Discovery Institute Response

[Mugnuts]

I was looking back at c0nc0rdance's older videos and came across this gem

So I shot off an E-mail to the DI to see how their progress has been in the last five years since the challenge and...I got Luskin'd


From: ME
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:19 PM
To: info
Subject: Evidence for specifically designed genes

Has there been any research done/completed in reference to the challenge proposed about 5 years ago via Youtube by c0nc0rdance/Thunderf00t?

I can't seem to find anything that has addressed this as it seems like a fairly decent way to find evidence to support a design hypothesis.

From: Casey Luskin [mailto:cluskin@discovery.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:37 PM
To:ME
Subject: RE: Evidence for specifically designed genes

Hi ME,

Thanks for the note. I don’t put much stock in anything that c0nc0rdance/Thunderf00t says because he’s such a snarky, nasty, unserious thinker. He’d much rather mock than seek the truth. And the reason I feel this way about him is because I wrote a compelling answer to the challenge you listed below a few years back, and he responded simply by increasing the snarkiness and mockery. Here’s my response:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/does_any_critic_out_there_unde020491.html

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Casey


From ME:

Nice try, but that doesn't actually explain anything at all. All you have focused on is critiquing critiques without producing any actual evidence to predict anything, compare living systems with non-living systems etc. Excerpts from Behe's book mean nothing. It may be the case you were reserving yourself a bit in your response to me not knowing what my position was regarding ID. Don't assume that I am just following videos or critics, I've read the material and am fairly un-impressed with DI's findings. (loved the wedge document though)

Since I have you (specifically you Casey Luskin) I would like to address the majority of your public appearances on television/recorded meetings etc. I don't believe anything that you say. I will stake my years of professional experience and training as an investigator on that statement. In those years I have interviewed and interrogated many, many people thus picking up on liars comes quite easy to me. Part of my training was to watch interviews on the news and evaluate the validity of the statements, then follow up on them later. After a few observations, it's easy to get a baseline on people and read them. I do not believe you are trustworthy. The same applies to almost everyone else who puts their face out in public from the DI.

I really don't care if you respond, in fact I would prefer if you didn't. However if you must respond, then why don't you or someone from the DI to come to leagueofreason.org.uk and put the institute to a real test.

I hope I'm not overstepping by inviting the illustrious Discovery Institute here, (I doubt anyone will post anything anyway )

 

[Rumraket]

LOL. :lol: Why is Casey Luskin so angry all the time? I've never seen him respond to critics without appearing like he's about to explode from his apparent sense of indignation.

In any case, bring em. We had an extremely brief visit from Jonathan McLatchie over on rationalskepticism.org, who ran away at relativistic velocities when the questions started pouring in.

I predict they'll stay away from here.

If you want to see them at least try to occasionally(aka once in a blue moon) engage with the science and "the other side", go to http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/. One of them occasionally turn up over there to post something, then when they've had their fill of not really answering questions, they start whining about the tone and retreat to complain about how we all just hate Jesus on uncommon descent.

 

[Rumraket]

I like how he complains about concordance/Thunderf00t being "a snarky, nasty, unserious thinker". First of all, concordance and thunderfoot are two different people. Particularly concordance is one of the most pleasant, serious and professional people one could possibly engage with.

Well done Casey, excellent research. Almost as good as your "assisting" Stephen C Meyer on his "Darwin's Doubt" tome of religious halluscinations.

 

[Mugnuts]

I felt like I was touched by an angel when I saw Luskin's name on the reply...
...which is probably why I have urge to shower in bleach.

 

[Prolescum]

I hope I'm not overstepping by inviting the illustrious Discovery Institute here, (I doubt anyone will post anything anyway )

This board is open to all




Except Dennis Markuze. We all have to draw a line somewhere.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I hope I'm not overstepping by inviting the illustrious Discovery Institute here, (I doubt anyone will post anything anyway )

One can always hope they will show up.

 

[Mugnuts]

I found this in my mailbox instead of here. No surprise there :roll: .

