Luskin's latest howler

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, writing at the Evolution News & Views blog (which accurately describes itself with its motto that begins "The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site"), has outdone himself again.

Regarding a paper by Neil Shubin about Tiktaalik, Luskin complains that Shubin makes a comparison to the wrist bones of tetrapods, but never identifies any by name:

When discussing Tiktaalik's "wrist," Shubin says he "invites direct comparisons" between Tiktaalik's fin and a true tetrapod limb. Surely this paper must have a diagram comparing the "wrist"-bones of Tiktaalik to a true tetrapod wrist, showing which bones correspond. So again I searched the paper. And again he provides no such diagram comparing the two. So we are left to decipher his jargon-filled written comparison in the following sentence by sentence analysis:

1. Shubin et al.: "The intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik have homologues to eponymous wrist bones of tetrapods with which they share similar positions and articular relations." (Note: I have labeled the intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik in the diagram below.)

Translation: OK, then exactly which "wrist bones of tetrapods" are Tiktaalik's bones homologous to? Shubin doesn't say. This is a technical scientific paper, so a few corresponding "wrist bone"-names from tetrapods would seem appropriate. But Shubin never gives any.

As P.Z. Myers points out, Luskin apparently doesn't realize what the word "eponymous" means. The wrist bones that the intermedium and ulnare bones of Tiktaalik are homologous to in tetrapods? The bones that are "eponymous," that have been given the same names: the intermedium and the ulnare.

Carl Zimmer points out the same Luskin faux pas.

Academic fraud petition

The Discovery Institute is behind an attempt to gather signatures and push state legislation to defend "the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution." "The full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution" is apparently the new code phrase for creationist misinformation and nonsense.

The proposed legislation prohibits termination, discipline, denial of tenure or other discrimination against K-12 teachers who lie to their students by teaching them creationist nonsense.

The promotion is tied in with the dishonest film, Expelled.

Casey Luskin misrepresents the law

Tim Sandefur at the Panda's Thumb explains how Casey Luskin, attorney at the Discovery Institute, misrepresents the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico.

Luskin's misrepresentations of biology can be blamed on incompetency, but as a lawyer, shouldn't he at least know the law? I don't see how his continued misrepresentations--and failure to correct them--can be blamed on anything but dishonesty.

Montana Law Review symposium on Dover trial

The Montana Law Review has published an article by three Discovery Institute Fellows, a reply by Peter Irons, and a response by the DI Fellows (DeWolf, West, and Luskin). Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has now published a reply by Irons to the short response from the DI Fellows; you can find all four contributions at his blog. I recommend starting with the first Irons reply, followed by the short DI Fellows response, followed by the Irons reply that Ed has published.

More Discovery Institute hypocrisy about Dover

Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case found the Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause on two grounds. First, on the ground that it had a specifically religious purpose, and second, that intelligent design is not science but religion, and so the policy was an endorsement of religion. These are two of the three prongs of the "Lemon Test" for whether a state action violates the establishment clause.

The Discovery Institute has argued that Jones' ruling should only have used the "purpose" test and not the "endorsement" test.

Ed Brayton points out that this position is contrary to the position that creationists and intelligent design advocates have argued for the last three decades--that the "purpose" prong of the Lemon Test for violations of the First Amendment's establishment clause is unfair and should be abandoned. Ed observes that at least four DI personnel--Casey Luskin, Frank Beckwith, Mark Ryland, and David DeWolf--have all argued this way in the past.

His post also responds in some detail to the specific arguments made by Philip Italiano, a law student at Rutgers Law School, who is the latest to argue that Jones should only have used the "purpose" test.

Discovery Institute's incredible hypocrisy knows no bounds

The Discovery Institute has been trying to criticize last year's Dover decision on the grounds that Judge Jones followed common judicial practice by copying text from the winning side's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in setting out the facts of the case in his opinion.

Now, it turns out that the Discovery Institute's David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin (the first two of which are the authors of the critique of Judge Jones just referred to) submitted a paper to the Montana Law Review about the Dover case that was virtually identical to content in the DI's book, Traipsing Into Evolution, published in March 2006. This violated the journal's requirement that all submissions be original content, not previously published elsewhere, and the authors were forced to rewrite and resubmit--after this was brought to the journal's attention by a third party. The DI authors intentionally concealed this information.

More details at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

UPDATE (December 20, 2006): The editor of the Montana Law Review has responded, pointing out facts that absolve the DI folks of any deception.

Discovery Institute's latest attack on Dover decision

After a year of careful analysis of Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute has determined that the Judge made considerable use of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law when writing the section on intelligent design as science in his decision for the plaintiff. Somehow, they think that this common practice of using the Proposed Findings of Fact from the winning side in crafting a decision makes Judge Jones a puppet of the ACLU, even though he's a conservative justice appointed by George W. Bush.

The Discovery Institute has issued a press release touting their findings as though it discredits the decision's reasoning. This press release demonstrates that they are still smarting over the loss in Dover, still spending their time doing things that have nothing to do with scientific research, and that they have as much credibility on legal matters as they do on scientific matters.

More by attorney Timothy Sandefur at the Panda's Thumb. This press release by the DI was telegraphed by a talk given by Michael Behe earlier this month in Kansas.

UPDATE (December 13, 2006): Ed Brayton analyzes the DI report in more detail, including responding to its claims that Judge Jones incorporated "errors" from the ACLU into the decision.

UPDATE (December 14, 2006): More responses:

Timothy Sandefur, "Is John West Dishonest or Just Ignorant?" and "Casey Luskin--Not Too Bright" at the Panda's Thumb.

UPDATE (December 20, 2006): Wesley Elsberry has looked at how much of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was actually used in Jones' decision (and how much of that section of the decision came directly from the plaintiff's filing). Ed Brayton summarizes at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Casey Luskin has attempted to respond with a defense, but as Ed Brayton shows, he just keeps digging a deeper hole.

Luskin vs. Judge Jones on peer-reviewed publications supporting ID

Casey Luskin, responding to a point in a book review by John Derbyshire, argues that Judge Jones was incorrect in his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover when he wrote that Intelligent Design is not supported by any peer-reviewed publications.

As Wesley Elsberry shows, Luskin's argument is not with Jones but with the defense in the Dover case, and in particular with the testimony of Michael Behe, who agreed in cross-examination that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. [Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Jones had to make his decision on the basis of the evidence presented in his court, not on the basis of Luskin's list of publications. Of the documents Luskin lists in refutation of Jones' statements, one of them, a paper by Behe and Snoke, was addressed specifically in the case, and it did not support intelligent design. As Ed Brayton and others have pointed out, in cross-examination in the Dover trial it came out that the Behe and Snoke paper actually is strong evidence against the existence of irreducible complexity. (The Ed Brayton post may also now be found at scienceblogs.com.)

Luskin's list of alleged peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design hasn't undergone cross-examination in court (except for Behe and Snoke, the treatment of which in the trial Luskin fails to address). Were the publications introduced into the trial, there is little doubt that they would similarly have been torn apart due to lack of proper peer review, lack of original research, and lack of support for intelligent design, as has already occurred at the TalkOrigins site which Luskin links to (but fails to engage with).

Casey Luskin's lack of integrity

Casey Luskin offered a commentary (on the Discovery Institute's "Evolution News & Views" blog) on Kenneth Miller's testimony in the Dover case in which he expounded on chromosomal fusion and evidence for common ancestry between apes and humans. Mike Dunford and P. Z. Myers responded, pointing out numerous errors and misunderstandings in Luskin's argument. Luskin's commentary has been enshrined as a paper at the IDEA Center website called "And the Miller Told His Tale."

If Luskin or the Discovery Institute were serious about "teaching the controversy," they'd at least acknowledge the existence of these responses. But even the trackbacks for the blog entry remains empty...

Casey Luskin and William Dembski Dishonesty

I'd like to call attention to two recent articles over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. The first is about Casey Luskin, blogger for the Discovery Institute. The second is about William Dembski, the "Isaac Newton of information theory."

In the first piece, Brayton writes about how Luskin has referred to Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education as "Darth Vader." Brayton quotes Luskin: "In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys. All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth."

Yet Luskin provides no examples of lies or ulterior motives, and has used false statements to argue against statements she has made. In one example: "I asked her why she thinks ID isn't science. She said it isn't science because it does not refer to natural law (a reference to Ruse's testimony which he later recanted)." Brayton, speaking directly to philosopher Michael Ruse, asked him if, in the face of criticisms from other philosophers about his position on the demarcation between science and non-science (e.g., see Larry Laudan's piece in Ruse's book But Is It Science?), he holds that Intelligent Design is non-science. As Brayton writes, "He replied that it is non-science because it does not refer to natural law. If Ruse has recanted, he appears to be unaware of it."

As Brayton notes in the same piece, when he's made charges of dishonesty against William Dembski, he's backed them up--and he's done so yet again, showing that Dembski has continued to misrepresent the work of Douglas Axe. In a 2000 paper, Axe did work which focused on a particular gene which confers resistance to certain antibiotics. As Brayton summarizes the paper, "it showed that this particular enzyme could retain most of its function even if it was hit with a major mutational event that resulted in changing as many as 10 of its amino acid residues simultaneously, could retain some of its function (and thus still be capable of selection) even if a mutation resulted in as much as 20% of its total amino acid residues being substituted simultaneously, and that if 40 mutations happened simultaneously, it would stop functioning."

Dembski, however, summarizes it this way: "But there is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system’s existing function, but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever (Axe, 2000)."

Brayton points out that Matt Inlay criticized Dembski for this misrepresentation on The Panda's Thumb back in February, and that Inlay has shown that Dembski has known this is a misrepresentation for at least two years. Brayton concludes:

Dembski has crossed over a line at this point, I think. I don't think it's any longer possible to maintain that he is merely an ideologue undergoing cognitive dissonance, or that he's just engaging in wishful thinking of the type we are all probably prone to when defending ideas we have a personal stake in. He is now simply lying outright, and he has to know that.