Luskin’s ludicrous genetics

| 83 Comments

I mentioned before that IDEA clubs insist that expertise is optional; well, it's clear that that is definitely true. Casey Luskin, the IDEA club coordinator and president, has written an utterly awful article "rebutting" part of Ken Miller's testimony in the Dover trial. It is embarrassingly bad, a piece of dreck written by a lawyer that demonstrates that he knows nothing at all about genetics, evolution, biology, or basic logic. I'll explain a few of his misconceptions about genetics, errors in the reproductive consequences of individuals with Robertsonian fusions, and how he has completely misrepresented the significance of the ape:human chromosome comparisons.

Continue reading "Luskin's ludicrous genetics" (on Pharyngula)

83 Comments

Without something like a Bathroom Wall there’s nowhere else for me to put this but OMFG DaveScot has just taken Dembski’s Blog to a Whole New Level:

(Off Topic) Mr. Christopher is no longer with us

People writing things like this ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-68872 ) are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 8:43 am

Yes, that’s right, DaveScot just banned someone from Dembski’s blog, for something the person wrote at Panda’s Thumb.

Okay, so I went to AtBC to post it, but Mr. Christopher himself beat me to it. Mibad.

What a total crack up, huh? I could not stop laughing when I read it this morning. Next Dave “I warn you” Scott will be trying to read people’s minds in an attempt to weed out others who might not just say something naughty about William Dembski, theologian and sunday school teacher at Southern Baptist Theology Seminary, but also ban those who harbor naughty thoughts :-)

They should make you sign a pledge of obedience before allowing you to post anything over there.

Check out this thread where Dave gave me a warning that questioning the motives of my owngovernor would get me banned from Dembski’s uncommon poop.

Too funny!

1) regarding PZ’s post:

Database Error: Unable to connect to your database. Your database appears to be turned off or the database connection settings in your config file are not correct. Please contact your hosting provider if the problem persists.

2) regarding the Mr. Christopher situation:

This is Frickin Awesome.

Mr Christopher: congrats on the credibility boost that comes from having been banned from UD :)

Yes, that’s right, DaveScot just banned someone from Dembski’s blog, for something the person wrote at Panda’s Thumb.

Hmmm - Panda’s Thumb allows anonymous and unregistered commenting. I I wasn’t hindered by ethics, it might occur to me to see whom else I could get banned from Dembski’s blog.

Luskin certainly does nothing to improve my opinion of lawyers. Here’s a subject I know a thing or two about, and it’s plain as day that Luskin knows less than nothing* about. Yet he has no qualms about organizing clubs all over the country to share and spread his ignorance.

Imagine you’re called to jury duty, and you’re asked to sit in judgment of some body of facts you’re not particularly acquainted with. (Must happen all the time with DNA evidence.) Now imagine that you know the data is going to be presented by lawyers with the integrity of this guy. How much confidence will you have in your verdict, relative to, say, a coin toss?

“Less than nothing” - may seem like hyperbole, a mathematical impossibility. But if I know nothing about subject X, but I’m willing and able to learn, I’d say that puts me a step ahead of someone obviously precommitted to the wrong answer regardless of how much evidence and logic to the contrary is available.

Just had a weird moment there. I googled reverend and luskin to try to find evidence Casey Luskin is a reverend, which I vaguely remember to be true, and among the first few results was a comment of mine here on PT from November 2004. Whew. It’s been a while.

Anyway, the point remains. Casey refers to himself as an attorney, and I seem to recall he used to be / call himself a reverend, which now he perhaps doesn’t for the same reason their little IDEA club pretends religion isn’t important.

Oh for God’s sake you people are still talking about creationists!? No wonder those retards never go away.

I forgot to add to the end of my previous comment, “Can anybody find evidence that Casey is/was a reverend?” Referring to him as Reverend Luskin would be even worse than calling him Attorney Luskin, methinks.

steve s Wrote:

Yes, that’s right, DaveScot just banned someone from Dembski’s blog, for something the person wrote at Panda’s Thumb.

Dave has banned four people in the last four days.

Lawyers and attorneys everywhere would breathe more easily were the world to call him “Reverend” instead of “Mister.”

DaveScot, since taking over Dembski’s blog, has banned as many people as Panda’s Thumb has in nearly 2 years? No surprise. Keeps the Potemkin Science all clean and shiny.

DaveScot is a fascist, so what else would one expect? Surely, it is not by chance that Dembski likes DaveScot.

I got banned yesterday for merely showing (by direct quotes) that Dembski, Behe, and Phillip Johnson do not think the idea of a supernatural designer is nonsensical. See the Bradley Monton thread on Uncommon Descent for the results.

DaveScot, despite being an ID supporter, thinks that the idea of a supernatural designer is nonsense and outside the scope of ID. In his usual deranged way, he believes his personal opinions trump those of Dembski, the owner of the blog, so he’s reduced to banning folks for simply explaining to him what his fellow ID supporters believe.

As Feederbottom put it (on the Dembski blog),

Feederbottom Wrote:

Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot! This blog is a sham.

In Dembski’s defense, I’ve been posting critical remarks for the past 40 days and 40 nights (an auspicious number, but not by design, as Judge Jones said) and Dembski never banned me, removed a comment of mine, or warned me. In return, I kept my comments civil and always backed up the points I made.

Things changed when Dembski handed over the reins to Dave. As PT regulars are all too aware, Dave gets a bit, shall we say, touchy when he is proven wrong. Putting him in charge of a blog is like having Pat Robertson’s finger on the nuke button.

Interesingly, two of the people he banned in the last four days are rabid ID supporters (Josh Bozeman and Benjii) who just happened to rub Dave the wrong way.

Russell Wrote:

Imagine you’re called to jury duty, and you’re asked to sit in judgment of some body of facts you’re not particularly acquainted with. (Must happen all the time with DNA evidence.) Now imagine that you know the data is going to be presented by lawyers with the integrity of this guy. How much confidence will you have in your verdict, relative to, say, a coin toss?

I served jury duty and went through jury selection for a trial in the mid-90s. The prosecuting attourney planned to use DNA evidence, which was somewhat novel at the time. She was tossing off anyone who could even spell DNA.

This latest attempt by Luskin to “rebut” the testimony of a top-notch research scientist is all the more amusing when one considers the fact that Luskin himself got flushed out of a Ph.D. program with a “consolation” Master’s degree. (Luskin was awarded an MS from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an institution that awards Master’s degrees almost exclusively as “consolation prizes” for Ph.D. washouts).

And thanks to the generosity of wealthy religious loons who are paying Luskin’s salary, we get to watch this clown who flunked out of his Ph.D. program keep trying to “challenge” some of the best scientists in the business! This is definitely “popcorn-worthy” entertainment (now excuse me while I go pop another bag).

Welcome Keiths.

I must have supernatural powers of prediction :)

Alan (Renard)

Oops don’t know how that happened, try here, Keiths.

Keiths Wrote:

Interesingly, two of the people he banned in the last four days are rabid ID supporters (Josh Bozeman and Benjii) who just happened to rub Dave the wrong way.

I suspect they were too overtly religious for DaveScot who states “While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion.”

DaveScot who states “While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion.”

Tell it to the judge.

Oh wait, you already DID.

(snicker) (giggle)

Game over. Whine all you want. (shrug)

DaveScot banned Josh Bozeman? HA!

I Wrote:

DaveScot has banned four people in the last four days.

Make that five. He just ousted beervolcano, who has one of my favorite blognames of all time. See the “Jews clash over the intelligence of intelligent design” thread on Uncommon Descent.

LOL.

Dave “I am warning you” Scott has made it offical. Saying naughty things on ANY blog or web site aboutWilliam Dembski, theologian and sunday school teacher at Souhthern Baptist Theological Seminary, will get you banned from uncommon poop.

Dave “I am watching you” Scott said,

“… yes I do occasionally check up on commenters here to see what they’re saying elsewhere and it will get you axed if you talk badly about this blog elsewhere then act all polite and kindly when here in order to participate. Such duplicity is unwelcome.”

Well at least he admits I acted “all polite and kindly there in order to participate” at uncommon poop. Well duh. I act polite and kindly every where I go so I can participate. Being a jerk has never improved my odds.

Anyhow, I am honored to have been banned by Dave “I am watching you” Scott. I only wish Demsbki, chief intelligent design creationism theologian, had done it himself.

Keep in mind, fellow PTers, Creepy Dave Scott is watching you.…

.

Alan Fox Wrote:

Welcome Keiths.

Hey Alan/Renard,

Nice to meet you again, this time on friendlier territory. I was still invoking your memory (comment #143) on Uncommon Descent shortly before I got banned.

Also, hello to my recent fellow exiles Mr. Christopher and cogzoid (aka beervolcano).

Funny that I kept reading what seemed to be intelligent, enlightened people at Dembski’s common creationism blog who made very persuasive arguments and comments. How the heck was I supposed to know they were all from here? :-)

Who the heck knew?

Anyhow, it is a pleasure to be reacquainted with everyone here and to be a part of this exclusive banned from the common creationism blog club.

And it is so funny (still) to see all these people getting banned who do not argue, who are not disruptive, who generally make very good points get banned. Even the hard core ID supporters are getting banned.

Patrick (another admin on uncommon poop) quoted Dave “I’m Watching You” Scott saying,

I’d suggest the only rule for now is that anyone who has author rights also have banning rights, swing the axe at their own discretion, and the rest of the authors don’t question it. If that doesn’t work out we can always have some kind of democratic process but that’s time consuming and I’d rather avoid overhead when practical

I like the don’t question the axe swinging (banning) part the best. That’s the Golden Rule of Intelligent Design Creationism - Do Not Question What We Tell You.

I suspect Dave Scott is a garden of psychopathology. We should start wagering who he will ban next.

Dave “I am warning you” Scott has made it offical. Saying naughty things on ANY blog or web site aboutWilliam Dembski, theologian and sunday school teacher at Souhthern Baptist Theological Seminary, will get you banned from uncommon poop.

Dembski is an evasive deceptive dishonest lying sack of cow cakes.

Ban me.

we can always have some kind of democratic process but that’s time consuming and I’d rather avoid overhead when practical

Yep, that’s the fundie attitude towards “democracy”, alright . …

No wonder Howie Ahmanson keeps writing them checks.

Josh Bozeman banned at an ID site. That is beyond priceless.

Does anyone know what comment he made that finally got him axed.

”… yes I do occasionally check up on commenters here to see what they’re saying elsewhere and it will get you axed if you talk badly about this blog elsewhere then act all polite and kindly when here in order to participate. Such duplicity is unwelcome.”

Gotta love the fundies’ commitment to freedom of speech…

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 9, column 2, byte 348 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us People writing things like this

I’m Dave Scot No, I’m Dave Scot I’m Dave Scot, and so’s my wife!

are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:35 pm

I would be very dubious about doing this. Sounds like it has the potential to backfire.

perhaps… but wouldn’t getting banned for posting as Dave Scott be delicious irony in and of itself??

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 05:36 PM (e) (s)

I would be very dubious about doing this. Sounds like it has the potential to backfire.

perhaps… but wouldn’t getting banned for posting as Dave Scott be delicious irony in and of itself??

Yes it would. But then again, it could turn out that we would be mocking someone who has a serious mental problem.

it could turn out that we would be mocking someone who has a serious mental problem.

But, but… there’s a Dembski thread here like every week!

Don’t post as DaveScot. Go to Uncommon Pissant and get a regular commenter’s name and start posting anti-Dembski comments at science sites. Pretty soon, DaveScot won’t know who’s real and who isn’t.

just as fun, but same logistical problems.

Then, go to Uncommon Pissant and complain that someone’s posting lies on science sites about you, causing the real you to complain that the other you is a lie, as well as the lie on the science site. Instawreck.

have you figured out a way to actually register as a poster on UD these days?

maybe I’m missing something, but i tried 3 times over the last 3 months with no “love”.

(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us People writing things like this

I’m Dave Scot No, I’m Dave Scot I’m Dave Scot, and so’s my wife!

are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:35 pm

You know what, DaveScot? I’ve always thought you were an a**hole!

DaveScot is no longer with us.

–DaveScot

I think i heard a popping noise, followed by a slight whiff of singed hair…

LOL. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

I hope Crazy Dave is not watching Panda’s Thumb too closely. I comment occasionally at UncommonDescent, asking pseudo-innocent questions. If you’re subtle enough, they don’t notice. I don’t expect to get banned any time soon.

1) I love it when the creationists start eating their own.

Heck, if the IDers had *won* in Dover, then the blood would REALLY be flowing in the pews . … .

Fundies haven’t changed an iota since the Inquisition. (shrug)

Ha now one of Dembski’s acolytes is trying to tell me “Understand that a design inference cannot prove absolutely that a pattern is intelligently designed or tell who or what the designer is. Are you familiar with Dr. Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”?”. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/inde[…]643#comments] I guess that guy’s never read Dembski’s No Free Lunch pgs 24-25, where he says there are no false positives IE a design inference can prove absolutely a pattern is intelligently designed.

Like the lawyers do, you just give these Uncommon Descent people enough rope and they hang themselves.

ID is dead. Why are they even bothering to keep the IV hooked up?

What I’d be more curious about is why that the Discovery Institute’s press releases are still being listed on Google News– without the “press release” tag that groups such as the ACLU are marked with there…

ID is dead. Why are they even bothering to keep the IV hooked up?

Dembski would have to edit all of his books and remove references to ID if he gave up on it.

er, kinda like they did with pandas.

I think in dembski’s case, he won’t bother until the cash stops rolling in from his book sales.

I really don’t like the posting as someone else idea. It is dishonest. You would be handing them a legitimate complaint on a plate.

If you wish to maintain a high standard of integrity. Descending to subterfuge is a low idea. ;)

I agree with Stephen Elliot about how silly it would be to post in the way that has been suggested.

On the other hand, it would I think be legitimate to have several people post similar questions about a topic. The difference between the questions would be simply in how comprehensive and how much they disagree with the party line. The idea being to calibrate how much you can disagree before you get banned, what level of argument they permit etc.

Don’t post as DaveScot. Go to Uncommon Pissant and get a regular commenter’s name and start posting anti-Dembski comments at science sites. Pretty soon, DaveScot won’t know who’s real and who isn’t.

Then, go to Uncommon Pissant and complain that someone’s posting lies on science sites about you, causing the real you to complain that the other you is a lie, as well as the lie on the science site. Instawreck.

Dishonest, perhaps, but it’d be a true thing of beauty if someone pulled it off correctly.

Sadly, by discussing it here, we’ve probably already blown our cover so it’s no longer feasible. Darn.

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 10:48 AM (e) (s)

Dishonest, perhaps, but it’d be a true thing of beauty if someone pulled it off correctly.

Sadly, by discussing it here, we’ve probably already blown our cover so it’s no longer feasible. Darn.

Well up until now the ID mob have had a monopoly on the lying. Do you really want to follow their methods. What do you think would happen the next time we accused them of dishonesty.

Sorry to sound like a tight-assed party pooper. I do see the funny side. But is a laugh for a day or two worth the cost? I seriously doubt it.

One of my favourite points in this argument is, the creationists lie while claiming to be the moral people. In fact that was a major thing that made me “convert”. I first came to this site as an ID supporter. The honesty on this side that was a big factor in making me a turn-coat.

Well up until now the ID mob have had a monopoly on the lying. Do you really want to follow their methods. What do you think would happen the next time we accused them of dishonesty.

Sorry to sound like a tight-assed party pooper. I do see the funny side. But is a laugh for a day or two worth the cost? I seriously doubt it.

One of my favourite points in this argument is, the creationists lie while claiming to be the moral people. In fact that was a major thing that made me “convert”. I first came to this site as an ID supporter. The honesty on this side that was a big factor in making me a turn-coat.

Yeesh, ruin our fun, why don’t you… I’m never inviting you to one of my keggers again…

Anyway, I doubt I’d try to do this – it’s too complicated, it’d be too time consuming, and DaveScot’s probably already read all this by now anyway.

Hi, DaveScot! Are you feeling the love?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on January 10, 2006 1:54 PM.

Steve Steve and end of the Cambrian Explosion as we know it (part 1) was the previous entry in this blog.

Legal eagles flutter on is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter