed to be about, but never was. Apparently there was supposed to
be a two step process that doesn't seem to have ever gotten anywhere
since the formation of the ID scam unit back in 1995.

QUOTE:
At its simplest level, the positive case for design is a thus two-step
process:

1 Study intelligent agents to understand what kind of information is
produced when they act.
2 Study natural objects to determine whether they contain the type of
information known to be produced when intelligent agents act.
END QUOTE:

These two steps may have been claimed to have been attempted, but
whatever came of the creationist ID scam? There was so much nothing
that happened that by 1999 Mike Gene claimed that he had given up on
teaching the IDiotic junk in the public schools. Mike Gene made that
claim after the bait and switch started to go down in 2002 and no
creationist rubes were getting any ID science to teach from the ID perps
at the Discovery Institute. Mike Gene claimed that he had known for
years that he expected that no ID science was going to be taught in the
public schools. Mike Gene made this admission after the ID perps were
the ones who decided not to try to teach the junk, and instead started
giving the rubes the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID
perps (Luskin incliuded) claimed had nothing to do with IDiocy.

It turned out that none of the ID perps wanted to actually produce any
valid ID science. Any answers that they would have gotten would not
have been accepted by the creationist rubes that were supporting the ID
scam. Just imagine what would happen if Behe had ever demonstrated that
his designer had diddle farted around with the bacterial flagellum over
a billion years ago by inserting 3 neutral mutations in the proper order
to help evolve the flagellar function. The majority of IDiot
creationists are YEC and don't want to believe that there was a billion
years ago to talk about. The claims were made, but nothing ever came
out of them. Specified Complexity (SC) was never demonstrated to exist
in the natural systems that they wanted to apply the concept to.
Irreducible Complexity (IC) and Complex Specified Information (CSI)
suffered the same fate. The ID perps never got around to doing more
than make the claims. The new law of thermodynamics that they were
pushing after the abject failure of everything else during the Dover
IDiot fiasco was never demonstrated to exist. You can't find any
science textbooks with any new creationist law of thermodynamics, nor
SC, IC, and CSI. They never got to the part where they actually
accomplished anything.

So what is the series of articles that Luskin is supposed to be writing
going to be about? So far the first two articles in the series have
just been lying to the rubes about what the ID scam actually is and was.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 3, 2022, 6:31:06 AMMay 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/investigating-the-evidence-for-intelligent-design-in-biochemistry-and-other-fields/

It started off badly and seems to be going down hill. This is Luskin's
follow up.

QUOTE:
We’ll now use the basic method [outlined here yesterday] to investigate
the positive evidence for design in five fields: (1) biochemistry, (2)
paleontology, (3) systematics (the relationships between organisms), (4)
genetics, and (5) physics. Each example will begin with observations
about how intelligent agents act based on previous studies by ID
theorists. Then a testable hypothesis/prediction is made, followed by a
discussion of what the data reveals (experiment), and finally, a conclusion.
END QUOTE:

It turns out all that he claims is what they wanted to do, and not what
was accomplished. IDiotic IC and CSI were never verified to exist in
nature. Behe and Dembski never got any further than making the claims
that they might exist.

QUOTE:
Hypothesis (prediction): Finely tuned high-CSI structures will be found
in biology, including irreducibly complex systems that require multiple
components to function.

Experiment (data): Natural structures contain many parts arranged in
intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g., they contain
high CSI). These include language-based codes in our DNA, irreducibly
complex molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum,4 and highly
specified protein sequences. Mutational sensitivity tests have shown
that the amino acid sequences of many functional proteins must be highly
complex and specified in order to function.5
END QUOTE:

Dembski quit the ID scam as a total failure. None of his IDiotic junk
ever panned out. None of it made the Top Six evidences for ID that the
ID perps put out a year after he quite the ID scam. So what is Luskin
lying about? There doesn't seem to be any viable positive case for IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 3, 2022, 8:56:07 PMMay 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/outlining-intelligent-designs-positive-argument/


https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/investigating-the-evidence-for-intelligent-design-in-biochemistry-and-other-fields/

If there is any truth to what Luskin has been lying about in this series
of posts what is that truth?

Paleontology:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/the-positive-case-for-intelligent-design-in-paleontology/

Just think if the Cambrian explosion had been verified to have been due
to intelligent design (#5 of the Top Six) or the gaps in the human
fossil record had actually supported the ID scam junk (#6 of the Top
Six). Isn't it weird that Luskin doesn't call any of the Top Six
scientific evidence, and this junk is supposed to be the IDiotic science
that is supposed to be worth supporting? Lying about how paleontology
supports the ID creationist scam is pretty stupid when IDiots like Glenn
and those left at uncommon descent can't stand to even think about the
Top Six.

The ID perp Top Six evidences for IDiocy. You can check them out and
determine for yourself that they do not consider these to be scientific
evidence. They are just called some type of generic, obvioudly, pretty
poor evidence since the bait and switch has been going down for over 20
years.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Systematics? Is it just weird how Paleontology and systematics combine
to support biological evolution. What type of design is that, when it
occurs over billions of years and looks like it is due to descent with
modification?

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/the-positive-case-for-intelligent-design-in-systematics-the-relationships-between-organisms/

Really, Luskin can put up paleontology, and then put up systematics, and
lie about how they support intelligent design. How utterly sad is that?
Luskin knows that the rocks he studied were billions of years old and
the fossil record extends over that period of time.

The fact is that there doesn't have to be any relationship between
fossils and extant lifeforms, nor any type of sensible systematic
relationship between lifeforms if they all were individually created kinds.

There is a reason why IDiots like Glenn are avoiding this series.

Ron Okimoto


RonO

unread,
May 3, 2022, 9:56:07 PMMay 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Fine tuning?

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/the-positive-case-for-intelligent-design-in-physics/

So far 4 of the Top Six have been presented in this series of lies, but
Luskin has to list them out of order and mix them up like Sewell did
because IDiots are supposed to lie to themselves about each of the Top
Six as independent disembodied bits of denial. No one is supposed to
use them to create any type of unified IDiotic theory of intelligent
design, and no IDiot creationists seem to want to deal with them when
they were presented in their order of occurrence. It has to be noted
that not even Luskin referred to the Top Six as scientific evidence when
he put up a repeat of the Top Six, so what type of IDiotic science is he
putting up?

IDiotic #2, fine tuning has two parts. There was some fine tuning
before or during the Big Bang in order to create the universe that we
live in and another round of fine tuning had to occur in order to create
our solar system out of material that it took over 8 billion years of
stellar deaths to create. Most IDiots are YEC and just can't deal with
this one in any sane or rational manner. That is how IDiotic it is. In
this piece Luskin has to limit his lies to the first part that occurred
before or during the Big Bang so that he doesn't have to deal with the 8
billion years between the Big Bang and the second round of fine tuning
to create our solar system.

My guess is that the Big Bang and something about human evolution will
be coming up. The two of the Top Six that are furthest apart in terms
of when they occurred during the creation of the universe as we know it
today. That is pretty darn sad. Why isn't Luskin going to try to put
all this great IDiotic science together and come up with the best
IDiotic alternative that he can come up with?

#1, the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago, and there was some
fine tuning (#2) before or during the Big Bang in order to create the
universe we have today. There was another round of fine tuning around
4.5 billion years ago to create our solar system out of material that it
took over 8 billion years to create. #3, Life originated, possibly,
around 3.8 billion years ago and (#4) IC systems like the flagellum
evolved over a billion years ago when life was limited to the single
cell stage of evolution. #5, the Cambrian explosion occurred during a
25 million year period over half a billion years ago, and #6, gaps in
the human fossil record is about something that occurred within the last
10 million years of the existence of the universe.

I haven't seen a single IDiot creationist embrace the Top Six put out by
the ID perps as anything that they want to deal with as a whole in an
honest and straight forward manner. They have all run away in denial of
reality. That Luskin would even try to put them up as disembodied bits
of IDiotic denial is about as sad as IDiocy can get.

The ID perp Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Ron Okimoto

Gary Hurd

unread,
May 3, 2022, 10:26:07 PMMay 3
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I actually feel sorry for Casey. I first met him at UCSD around 2000 CE. He was an undergrad in geology. It was at a talk he had organized for creationist twit Jonathan Wells.

He never got any smarter.

