Monday, February 04, 2008
But you already knew that, didn't you? Still, the evidence keeps rolling in and it's handy for me to stockpile it here and to share it with my
First, there is the ever-reliable Casey Luskin. If any way exists to make ID and its proponents look even more venal or vacuous, Casey will be in the forefront of the effort. As Mike Dunford documents at the Panda's Thumb, Casey has taken to appropriating the ResearchBlogging.org "Blogging About Peer-Reviewed Research" icon without adhering to the guidelines established by ResearchBlogging.org for marking posts that feature an in-depth discussion of an article found in the peer-reviewed literature.
Then, as recounted by PvM, also at the Panda's Thumb, we have Wild Bill Dembski, along with others, revealing (once again) the real motivation of ID in the friendly confines of the Southern Baptist Texan:
Dembski told the Southern Baptist TEXAN that those who most need to see the movie [Expelled] are "parents of children in high school or college, as well as those children themselves, who may think that the biological sciences are a dispassionate search for truth about life but many of whose practitioners see biology, especially evolutionary biology, as an ideological weapon to destroy faith in God."But ID has nothing to do with religion, of course, it's all about the science!
The amusing part is how the Texan gets Dembski's title right: "ID apologist."
Well, Casey Luskin has now given his "my dog ate my homework" excuse for using the ResearchBlogging.org icon without following the organization's procedures and, surprise, surprise, it boils down to "I'm so incredibly stupid I didn't know what I was doing."
He is actually claiming that, when he appropriated the icon, he did not know about ResearchBlogging.org, despite the fact that the words "ResearchBlogging.org" appear in the logo he used without permission. There is much other tap dancing by Luskin that I suspect will be further deconstructed at the ResearchBlogging.org site as time goes bye. All I can say is that the people at ResearchBlogging.org should consider whether they want anyone associated with their organization who is either lying or too stupid to be allowed to roam around on his own.
Thanks, Casey, for so promptly proving me right about your leadership in demonstrating the venal and/or vacuous nature of ID and its proponents!
(Thanks to Ferrous Patella for the tip in the comments.)
And here is Mike Dunford's parting shot in response to Luskin's parting peashooter. Once again, the Discovery institute is more interested in PR than science.
"On Feb. I posted this blog post. A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research. At the time, I had not seen ResearchBlogging.org and I was unaware of the fact that they requested registration in order to use their graphic. Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked."
But he used the graphic anyway. Hmmmm.
"At the time that I posted my post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org."
In other words, "I found it on the web somewhere." Sound familiar?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah. I still read your posts now and then. Don't despair.
Regarding Luskin's use of the ResearchBlogging logo, the most amusing aspect of that saga is that Luskin recently asked someone to remove his (Luskin's) photo from a web-page since Luskin felt that he owned the copyright to it. That should have been fresh in his memory.
Casey has an utterly blissful lack of self-awareness.
And thanks for reading.