There was a tonne of other stuff too (pdf's, statements, links etc. I'm going to find a way to post it here in an easier way than it was sent to me.

Here is the meat of the the responses though




From: Casey Luskin
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:30 PM
To: ME
Subject: RE: Evidence for specifically designed genes

Hi ME,

Greetings—I didn’t realize that you were writing to harass me. I thought you were seeking an answer and seeking truth; I guess I was wrong. If you notice, you actually didn’t respond to anything I said, other than to say that you were unimpressed, and to make personal attacks against me. You cited no specifics and documented no factual problems with anything I wrote. So you’re just making assertions. Why do evolutionists so often substitute personal attacks for factual arguments?

Regarding the “Wedge Document”, please see:
- “The Wedge Document? So What!” (http://www.discovery.org/f/349)
- “Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part IV: The ‘Wedge Document’” (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_3002556.html)
- “Any larger philosophical implications of intelligent design, or any religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations of ID proponents, do not disqualify ID from having scientific merit” (http://www.discovery.org/a/7081)
- “Stumped By Design: ID's Critics Engage in Motive-Mongering to Avoid the Evidence” (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/archives/science/luskin.php)

Regarding your claims that I am “untrustworthy”, you’re probably referring to false claims in various Youtube videos that have badly misrepresented my arguments. I’m sorry that you’ve been misled by those videos. In any case, below I have pasted a response to people who e-mail me because they wrongly think I said something untrue on TV. Actually everything I said in the Foxnews interview is backed up by peer reviewed articles, and not only were my arguments made in completely good faith, but they were correct and backed up by the peer-reviewed literature.

You write: “I really don't care if you respond, in fact I would prefer if you didn't”

I reply: If you don’t a response, then why did you e-mail us? Thanks and all the best

Sincerely,

Casey
From: Casey Luskin [mailto:cluskin@discovery.org]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:43 AM
To: ME
Subject: RE: Evidence for specifically designed genes

Hi again ME,

I failed to mention that your reply failed to note that my central answer to the video was to cite research published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by Douglas Axe. Here are the citations:

Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004);
Douglas D. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

So no, my answer wasn’t simply about citing Behe’s “book” (that was just the setup). Rather, the answer was to cite peer-reviewed research published in a mainstream journal by a pro-ID scientist that directly answers c0nc0rdance/Thunderf00t’s demands. No wonder you responded with mockery/ridicule/personal attacks: that’s what people do when (a) they don’t have an answer, and (b) they aren’t seeking truth.

Why do evolutionists so often substitute personal attacks for good arguments?

All the best,

Casey

Dear Mr. Luskin

I actually placed a question to the 'contact' section of the DI site and that was all. The fact that you personally responded was not what I expected. As I said, since I actually had you, Casey Luskin respond, (and in no way seeking you out) gave you my opinion of you, based on my continual training and experience building in regards to my profession. I would say the same thing to Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Bill Maher, and so on. People who have been on TV several times, in an interview format such as CNN, Fox News, etc do are excellent examples as the camera is directly on the face of the target and one can see all nuances and changes of their body language, facial expressions, and eye movements. Generally the audio is fairly good (Youtube is not so great, so I don't usually go off that unless it has an HD feed), so the changes in pitch and tone are also use to form a baseline.

Now to merely say that I am using a personal attack seems to miss the point. I clearly stated that I found you had a trouble with honesty, and were not trustworthy. I'm going to leave it at that because where most people would go on with their proof, my situation is different. You don't help someone become a better liar by telling them their tells and such. It's not very ethical.

As for the scientific papers you threw my way, I thought that I made it clear that if you were going to respond to me, that it would be at the League of Reason website.

Here is the link, we are dying to have a chat.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=12164

And please no more responses to this E-mail, and especially no PDF's or other things like that. I am just going to delete them anyway. Not due to ignorance, I just don't want this computer to catch anything you might be spreading.

So after that I blocked him. There is a huge statement that I'm going to compress or something that is a standard response to people who doubt his integrity.
I can admit that I was cryptic in my depiction of his dishonesty, but that's part of what and how I deal with people I am going to "Interview".