Otherwise known as “Casey Luskin Shoots His Mouth Off”

Well, Casey Luskin is up to his bullshit tricks again, claiming that the ‘Darwinists’ (his words) are spreading misinformation by claiming that the Wedge Document says something it does not. The only problem, and a big problem it is, with Luskin’s argument is that the Wedge document does say that, although it does so using slightly different words. What the proponents of evolution and the courts are doing is spreading the ‘essence’ of the Wedge Document and getting down to the nitty gritty of the DI’s intent. Luskin should know that there is more than one way to say something while preserving the meaning and intent, something creationists in their zeal to quote mine seem to not understand.

From Luskin’s diatribe here:

“First, attorneys cooperating with the NCSE and ACLU during the Kitzmiller v. Dover case invented text from the “Wedge Document,” wrongly stating in their “Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitting during the Kitzmiller trial that, “The Wedge Document states in its ‘Five Year Strategic Plan Summary’ that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with ‘theistic and Christian science.’” Next, Judge Jones copied and pasted this misinformation directly into his Kitzmiller ruling, stating: “The Wedge Document states in its ‘Five Year Strategic Plan Summary’ that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with ‘theistic and Christian science.’” Lastly, Miami Herald reporter Mark Caputo read the Kitzmiller ruling and copied this misinformation into his recent article:”

“The problem for all of them of course is that the “Wedge Document” nowhere says “theistic and Christian science.” Instead, it calls for a “science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” There is a world of difference between these two phrases. The actual phrase merely seeks for science to be “consonant with” (i.e., harmonious with) theistic beliefs and this view in no way offends the scientific method. While atheistic Darwinists like Richard Dawkins might find this view objectionable, such Darwinists are hypocritical because they claim that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Dawkins’ words). Moreover, many people besides modern ID proponents would agree that science and faith can be harmonious. Indeed, this was the view of many of the founders of modern science, and this is even the view of many theistic evolutionists today.”

(Emphasis is mine)

The Wedge Document says the following:

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

I think Luskin should note that the five year strategy is very specific about changing the materialistic methodology and philosophy of science to one that is more friendly to religion, specifically Christian religions, if only because the authors are Christian in their philosophy. Because this requires a definite change in the way science is done, Luskin’s claim that “this view in no way offends the scientific method” taken from the quote above, is obviously disingenuous. Science is based on methodological naturalism (‘materialism’ in Luskin’s and Johnson’s lingo) as a natural limit imposed by the physical nature of the world we live in. The only other option to materialism is immaterialism which of course indecorously inserts the supernatural into the well worn pants of science. Behe, in the very court case referenced by Luskin admitted that for ID to be a science, changes would need to be made to science such that Astrology would then be scientifically acceptable*.

There is only one conclusion that can be made by the evidence given at that court case, and subsequently publicized, and that is the authors of the Wedge Document, the DI, do indeed intend “to replace science as currently practiced with ‘theistic and Christian science’” (science that includes the supernatural) and in that intent, “offends the scientific method”

Come on Luskin, stop with the semantic nonsense and get to the meaning and intent. You and your fellows intend to change science to be more than consonant with theism, but to be guided by it and this intent is clearly stated in the Wedge Document.

Jesus, Luskin you don’t even understand your own propaganda.

*From Kitzmiller:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody — well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori — a priori ruled out that what we — that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.