... if we're not nicer to his buddy Michael Egnor. Apparently, when you present arguments that are completely devoid of thought, responding to them with, "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" is proof that your argument is wrong.

We anti-denialists, of course, disagree. Sometimes an argument isn't even an argument. Sometimes the only correct response is to say, that's retarded, go away. But let's go through this real quick.

It's been amusing-and revealing-to observe the recent debates between many in the Darwinist internet community and a professor of neurosurgery, Michael Egnor. A few simple questions have incurred a deluge of ad hominem attacks upon Egnor, mocking his name by calling him an "Egnoramus" who writes "EgnorRants" and using post titles like, "Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance." In fact, Darwinist attacks upon Egnor are nothing new. Last summer a Darwinist wrote that "Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It," and compared Egnor's arguments to taking "a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science." More recently, Egnor pointed out the viciousness of Darwinist attacks upon Michael Behe. Egnor was then greeted with telling replies from Darwinist commenters on PZ Myers' blog who wrote things like: "let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***," and "if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they." Yet for all their numbers and name-calling, not a single one has answered Egnor's question: How does Darwinian mechanisms produce new biological information?

...

In the end, I can cheerfully forgive Kevin Beck, but two questions remain: (1) Why is such name-calling so common among Darwinists? and (2) How do Darwinian mechanisms produce truly novel biological information? I've seen no good answers to question 2, and perhaps their lack of such a good answer is driving the observations behind question (1).

This is an interesting tactic. Apparently we "Darwinists" (along with the "Newtonists" and "Einsteinists") have to tolerate stupid questions that are restated over and over again, answered over and over again, and ultimately ignored only to be asked over and over again. This is the problem with Denialists, and is criteria #4, the impossible expectation. What can we do other than point them at the talk origins page and say again, your question has been answered?

But it is pointless, because the point of being a denialist is that no answer will ever satisfy them. They do not care about data, they do not care about evidence, they do not care about advancing a theory that will improve human understanding. They only want one thing, everyone to believe what they believe.

And this is what irritates me the most about denialists like Egnor and Luskin. The deception. They're just liars. The whole DI is just a front for introducing religion in the name of science. The whole reason they get called names is because everyone knows they're just liars that are trying to create confusion and doubt about real science. Hell, Judge Jones said it best in Dover vs. Kitzmiller (From the Wiki:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

...

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

...

Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case

In his Conclusion on pages 136-138 of 139 of this decision he writes:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. […]

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

There you have it. The real problem we have with the creationists at DI and other proponents of ID is that they are a bunch of lying denialists. They lie and lie and lie, and spew BS all the time, and every effective rebuttal is ignored.

So don't get upset if Casey Luskin cries foul, it's not like they can argue substance over style. He's a denialist, a liar, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just call him a denialist and forget about it, nothing else can reasonably be done. And if denialists don't want to be called denialists, then they need to stop making arguments that are denialist.

Labels: Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute, Evolution denialism