RonO

unread,
May 4, 2022, 6:21:09 AMMay 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Luskin helped form the IDEA when he was at San Diego, and they seem to
still be asking for donations even though most of the IDEA university
clubs did not survive the start of the bait and switch ID scam that was
started in 2002, and none seem to have survived the Dover Kitzmiller
IDiot fiasco. University students didn't seem to want to support the
switch scam that the ID perps gave them instead of any IDiotic science.
When the scam artists that sold you the ID scam tell you that they are
giving you an obfuscation and denial switch scam that has nothing to do
with ID instead of any ID science what reason do intelligent design
college discussion clubs have to exist? The positive aspect of IDEA
student clubs was that most of them were converted from existing
scientific creationist clubs, and the ID scam ended up killing them off.
When I checked there were no longer any creationist science clubs
registered at those universities any longer after Dover.

http://www.ideacenter.org/

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 4, 2022, 6:56:08 AMMay 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Genetic support for IDiocy? Junk DNA?
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/the-positive-case-for-intelligent-design-in-genetics/

This seems to be one of Glenn's favorite ways to lie to himself about
reality. Glenn keeps putting up a lot of IDiotic junk DNA junk from the
creationist news site that Luskin is using, but Glenn has no intention
of understanding anything about what he regurgitates. About the last
thing that Glenn wants to believe is that his designer is responsible
for transposons and retrovirus that jump around our genome, but how many
times has he put up transposon and retrovirus IDiotic denial stupidity?
That is how sad the ID scam junk DNA denial is.

Junk DNA is just the non coding DNA that doesn't have much of a function
in terms of the host that it exists in except holding the chromosomes
together. Regulatory sequences were never considered to be junk, and
were always known to be in among the non coding DNA sequences, but they
exist as minor fraction of that sequence. For humans over a third of
the genome can be attributed to transposons and retrovirus that have
inserted into our genome. Most of the "random" sequence of the genome
is likely derived from old transposon and retroviral sequences that have
degraded by mutation over time so that you can't recognize them as
transposons any longer. We can find transposons and retrovirus in
various stages of decay throughout the genome. Transposons and
retrovirus carry around their own transcriptional regulatory sequences
in order to replicate themselves, and when they insert near a gene they
can affect the regulation of that gene. McClintock was able to track
the movements of transposons by how they affected gene regulation, and
they were first thought to be part of the way genes were normally
regulated. Once we were able to study the sequences we found out that
they were DNA parasites, that could alter the regulation of genes and
destroy their function by moving into coding sequence. Most of the
transposable elements were found not to do much of anything, and that is
likely why they are tolerated by the host. When they do something it is
either selected for or against.

Currently in humans most new transpositions are identified by the
genetic diseases that they cause, and if they don't do anything we can't
detect new events unless we sequence the genome. That is a major reason
why Glenn will run in denial instead of attempt to understand what he
posts about them.

The IDiotic junk DNA argument has always been bogus for the simple
reason that the designer never needed all the junk. There are better
ways to change the regulation of genes. One of the last examples Glenn
put up was a retroviral insertion in the mouse lineage that altered the
expression of a gene useful in placental development. It turned out
that such a change had occurred in other mammlian lineages to alter the
expression of the same gene (including the human/primate lineage) but
the other lineages did it without retroviral insertion, and there were
other mammalian lineages that hadn't yet been able to evolve such an
altered gene regulation. The ID perps claim that their intelligent
designer can do anything and could have worked the change any way that
the designer wanted to do it. That is pretty much the reason why the
junk DNA IDiotic argument never amounted to anything worth discussing.

Ron Okimoto

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
May 4, 2022, 3:01:09 PMMay 4
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On 2022-05-04 02:22:41 +0000, Gary Hurd said:
>>
>> [ … ]

>>
> I actually feel sorry for Casey. I first met him at UCSD around 2000
> CE. He was an undergrad in geology. It was at a talk he had organized
> for creationist twit Jonathan Wells.

We're now quite close to 2025, when Jonathan Wells predicted that
evolution would just be a historical footnote in textbooks. Unless
something very surprising happens in the next three years we're not
going to get there.
>
>
> He never got any smarter.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

RonO

unread,
May 4, 2022, 7:31:09 PMMay 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/using-the-positive-case-for-design-to-answer-common-objections-to-id/

How can the positive case for intelligent design answer common
objections to ID when such a positive case never existed? There were
claims that a positive case could be produced, but there isn't a single
IDiotic success in that department, ever. Casey uses Dembski's CSI
claiming that CSI rich structures have been found to exist in nature,
but that is a flat out lie. Dembski never demonstrated that any
biological system had the CSI that he claimed that they had. Not a
single verification of such claims was ever attempted, let alone,
accomplished. Really, Dembski never figured out a way to demonstrate
that what he was claiming really existed. All that happened was that he
claimed that he could see CSI in some biological structures, but that is
all that he did. There never were any examples where such CSI claims
were ever verified to actually be observations of Dembski's type of CSI.
Of course Luskin fails to cite any biological examples so we don't
really know what he is lying about, but anyone can look around and try
to find the scientific research that Dembski accomplished to verify the
existence of his type of CSI in the systems that he claimed that had
CSI. Just like Dembski's claims that there was a new law of
thermodynamics that demonstrated ID in nature, he never demonstrated
that any such new law of thermodynamics existed. If Dembski had
verified systems with his type of CSI and the existence of his new law
of thermodynamics it should be easily verified, but no such verification
is possible. Dembski never found the type of CSI that he wanted to
find, so it couldn't possibly be used to support intelligent design in
any positive way.

Ron Okimoto

Gary Hurd

unread,
May 4, 2022, 9:11:09 PMMay 4
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What gave the "ID isn't just Creationism" lie away was that Casey's club officers were restricted to Christian only. That did also violate University of California rules.

RonO

unread,
May 5, 2022, 6:41:11 AMMay 5
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That was an issue with the IDEA clubs, but it was supposed to have
changed after the bait and switch started to go down. This was a period
of time when most of the IDEA clubs stopped existing. At that time the
students didn't seem to be interested in discussing an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that wasn't supposed to have anything to do with
IDiocy/creationism that the ID perps were giving the creationist rubes
instead of any ID science. As I noted, at the beginning most of the
IDEA clubs were just converted scientific creationist clubs, and that
bit about limiting club officers to Christians was likely needed to get
the ball rolling.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 12, 2022, 6:41:04 AMMay 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/28/2022 8:15 PM, RonO wrote:
So no IDiot/creationists nor ex IDiots, but still obviously anti
evolution creationists are going to support anything that Luskin has
been writing about what the ID scam is. Look what Glenn would rather
put up from the ID perps instead of discuss what IDiocy is supposed to
actually be.

The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest,
and that hasn't changed for the last 20 years. You'd think that Kalk
and Bill might try to help someone as lost as Glenn out. They obviously
know better, but haven't given up on the denial. There really is no
future for the creationist ID scam. Even Glenn seems to know that or he
would have some great support commentary for what Luskin has been lying
about.

How long can this type of thing go on?

There doesn't seem to be any respectable future for the ID scam.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/what-is-the-future-of-the-intelligent-design-movement.html

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/R3S7UNC2Kco/m/5vyFiIdwAQAJ

Ron Okimoto

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 12, 2022, 7:36:04 AMMay 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The fossils of that dead eohippus you've been flogging should be in a museum by now.

RonO

unread,
May 12, 2022, 8:16:04 PMMay 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It is far from dead, it is the current reality and has been for a couple
decades. The ID perps just updated their teach ID propaganda web page.
For some reason when they updated the page they reverted to their 2018
version of the propaganda pamphlet. They had a 2021 version up for a
while. Glenn was the one that kept putting up this pamphlet in order to
keep claiming that some type of ID science existed, but he was never
able to state what that ID science was. He would just put up the claims
by the ID perps that the ID science existed and could be still be taught
in the public schools even after the Dover decision.

https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

If the ID scam were dead and no longer a creationist scam that the
creationists are running on themselves, why would Glenn keep going back
the the ID perps for more denial stupidity?

There just aren't many creationist rubes left stupid and ignorant enough
to believe the ID perps and teach the junk. The ID perps keep putting
ouit the bait, but the last bait and switch occurred on the Utah rubes
back in 2017 at the same time that the ID perps put out the Top Six in
order to demonstrate to any rube still clueless enough to drool over the
junk that there was nothing about IDiocy that they wanted to teach.
Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam. Kalk and Glenn
just ran and started putting up the second rate denial stupidity that
hadn't made the Top Six. Kalk quit doing that because he had enough on
the ball to understand how utterly stupid that was, but Glenn hasn't
stopped.

Just look at what Luskin put up in the series of articles reported in
this thread. Where are the scientific references demonstrating that any
of this IDiocy was ever attempted? They used to claim that Of Pandas
and People could be used to teach the IDiotic science, but Dover ended
that, and no one ever hears about the later edition of Pandas that they
named something else.

The ID perps are still putting out IDiocy as the bait, but what do the
creationist rubes get instead?

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 15, 2022, 8:16:09 AMMay 15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The ID perps have fixed their current web site to put up the 2021
version of the Teach ID scam briefing packet. For some reason they
reverted back to their 2018 version when they updated the site, but they
have now fixed that, so that the rubes can be lied to using the latest
version. The bait and switch will still go down if there are any
creationist rubes stupid enough to believe them and try to teach the
IDiotic junk.

https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

What you get when you click on download:
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/03/Educators-Briefing-Packet-Condensed-Web.pdf

Putting out this briefing packet while running the bait and switch for
the last 20 years has got to be about the saddest thing about the
creationist ID scam at this time. There is no doubt that the ID perps
will run the bait and switch on any rube that believes them because they
have done it 100% of the time they get the opportunity. Nobody is ever
going to get the ID science to teach in the public schools because it
never existed.

The sad thing is that the ID perps tried to lie about their efforts to
get ID taught as part of the Wedge strategy during the Dover fiasco, and
then they put out this briefing packet after Dover demonstrated why they
had been running the bait and switch for years. As crazy as it may seem
they put out this briefing packet to claim that they still had the ID
science to teach as bait, so that they could continue their creationist
political ambitions even though they knew that they were going to run
the bait and switch on the rubes and only give them the obfuscation and
denial switch scam stupidity that they claim has nothing to do with
intelligent design.

ID perp denying that the Discovery Institute supported teaching IDiocy:
https://ncse.ngo/discovery-institute-and-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-forum

It was after this attempted denial that the ID perps started putting out
the briefing packet that they have been updating around every 3 years since.

Luskin is one of the authors. That is why his current series of
creationist news articles is so bogus. For some reason they haven't
changed their old education policy (page 15 on the 2021 version). The
ID perps have deleted the claim to be able to teach the ID science in
the public schools from the current education policy up on their web
page, but the claim persists in the current briefing packet. They
deleted the claim to be able to teach the ID science from their
education policy in 2013 when they had to run the bait and switch on the
Louisiana and Texas IDiots who wanted to put IDiocy/creationism in
textbook supplements. The Louisiana and Texas IDiots were claiming that
they were not requiring the teaching of IDiocy, but were only providing
the teachers with the means to teach the junk if they wanted to. So
much for the stupid denial about not wanting ID required to be taught,
so the ID perps deleted that paragraph, but it still exists in this
briefing packet.

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
Jun 12, 2022, 9:40:07 PMJun 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/28/2022 8:15 PM, RonO wrote:
The uncommonly dense crowd was given news of what Luskin has been lying
about, and some did try to support this bogus delusional reality, but
not a single one presented an example with proper citations that any
positive case for ID has ever been made. All they did was basically
repeat Luskins claims, and like luskin they couldn't give any specific
examples. Someone should be able to cite some scientific article where
an ID perp actually did the science to verify the bogus IDiotic claims
that they made. If Dembski had really been able to use CSI to verify
Behe's IC wouldn't someone be able to give a reference to when that was
done and how it was done? These guys seem to be living in some fantasy
world where they survive on past claims that have no real basis in reality.

I could only go through around 25 of the responses before giving up, but
maybe some IDiot is willing to dig further to see if anyone was able to
put up some legitimate verification of what Luskin was lying about.

If a positive argument was made and verified to actually mean something
for IDiocy wouldn't someone be able to give a reference to it?

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-at-hillfaith-using-the-positive-case-for-intelligent-design-to-answer-common-objections/

Ron Okimoto

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages