The Centre For Unintelligent Design

This page updated -- 24/02/13 -- to include

'The Strange, Selective Memories of Noble and McLatchie'

beneath

Casey Luskin's 'Multiple Deceptions' email (23/03/12)

(distortions, misrepresentations, faux outrage, misinterpretations and quote-mining)

 

 

Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The ID Crowd

 

On Wednesday 20th April 2011, I spoke at an event organised, by the Humanist Society of Scotland, for the Edinburgh
International Science Festival. The topic was "The Threat of Creeping Creationism in Scottish Schools." This took
place in the University of Edinburgh's Informatics Forum.

As a secondary school RME/RMPS teacher, I began my contribution with a summary of my school's RME/RMPS curriculum
before going on to highlight some of the unsolicited ID and creationist literature (books, DVDs, etc) that have
been sent out to our school. Some had been addressed to the Head Teacher, some to the Science department, and some
to my own.

I next went on to explain that, to any teacher objectively exploring the existence of God with teenagers, evolution
is a lot like the holocaust – neither 'disprove' the existence of God but both present significant challenges to
traditional theistic beliefs. From the RMPS perspective, it is the responses that are worth considering. Theists
can either add one or both of these unpleasant realities to the many other objections to the faith position and
abandon their belief in God – or they can find ways of reconciling them with their belief in a loving Creator
("This may be the best of all possible worlds", "Part of a Divine plan", "God shares in the sufferings of His
creatures", and so on).

Creationists and holocaust deniers, however, offer a third option – but, by requiring the rejection of
overwhelming scientific/historical evidence, rule themselves out of any serious discussion and therefore 'neither'
should be invited into schools to "talk to pupils." And they exclude themselves further via everything else that
they have in common. To wit, both object that a minority of highly educated people reject what 99% of
scientists/historians accept – and that this fringe group will eventually be proved right. (For holocaust deniers,
see Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, The Institute for Historical Review, and etc). Both are
notorious for quoting experts out of context (to give the misleading impression their crank view has some serious
support), for mischaracterising scholarly debate (on details) as a failure to agree even on the basics, and for
seizing upon any mistake (however minor) to argue that the entire field of study is riddled with incompetence,
ignorance and deception. Both rely on a kind of 'book disproved by its missing pages' reasoning and are forever
demanding 'caught in the act' evidence before they'll believe a single thing (though usually only in this area of
life). Both groups imagine themselves to be victims of a massive conspiracy that shuts them out of some imagined
'debate' and both accuse their critics of misunderstanding them (like we think holocaust deniers imagine no
killings took place at all and evolution deniers believe nothing has evolved, anywhere – ever). Call them
evolution/holocaust sceptics, if that seems more appropriate!
 
Following the debate, Dr Alastair Noble, Director of the risible Centre for Intelligent Design, claimed that it was
"silly" and "scandalous" of me to draw this comparison. Perhaps he would now like to explain why.

As I understand it, Creationism is based on an unwillingness (or inability) to move too far away from a literalist
interpretation of scripture. Proponents of Intelligent Design claim not to be starting from this point, whilst
continuing to work hand in glove with their creationist ancestors/cousins/fellow travellers. In contradistinction,
they claim to be basing their attitude to science on the complexities it uncovers. Were it not for the company they
kept and the tactics they employed – and if they could content themselves with letting Science teachers stick to
the facts unearthed – this would be respectable enough. Science teachers might even venture that some sort of
fine-tuning intelligence or intelligences (aliens, perhaps) may or may not be responsible for all this complexity
(DNA, the Goldilocks enigma, life from nonlife, the birth of the universe, etc) – that is, after all, the
mainstream theistic view. But ID proponents cannot stop there. They want pupils to be told that "an intelligent
designer" is what the evidence points to. And they do not want to accept that they have wandered from Science into
Theology and Philosophy. But no matter how furiously they insist otherwise, all that they are really doing is
putting forward an updated version of the Argument From Design (i.e. that complexity implies a creator). The only
change is the fact that they talk now about the complexity of computer software, instruction manuals and megacities,
where William Paley relied upon the complexities of a pocket watch.

The reason creationists and the ID crowd want this in a Science class is that they presumably wouldn't, in that
context, feel obliged to follow it up with the inevitable philosophical objections – "Who designed the designer?"
(or, if you prefer, "Who programmed the programmer?"), "Why imagine only one designer?", "Why imagine the designer
knows/cares we're here?", "How do we know the designer's not dead?", "Why the dithering, delays and design flaws?",
"Why all the waste and horror?", "Isn't the Goldilocks planet just a lottery winner?", "Where is all this going,
exactly?"

Following my encounter with Dr Noble, I now have a number of questions for him:

As well as being a proponent of Intelligent Design, does he also (perhaps separately) consider himself a
creationist? Although they are coming at things from different angles, there is no reason he cannot be both.

During our post-debate discussion of Wednesday 20th April, Dr Noble objected to my suggestion that Intelligent
Design growing out of Creationism was akin to the BNP having grown out of the National Front. Instead, he claimed a
better analogy would be the IRA and Sinn Fein! Does he stand by this? And, if so, who is meant to be which?

Does he consider himself to be in ‘coalition’ with creationist groups?

Roughly what percentage of his beliefs does he imagine he might share with the average creationist?

If supernatural explanations can be considered suitable for Science classes, why not also History, Geography and
Modern Studies?

Why does his website refer to both ID and Creationism as "theories"?

Does he agree with Michael Behe's definition of Science (shown, in court, to encompass astrology)?

Does he condemn the ludicrous 'Atlas of Creation'?

In what sense is "a supernatural designer" the "best explanation"? Or any explanation at all?

Dr Noble told me that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. What did he mean by this?

In addition, I would also appreciate answers to the questions raised, that same night, by my friend and colleague
Professor Paul Braterman:

Why is the Centre for Intelligent Design promoting creationist materials such as Explore Evolution and Uncommon
Descent?

Why is CID hosting the creationist Jonathan Wells as a summer school instructor?

Can Dr Noble honestly claim that his organisation's core mission has nothing to do with Creationism?

In summary, teenagers studying Science in Scottish secondary schools simply do not need to be confused by the
introduction of a theological/philosophical argument revamped by a pseudoscience (ID) quite happy to smuggle in
nonsense like 'irreducible complexity' whilst leaving the door open for the even more ridiculous pseudoscience of
Creationism. We would not invite a holocaust denier into schools to address our pupils and nor should we be
inviting creationist speakers (or allowing ID and/or creationist materials) in to undermine our Biology teachers.
Pupils are too easily taken in by conspiracy theories as it is!

Did you know, for example, that Tupac Shakur is still alive and well? That the moon landings were faked? Or that
the Frosties kid really 'did' kill himself?


http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress/2011/04/26/creationism-holocaust-denial-and-the-id-crowd/#0rEZUMEdBzzn
 
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=2290
 
http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/creationism-holocaust-denial-id-crowd/
 
http://lclane2.net/iduk2.html
 
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/05/encounter-with-centre-for-intelligent_06.html?spref=f

 

Email received from Dr Alastair Noble after I'd sent the above essay to his C4ID site:
 
Please note: The above was all that was sent - there was no additional message. It is the essay itself he refers to
as an "inquisitorial email."

 

From: Alastair Noble
Sent: 27 April 2011
To: Keith Gilmour

 

Hi Keith,
 
I note the contents of your inquisitorial email and trust you will understand that, since we cannot achieve common
ground around a relatively straightforward scientific matter, we are unlikely to do so over a range of theological
issues. So I'll desist from trying. However, let me respond to a couple of issues you raise. I think the reference
to Holocaust deniers was silly because, despite telling you that ID is neither creationism nor evolution denial,
you persist in making a comparison with those who make a blatant denial of a grim historical (not a scientific)
reality. I think it is also scandalous because I have friends whose families suffered under Nazi persecution and
others whose families tried to shield the persecuted of that era, and have some sense of the misery of that period.
I find it highly offensive, therefore, to have my views on what I regard as a legitimate scientific issue compared
to a distorted view of the worst kind of genocidal brutality. It is interesting that one of your fellow speakers
also dissociated himself from the remark. I do think that remark represents a worrying degree of intolerance of
others' opinions when they don't accord with your own.

On your reference to the Sinn Fein-IRA remark, I don't recall the context exactly, but I think we were talking
about the general practice of associating, rightly or wrongly, ideas and movements in easy slogans, and I was yet
again trying to insist that the use of 'intelligent design creationism' is grossly inaccurate. However, I doubt
that you are going to hear that clearly.

If the tone of your emails is going to continue to be in the vein of this one, it is probably better that we
disengage at this point. I just hope that, as a teacher, you will recognise the importance of dealing with the
substance of an argument and not trying to infer another's position, highly inaccurately, from your perception of
their background and views. In philosophy, that's what they call 'the genetic fallacy'.
 
Best wishes,
 
Alastair Noble

 

RE: Questions for Alastair Noble‏
To: Alastair Noble
From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 28 April 2011

 

Dear Dr Noble,

I am grateful to you for taking the time to reply to my email but sorry that you chose to ignore "the substance of
[our] argument", all of the similarities between holocaust deniers and creationists, and all of the questions I had
raised with you - preferring instead to tell me how very offended you were/are and how worryingly intolerant your
critics appear to you.

I'm sure a great many holocaust deniers erroneously imagine 'their' critics to be displaying "a worrying degree of
intolerance" but why should we care? The offence they take could prove absolutely nothing either way. And you
completely miss the point that many/most holocaust deniers obviously genuinely do consider their 'scepticism' to
be a legitimate historical issue. It isn't – but then neither is creationism a "legitimate scientific issue."
Further, a holocaust denier would doubtless be asking you how having "friends whose families suffered under Nazi
persecution and others whose families tried to shield the persecuted of that era" could in any way prove the
scale, policy, testimonies and machinery of death they dispute.

I'm sorry to have to put it like this, but if you honestly imagine holocaust deniers to be claiming that 'nothing
happened', then you clearly know little (or nothing) about their so-called 'revisionism.' And how can you find it
"highly offensive" to have your views compared to those of a holocaust denier if your views are 'not' those of a
creationist? I have specifically compared holocaust denial to creationism and at no point made reference to
"intelligent design creationism." I was comparing those denying numerous historical realities with those denying
numerous 'scientific' realities. That was all. You appear, therefore, to have made a telling slip.

Incidentally, I do not recall your seeking common ground with me on 'any' "theological issues" at all – and nor did
you make clear, in your email, what "relatively straightforward scientific matter" you were referring to.
 
I will ask you again to please answer the questions included in my essay/report, "Creationism, Holocaust Denial
and The ID Crowd."
 
Kind regards,
 
Keith Gilmour

 

 

 

Contrary Evidence To Evolution And Global Warming?

 

By Keith Gilmour, October 2011

 

http://www.skeptical-science.com/uncategorized/contrary-evidence-evolution-global-warming/

http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=3116

http://lclane2.net/iduk3.html

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/10/evolution-and-climate-change-problem-of.html

http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/2011/10/centre-for-unintelligent-design-update.html#!/2011/10/contrary-evidence-to-evolution-and.html

 

Following last month’s Glasgow Skeptics talk, "Evolution and Global Warming Denial: How the Public is Misled", by
NCSE (National Centre for Science Education) Executive Director Dr Eugenie Scott, ID proponent Dr Alastair Noble
has used his website, The Centre For Intelligent Design (never to be confused with The Centre For Unintelligent
Design!), to take issue with Dr Scott's contention that "there is no contrary evidence to evolution" (AN, essay
link below) – and to criticise her decision to highlight "parallels between the denial of evolution and the denial
of global warming." (ES, 2:46, video link below). On the first point, Dr Scott was, of course, just stating a fact.
"There isn’t scientific evidence against evolution. That all comes from the creationist literature and it's of the
quality of those xenoliths that I mentioned and the lava flows." (ES, 42:09). It shouldn't have to be pointed out
that good scientists are always on the lookout for "contrary evidence" and if Dr Noble has, or knows where to find,
some evidence against evolution (anatomical, geological, bio-geographical, genetic - anything!), he should silence
his foes and critics by producing it. Instead, though, he refers us to the joke of "irreducible complexity" as if
this, in any way, constituted evidence. Dr Noble even has the nerve to lump this "evidence" in with the (at least
respectable) 'fine-tuning' argument for the existence of God, gods or aliens – an addendum, by the way, to his
favourite update on William Paley's 'watchmaker' argument of 1802 (which now has him quoting philanthropic atheist
Bill Gates on the complexity of DNA), the objections to which are well-known.

On the second point, Dr Scott's comparison is a compliment evolution deniers do not deserve. Global warming/climate
change deniers are certainly cranks (and many are clearly guilty of the sins highlighted in Dr Scott's lecture) but
the same cannot be said of sceptics honestly querying the extent to which the climate is changing, the degree to
which human activity has contributed towards changes in temperature, the role of CO2, the influence of solar
activity, and so on. These sceptics do not face overwhelming evidence that has settled the matter and, unlike
creationists and the ID crowd, are at least searching for natural explanations. In contradistinction to evolution,
in other words, 'It's all our fault' is not "the only game in town." (ES, 32:46).

In the Q&A that followed her talk, Dr Scott defined "anthropogenic global warming" as "the planet is getting warmer
and people have something to do with it" (ES, Q&A, 07:30) but in her preceding lecture she had used a 'Global
Warming Denial' slide to divide sceptics/deniers into just three categories: "It's not getting warmer", "It's
getting warmer, but humans aren't responsible" and "It's getting warmer, we’re responsible, but there isn't
anything we can do about it." (ES, 03:56). Unfortunately this omits those who only question the extent and
predictability of the warming, the degree to which human beings are to blame and the most appropriate response.
(My own view, incidentally, is that we should be aiming to clean up the planet irrespective of the AGW evidence
and alarmism).

Alastair Noble objects to Dr Scott's comparison on the grounds that confusion may result and insists that
evolution, global warming, etc must be treated "separately" and the evidence "judged on its own merits." (AN). As
evolution and global warming 'are' treated separately and the evidence 'is' judged on its own merits 99.9% of the
time, this is an extremely odd point to make but what reasons are we being offered to dismiss as illegitimate
efforts to highlight similarities in approach, thinking, attitude, tactics, etc? If Dr Noble had paid attention to
my question, he would know that I was not trying, for the sake of it, to "lump in 'Holocaust denial' as well." (AN).
Instead, I made the straightforward point that evolution deniers have more in common with holocaust deniers than
they do with climate change deniers. (See my essay/report Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The ID Crowd). Would
Dr Noble object to a book entitled 'Conspiracy Theories' on the grounds that each must be treated separately and
judged in isolation? "Academic scientists" (AN) do not waste their time debating with evolution deniers for the
same reasons historians do not waste their time debating with holocaust deniers: to wit, both denialism groups
reject overwhelming existing evidence, offer no real evidence to the contrary, dishonestly quote experts out of
context, mischaracterise scholarly debate, and take comfort in paranoid conspiracy theories.

My question to Eugenie Scott (which she claimed not to have detected) was precisely as follows: "Don’t evolution
deniers have more in common with holocaust deniers?" (KG, Q&A, 22:48). To be honest, I was rather taken aback by Dr
Scott’s response. I first read about the similarities in Michael Shermer's excellent 1997 book Why People Believe
Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (link below) and came across it again
most recently in Richard Dawkins’ equally excellent 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for
Evolution (link below). Like them, I do not think it particularly "offensive" to point out the obvious and nor
would I consider 'reluctance to cause offence' a good reason for keeping quiet about parallels. Comparing a
historical fact supported by overwhelming evidence (the Holocaust) with a scientific fact (evolution) supported by
equally overwhelming evidence is not, after all, to just “bring up the Nazis." (ES, Q&A, 25:04).

If Dr Scott had been determined to avoid causing offence, she would not have used the terms "denier" or "denial" at
all (even if they were occasionally replaced with "anti-global-warming-ist"). Instead, she would have employed the
word sceptic throughout – in all honesty, a more accurate description of people who aren't, after all, claiming
that nothing has ever evolved anywhere/no-one was gassed/climate doesn’t change. If Dr Scott genuinely would, as
she asserted in the Q&A, "rather persuade" people, why did she use these loaded words? And why use the term
'ID-Creationism' when it is virtually guaranteed to infuriate ID proponents such as Dr Noble? Why tell one
questioner that, "This is really not a matter of discussion" and "We're just not gonna argue about that" (ES, Q&A,
19:20) – or another, after the Q&A, that it would be pointless to debate ID with him? I too would "rather persuade"
my opponents but when someone shows absolutely no interest in being persuaded and consistently goes around peddling
tripe to anyone who will listen, I think we have a responsibility to expose that person, their allies, and their
pseudoscientific agenda.

The question of offensiveness to one side, Dr Scott's reference to "Intelligent Design Creationism" probably wasn't
"the old guilt by association trick" (AN) but instead just a reference to the common ancestry and close working
relationship of creationists and ID proponents – and I would remind Dr Noble that it was his choice to compare
creationists and ID proponents to "Sinn Fein-IRA" (though I'm still not sure which is supposed to be which)! In
addition, his suggested reading list for Dr Scott does not constitute "a substantial body of contrary evidence" (AN)
any more than the writings of Arthur Butz, Paul Rassinier or Robert Faurisson constitute "evidence" against the
holocaust. In truth, neither group have 'anything' to compare with Martin Durkin's (flawed but fascinating) 2007
documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle or Nigel Lawson's 2008 book An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global
Warming. And there is a reason Channel 4 can justify 78 minutes of primetime for Mr Durkin's contentious and
controversial film whilst poor Dr Noble has to settle for 108 seconds via 4thought.tv!

Finally, the word evolution is not, as Dr Noble contends (and would prefer), a "slippery" one. Common ancestry is
simply the logical conclusion that comes from all that we have discovered – as well as from the absence of evidence
to the contrary. Noble embarrasses himself by pushing the idea that, yes, this branch is obviously related
to/descended from that branch but please don't go thinking they might both be from the same actual tree! Oh, and by
the way, since we don't have every piece of the jigsaw (and never will), an interventionist must therefore come
along, every now and again, with "new genetic information" and "body plans" (AN). Unfortunately for creationists
and the ID crowd, educated and open-minded theists do not need the farce of "Intelligent Design" to challenge the
proposition that "the origin and development of life is a blind and purposeless process" (AN). A god or gods (or
aliens) may well have sparked the Big Bang, planted the seeds of life, implanted souls into hominids, and so on,
but I'm afraid this would still give us zero reason to be led astray, in our scientific and philosophical quests
for answers, by the conspiracy theory denialism of attention-seeking kooks.

 

Dr Scott's lecture, Evolution and Global Warming Denial: How the Public is Misled, at the Glasgow Skeptics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZA68DHFi8&feature=channel_video_title

Q&A following Dr Scott's lecture (includes Dr Noble's question and my own):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJZbH2nn85w&feature=relmfu

Dr Noble's essay/report, Eugenie Scott says there’s No Contrary Evidence about Evolution and Global Warming:

http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243:eugenie-scott-says-theres-no-contrary-evidence-about-evolution-and-global-warming&catid=1:latest&Itemid=28

Wikipedia entry on Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things:_Pseudoscience,_Superstition,_and_Other_Confusions_of_Our_Time

Richard Dawkins reading extracts from The Greatest Story Ever Told:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2uB4_7CBY

Dr Noble's 108 seconds on 4thought.tv:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/is-it-possible-to-believe-in-god-and-darwin/dr-alastair-noble

 

 

 

 

Noble's Sidekick, Jonathan McLatchie, has a go...

 

An Extremely Ill-Informed Response to Alastair Noble on Evolution and ID:

A Very Brief Rebuttal

 

Please visit:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-extremely-ill-informed-response-to-alastair-noble-on-evolution-and-id-a-very-brief-rebuttal/

 

Well I get the "Oh well", "Oh please", "Hang on a minute", "Oh my" and "Oh dear" but where's the actual rebuttal?
 
First of all, listing problems and mysteries scientists are still trying to solve, whilst simultaneously throwing
in some ID assumptions and misapprehensions, does not constitute "evidence against evolution" (or major
flaws/inconsistencies) any more than a historical revisionist's unanswered - or hard to answer - questions
constitute evidence (for deniers to use) against the Holocaust. "Irreducible complexity" is not accepted "as an
argument for ID" because Irreducible Complexity has not been demonstrated to begin with. It does not constitute "a
fundamental problem for Darwinian evolution" because it does not constitute a problem to be solved. Secondly, the
point that Holocaust deniers would likely make to McLatchie would be that we do not have "living eyewitnesses",
"videography", "confirming photographs", "attestation from adverse witnesses" for all eleven million victims (and
especially - their ugly obsession - six million Jews) being killed – precisely what the deniers are disputing. And
thirdly, I have nowhere suggested that the evidence for the Holocaust is of the same actual type as the evidence
for evolution. It was, therefore, absurd of McLatchie to imply otherwise. Instead, I have merely pointed out the
similarities between both sets of deniers - as Michael Shermer had done before me in his excellent 1997 book, Why
People Believe Weird Things:

"It would be difficult to find a supposedly scientific belief system more extraordinary than creationism, whose
claims deny not only evolutionary biology but most of cosmology, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical
geology, zoology, botany, and bio-geography, not to mention much of early human history. Of all the claims we have
investigated at Skeptic, I have found only one that I could compare to creationism for the ease and certainty with
which it asks us to ignore or dismiss so much existing knowledge. That is Holocaust denial. Further, the
similarities between the two in their methods of reasoning are startling:

1. Holocaust deniers find errors in the scholarship of historians and then imply that therefore their conclusions
are wrong, as if historians never make mistakes. Evolution deniers (a more appropriate title than creationists)
find errors in science and imply that all of science is wrong, as if scientists never make mistakes.

2. Holocaust deniers are fond of quoting, usually out of context, leading Nazis, Jews, and Holocaust scholars to
make it sound like they are supporting Holocaust deniers’ claims. Evolution deniers are fond of quoting leading
scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr out of context and implying that they are cagily denying the
reality of evolution.

3. Holocaust deniers contend that genuine and honest debate between Holocaust scholars means they themselves
doubt the Holocaust or cannot get their stories straight. Evolution deniers argue that genuine and honest debate
between scientists means even they doubt evolution or cannot get their science straight.

The irony of this analogy if that the Holocaust deniers can at least be partially right (the best estimate of the
number of Jews killed at Auschwitz, for example, has changed), whereas the evolution deniers cannot even be
partially right - once you allow divine intervention into the scientific process, all assumptions about natural
law go out the window, and with them science."

But McLatchie knows all this and is just playing games here. Why else would he pretend to be asking - or even
wondering - if my site had a designer? (Unless Yola is a one-man/woman operation, then it will have had several,
who may have taken a while to get things right. I'm sure that all I did was type some text, upload a few
photographs and change some of the colours/fonts).

Can McLatchie really only 'presume' that The Centre For Unintelligent Design is intended to mock C4ID?

Why ask, "Does Mr. Gilmour seriously think that ID proponents are "claiming that nothing has ever evolved
anywhere"?" when I have twice stressed precisely the opposite?

"If Dr Scott had been determined to avoid causing offence, she would not have used the terms "denier" or "denial"
at all (even if they were occasionally replaced with "anti-global-warming-ist"). Instead, she would have employed
the word sceptic throughout - in all honesty, a more accurate description of people who aren’t, after all, claiming
that nothing has ever evolved anywhere/no-one was gassed/climate doesn't change."

Contrary Evidence To Evolution And Global Warming?

"Both groups [holocaust deniers and evolution deniers] imagine themselves to be victims of a massive conspiracy
that shuts them out of some imagined 'debate' and both accuse their critics of misunderstanding them (like we think
holocaust deniers imagine no killings took place at all and evolution deniers believe nothing has evolved,
anywhere - ever). Call them evolution/holocaust sceptics, if that seems more appropriate!"

Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The ID Crowd
 
What proportion of the ever-expanding list on my site does Jonathan McLatchie imagine might "turn out to have
plausible design purposes"?

Why even bother quoting James Shapiro and Lynn Margulis on evolution when this is apparently such a "slippery"
word? How could we possibly know what they might mean by it? Are they talking about speciation? Random mutation?
Common ancestry? Natural selection? All of the above? If only context could give us some clue!

In what sense is McLatchie’s suspicion that "universal common descent has now become scientifically untenable"
compatible with his description of himself as a "skeptical agnostic"? (Elsewhere, he describes himself as a "born
again Christian" and "reformed evangelical." Following October's Glasgow Skeptics event he told me he was a
"deist"). Try to keep up!

There is a perfectly good reason McLatchie's "review of the event did not receive a mention" in my response to
Noble - I didn’t know it existed! Where is it? And is it any better than his alleged rebuttal of my "Extremely
Ill-Informed Response to Alastair Noble"? I emailed my essay to McLatchie (at his msn.com address) as soon as I'd
finished typing it, yet he neither replied nor returned the compliment. A little ridiculous, then, to imply that
his writings are being ignored.

And it is just silly for ID proponents to imply interventionism whilst bemoaning the number of times they've
insisted they're not committed to it. (How exactly 'would' information get from the mind/brain of a designer to the
material of the product 'without' intervention?).

Pointing out that someone who is educated and open-minded does not need a pseudo-science to challenge the assertion
of purposelessness is not to say that those who do choose to embrace the superfluous and counterproductive can no
longer be considered educated or open-minded. H. L. Mencken puts it better than I can: "We must respect the other
fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."

That said, does Jonathan Wells really strike McLatchie as a fine example of open-mindedness? "Father's words, my
studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my
fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism."

Finally, where is the 'irony' in a Bright being an RE teacher? Is this the Alanis Morissette definition of irony?
"A traffic jam when you're already late; a no-smoking sign on your cigarette break..." As was explained to
McLatchie when he came along to one of our Glasgow meet-ups, 'Bright' is simply an umbrella term for agnostics,
atheists, freethinkers, humanists, non-theists, anti-theists, secularists, sceptics, rationalists, etc.

Quite how - or why - a naturalistic worldview could (or should) preclude one from teaching an interesting subject
in an impartial way, I have absolutely no idea.

 

 

 

Casey Luskin's contribution:

 

From: Casey Luskin
Sent: 28 February 2012
To: Keith Gilmour


 

Dear Keith,

Greetings. Your arguments are best classified as "undesirable design" arguments rather than "unintelligent design"
arguments, and you misunderstood and/or misrepresented Steve Fuller's reply to you.

The response from the "ID people" that he mentioned, is to point out that those who cite alleged examples of
undesirable design are making a theological argument, and since ID is scientific argument, those theological
arguments don't refute ID. Contrary to your claims, "By admitting that '[undesirable] design' is a branch of
theology," Fuller did NOT “admit that 'Intelligent' Design is also a branch of theology." That's because, if you
take the time to read ID responses on this topic, they point out that "undesirable design" arguments do not refute
ID arguments precisely because "undesirable design" arguments are theologically-based, whereas ID is NOT! As a
science, ID doesn't care about theological questions about whether the design is "desirable," "undesirable,"
"perfect," or "imperfect." Undesirable design is still design. You just don’t like it because it’s undesirable (in
your own subjective view). Here’s a quick illustration of what I mean:

I'm writing you on a PC using Windows; this PC has crashed probably a dozen times in the past 2 weeks. Right now,
I hate my PC. I consider it poorly designed, full of imperfections, and very undesirable. Does that mean it wasn't
designed by intelligent agents? No. "Undesirable design" and "intelligent design" are two different things.
"Undesirable," "poor," or "imperfect" design do not refute intelligent design.

I suspect you understand exactly what I'm saying. But in case you don't, I'll unpack this a little bit further.

Again, your arguments are best called "undesirable design" arguments and not "unintelligent design" arguments.
By calling your arguments "unintelligent design," you misuse the term "intelligent," ignoring how ID proponents
use that term.

When ID proponents use the term "intelligent," they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features
requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint. Thus, ID proponents test ID by looking for
complex and specified information, which is an indicator that some goal-directed process, capable of acting with
will, forethought, and intentionality, was involved in designing an object.

We do not test ID by looking for "perfect design" or "undesirable design," because minds don't always make things
that are "perfect," and sometimes they make things that are "undesirable" (to other minds, at least). Holding
biological systems to some vague standard of "perfect design" where they are refuted by "undesirable design" is the
wrong way to test ID. Examples like broken machinery, computer failures, and decaying buildings all show that a
structure might be designed by intelligence even if it breaks or has flaws. Intelligent design does not necessarily
mean "perfect design." It doesn’t even always require optimal design. Rather, ID proponents intend for intelligent
design to mean exactly what it sounds like: design by an intelligent agent.

"Undesirable design" arguments share three general problems—some or all of which can be found in each of your "130
examples". Here are the 3 main problems:

(1)  An object can have imperfections and be undesirable, but still be designed.

(2)  Critics' standards of perfection are often arbitrary.

(3)  "Bad design' arguments don’t hold up under their own terms, as the objects often turn out to be
      well-designed when we inspect them more closely.

Problem (1) applies to every single example you give. Problems (2) and (3) apply to many, though not all, of your
examples. In fact, problems (2) and (3) probably don't apply to all of your examples, as some of them are
legitimate examples of undesirable design. I mean, who likes "easily worn out knees" or hernias—both examples of
how our bodies break down? No one does. Objectively speaking, those are flaws or imperfections. But as much as you
might not like "undesirable design," these examples don't refute ID because ID is a scientific argument that isn't
concerned with the moral value, perfection, or desirable/undesirable quality of a structure. After all, computers
break down but were still intelligently designed. In the same way, the fact that our bodies break down doesn't mean
they weren't intelligently designed.

Your website thus implies designers must always design things so they NEVER break down. But I'm not aware of a
single example of human-designed technology that never breaks down. Undesirable qualities, breakdowns, and
imperfections are a normal part of intelligently designed objects; they don't refute intelligent design.

Thus, what you're arguing against isn't intelligent design, but something else. So let's stop playing games and
just lay your cards out on the table: you're arguing against the idea that an all-perfect, all-knowing,
all-powerful God created everything, because you claim that if such a God existed then there wouldn't' be flaws.
In essence, you're raising the "problem of evil". So you're arguing against a different, much broader thesis, than
ID makes. You're making a theological argument, not a scientific one. For millennia, the JudeoChristian theistic
tradition has offered theological explanations for how a perfect God can exist, and yet we see undesirable/evil
things in nature. But these issues are separate from ID. The famous Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne wrote,
"It seems to be generally agreed by atheists as well as theists that what is called 'the logical problem of evil'
has been eliminated, and all that remains is 'the evidential problem.'" In other words, the problem can be solved,
but it is sometimes difficult to accept. I don't deny that evil can be hard to cope with, which is why I like C.S.
Lewis's words when he wrote in The Problem of Pain:

"[T]he only purpose of the book is to solve the intellectual problem raised by suffering; for the far higher task
of teaching forgiveness and patience I was never fool enough to suppose myself qualified, nor have I anything to
offer my readers except my conviction that when pain is to be borne, a little courage helps more than knowledge, a
little human sympathy more than much courage, and the least tincture of the love of God more than all."

Again, these are all separate questions from ID, not the focus of my response to you. You can look those theistic
answers up on your own time, but familiarizing yourself with ID arguments would help you to better understand why
Dr. Fuller was right to note that "You might perhaps make more headway with ID people if you understood the
position better." I hope you understood the ID position a bit better now. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

 

To avoid any confusion, particularly where I am quoting Luskin -- or he is quoting me
(or I am quoting him quoting me!) -- I have coloured some of his words red and some of my own blue.

 

To: Casey Luskin
From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 4 March 2012

 

Dear Casey,

I will be entirely happy to start labelling unintelligent design as "undesirable design" just as soon as ID
proponents start labelling intelligent design as "desirable design" - unless, that is, you really, genuinely are
suggesting that (e.g.) a  worm burrowing into a child's eye is as good an example of 'intelligent' design as you
imagine the eye itself to be. And if that 'is' your contention, then why is it I don't find C4UD's 139 examples
being taken up and hailed on ID websites? Was your imagined designer 'really' acting with "will, forethought and
intentionality
", and towards some "goal", when "designing" these - or, more accurately, the species they affect?
And which of the 139 examples is it you consider 'desirable' - "in your own subjective view"? Which "turn out to be
well-designed when we inspect them more closely"?

Would you be content for me to sum up ID as follows: 'You may not like (e.g.) the AIDS virus or a pain 'alarm' you
can't switch off but at least crediting an intelligent designer allows us to deny a blind, natural process as
ultimately responsible'?

I understand the ID position perfectly well and neither misunderstood nor misrepresented Steve Fuller's email. All
139 examples, currently listed on my site, count as 'unintelligent' in both senses of the word. Either they imply a
designer who is 'not very bright' or 'a bit thick' or else they imply a designer that is 'literally mindless' - as
well as blind, purposeless and directionless.

I could happily draw up a list of 'desirable' design in nature - tulips, trees, melons, polar bears, Beyonce - but
these examples would not make the process that brought them into being any less natural.

And contemplating the natural process that resulted in us, what strikes one (or what 'should' strike one) is just
how much actually works. Alternatively, trying to credit all this to an intelligent designer, one is instead struck
by how very much doesn't.

The C4UD site does 'not' imply that "designers must always design things so they NEVER break down." It implies that
there is 'no' intelligent designer justifying evolution denial - just as the genetic, geological, biological,
paleontological, bio-geographical and anatomical evidence makes clear.

In your email, you try defining everything into intelligent design (unintelligent design relabelled as undesirable
intelligent design - along with the desirable design you would already be putting under the ID heading) but miss
the point with this 'too obvious' sleight of hand.

An AI android conversing with a human about limitations the android doesn't share may point out that the human's
faculties are less desirable but that wouldn't, for one second, alter the fact that the human did not come into
being in the same way the android did. You rely on a bad analogy that doesn't succeed in theology/philosophy and
fares even worse when presented as part of an imagined science. Using a PC (or Windows software), rather than a
pocket watch, does not help. Computers are comparable to androids, 'not' to humans. Beyond this, your points about
machinery, computers and buildings are subject to the standard objections raised against the Argument From
Design - "Who designed the designer?", "Why imagine only one designer?", "Why imagine the designer knows/cares
we're here?", "How do we know the designer hasn't died?", and so on.

You want to shield your imagined proof from these objections by labelling it as science rather than
theology/philosophy but unfortunately have no justification for doing so. ID does not become a "scientific
argument" simply by being labelled as such. It was a theological argument to begin with and has remained so
despite the best efforts of its proponents to paint it as something more. UD arguments, therefore, 'do' present
problems for ID proponents because 'both' are theology/philosophy.

If ID were a science, you would have talked in terms of 'researchers seeking to find out whether or not a
structure has features requiring a mind or minds...' Instead, your revealing choice of words makes clear that ID
proponents "seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the
blueprint
." You start with your conclusion and offer 'nothing' to test. And naturally these imagined "blueprints"
are simply assumed!

Stating, repeating, and repeating again, your assertion that "ID is a scientific argument" does not make it so.
ID is at best theology/philosophy and can, therefore, be refuted by theology/philosophy.

The Teleological argument + evolution denial = Intelligent Design.

Anyway, thank you for your thoughts.

Best wishes,

Keith Gilmour

 

From: Casey Luskin
Sent: 5 March 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

 

Dear Keith,

Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. You did not respond to my arguments. Instead, you repeated your
misunderstandings of ID, as if I had said nothing. I explained why you can have an entity that has flaws, but yet
it is still designed. You replied by citing flaws as if that refutes intelligent design. That class of argument
does not respond to my argument.

For example, you suggest, “a worm burrowing into a child's eye is as good an example of 'intelligent' design as you
imagine the eye itself to be.

I reply: We detect design by finding features in nature which contain the type of information which in our
experience comes from intelligence. This is generally called complex and specified information (CSI). In our
experience, CSI only comes from a goal-directed process like intelligent design. Thus, when we detect high levels
of complex and specified information in nature, we can infer that intelligent design.

I’m not knowledgeable about the biological complexity involved in worms burrowing into a child’s eyes to know if
that system entails high levels of CSI. It might indicate design. I'm open to that possibility. It might not. But I
am aware that the eye requires multiple integrated parts which must be present, all-at-once, in order for the
system to function. (See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/rebutting_karl_giberson_and_fr046491.html for a
discussion of some of these features.) The eye does indicate high CSI. I'm not sure about worms burrowing into eyes
is a system that has high CSI. But I'm open to the possibility.

You write as if somehow I am not open to the possibility that deadly things are designed. As I wrote in my prior
e-mail, I am completely open to the possibility that there are things which have been intelligently designed to
kill. I'm open to it scientifically because I want to follow the evidence where it leads, like any good scientists.
(As an aside, theologically, which is a separate question, this poses no challenge to my view that there is a good,
loving God. I presume you know enough about theology to understand that the presence of natural evil is not
incompatible with belief in God.) So if you're trying to say "Are you open to the possibility that worms burrowing
into kids eyes is a system that shows signs of intelligent design," then the answer is "Yes, I am at least open to
that possibility, although I haven't investigated it enough to know for sure."

Regarding an example from your list which is not poorly designed, your example of "Upside down/back-to-front eyes"
(which I assume refers to the so-called "backwards" wiring of the vertebrate retina) is a good example. I explain
why this is not an inefficient design at: http://www.discovery.org/a/18011

Rather than responding to my arguments, you use the following tactics:

(A) Snarky quips

(B) Misrepresenting my argument

(C) Throwing up fallacious objections that are irrelevant to the discussion.

Regarding (A), rather than responding to my arguments, you use snarky quips like "imagined designer" or "evolution
denial" or "The Teleological argument + evolution denial = Intelligent Design." Those are not arguments; they are
snarky quips designed to make you feel better. You can use whatever mockery you like, but that does not affect
logic or truth. If it makes any difference to you, I do not deny that evolution occurs. We observe small-scale
changes within species quite regularly. The problem for proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution is that we also
observe that there are limits to what natural selection and random mutation can produce. If you'd like, some
research bearing this out is reviewed at http://biologicinstitute.org/research

Regarding (B), rather than responding to my arguments you misrepresent my arguments. For example, you write: "Would
you be content for me to sum up ID as follows: 'You may not like (e.g.) the AIDS virus or a pain 'alarm' you can't
switch off but at least crediting an intelligent designer allows us to deny a blind, natural process as ultimately
responsible'?
"

I reply: No. ID should be summed as follows: "If a natural structure contains the type of information which in our
experience comes only from intelligent causation, then we may infer design. Whether or not the natural structure
causes pain or death is irrelevant to detecting design."

Rather, your position should be summed up as follows: "I don't like the AIDS virus or a pain 'alarm' you can't
switch off, or kidney stones, but at least invoking a blind, natural process as ultimately responsible allows me to
distance God from this structure."

Your site says more about your own theology than mine. You seem awfully motivated by theological and emotional
considerations rather than scientific ones.

You write: "Either they imply a designer who is 'not very bright' or 'a bit thick' or else they imply a designer
that is 'literally mindless' - as well as blind, purposeless and directionless.
"

I reply: So you think the AIDS virus is a structure which can evolve by an unguided natural process? It seems to me
to be a virus which is finely-tuned for killing humans. You might not like its function, but that doesn't mean it
wasn't designed. Same goes for guns, nuclear bombs, and genetically engineered viruses. All kill because they were
intelligently designed to efficiently carry out that mission.

(Please note: I have personal family friends who were struck by the tragedy of the AIDS virus. So please don't
think that I am calloused to the suffering of these people. Nor do I think that God is calloused to the suffering
of those who endure AIDS. My argument has nothing to do with that. It has to do with finding evidence of design in
nature.)

You wrote: "The C4UD site does 'not' imply that "designers must always design things so they NEVER break down."

I reply: Then why does "teeth prone to decay" refute design?

You wrote: "It implies that there is 'no' intelligent designer justifying evolution denial - just as the genetic,
geological, biological, paleontological, bio-geographical and anatomical evidence makes clear.
"

I reply:

"Genetic"/"Anatomical": The genetic and anatomical evidence has utterly failed to produce a tree of life and does
not support neo-Darwinian evolution. For details please see:

A Primer on the Tree of Life

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1481

"Geological" "Paleontological": The fossil record has failed to provide a pattern that supports neo-Darwinian
evolution. For details, please see:

Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1473

Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232

"Biological": Many complex biological features cannot be produced by natural selection acting upon random mutation.
For details, please see:

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information

http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

"Bio-Geographical": There is much biogeographical evidence which conflicts with neo-Darwinism. For details, please
see:

Biogeographical Challenges to Neo-Darwinian Evolution

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1500

You wrote: "In your email, you try defining everything into intelligent design (unintelligent design relabelled as
undesirable intelligent design - along with the desirable design you would already be putting under the ID heading)
but miss the point with this 'too obvious' sleight of hand
."

I reply: No, I did not do that. I acknowledge that some structures are best explained by natural selection acting
upon random mutation. For example, blind eyes on cave fish are probably best explained by neo-Darwinian evolution.
So is antibiotic resistance. So is changing frequencies of wing colors among peppered moths. There are many other
examples of small-scale biological changes/loss-of-function that is best explained by intelligent design. For
details, please see:

Christopher Hitchens and His Cave Myths

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/christopher_hitchens_and_his_c009251.html

Peppered Moth Now Reverts Back to Gray: Evidence of Oscillating Selection?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/peppered_moth_now_reverts_back023011.html

Antibiotic Resistance Revisited

http://www.exploreevolution.com/exploreEvolutionFurtherDebate/2009/02/antibiotic_resistance_revisite.php

You wrote: "An AI android conversing with a human about limitations the android doesn't share may point out that the
human's faculties are less desirable but that wouldn't, for one second, alter the fact that the human did not come
into being in the same way the android did
."

I reply: Huh? What does that have to do with anything? This sounds like a fallacious objection designed to cover
over weaknesses in your own argument.

Of course you're right that an android's opinion is irrelevant. I never said anything about androids, so your point
is irrelevant. But you never established that humans evolved by natural selection. You just asserted it. What points
to the design of humans is that there is too much complex and specified information in humans for it to have arisen
under any reasonable timescale. Even ID-critics admit this. For details, please see:

Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/asking_the_right_questions_abo032211.html

You write: "Computers are comparable to androids, 'not' to humans."

I reply: Again, that's an assertion. Many have recognized the computer-like workings of the cell. Even people who
are NOT ID proponents recognize this:

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a
molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal."
(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, pg. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).)

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
(Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead," pg. 228 (Viking, Penguin Group, 1996, Revised Edition)

"It's been known since the structure of DNA was elucidated that DNA is very digital. There are four possible base
pairs per site, two bits per site, three and a half billion sites, seven billion bits of information in the human
DNA. There's a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that
maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins"

(http://www.edge.org/documents/life/lloyd_index.html)

So your attempt to negate my comparison fails. In fact, Hubert Yockey notes that the genetic code has the precise
mathematical similarities to written language:

"It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order
of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written
language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical."

(Hubert P. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical
Biology, Vol. 91:13-31 (1981).)

So these are not mere analogies, and you have not negated the comparison.

And in fact, my point in citing computers was to point out that designed features can have flaws, not to claim ID
was designed. So you haven't addressed my argument.

Rather, you attempt to negate the comparison by making another fallacious argument "who designed the designer?".
You write:

"Beyond this, your points about machinery, computers and buildings are subject to the standard objections raised
against the Argument From Design - "Who designed the designer?", "Why imagine only one designer?", "Why imagine the
designer knows/cares we're here?", "How do we know the designer hasn't died?", and so on.
"

I reply: None of those questions are relevant to detecting design. We can detect design if there was more than one
designer. We can detect the design whether or not the designer cares. We can detect design whether or not the
designer has died. These are irrelevant questions you are asking to deflect from the weaknesses in your own
position. Regarding "Who designed the designer," we don't need to know the origin of a designer to know a structure
was designed.

You write: "ID does not become a 'scientific argument' simply by being labelled as such."

I reply: You are correct. ID is a scientific argument because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,
and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information
(CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified
information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by
reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of
their parts to function. When scientists experimentally uncover irreducible complexity in a biological structure,
they conclude that it was designed.

You write: "It was a theological argument to begin with and has remained so despite the best efforts of its
proponents to paint it as something more.
"

I reply: That is an assertion. Assertions are not arguments. If you want to refute my argument, then respond to it,
and don't just make assertions.

You write: "UD arguments, therefore, 'do' present problems for ID proponents because 'both' are
theology/philosophy.
"

I reply: Are you saying that Ford Pintos weren't designed? Because if intelligently designed structures can have
flaws, then your whole argument falls apart. And if your argument falls apart, then you have 2 choices (1) admit
you were wrong, or (2) throw up a whole string of fallacious objections to deflect weaknesses in your own position.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have chosen option (2).

You write: "If ID were a science, you would have talked in terms of 'researchers seeking to find out whether or not
a structure has features requiring a mind or minds...'
"

I reply: I talk about that all the time. And I already did in this e-mail. And I have in the past. Here's one
example:

Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific method to make its claims and infers
design by testing its positive predictions

http://www.discovery.org/a/7051

There I write: "ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural
objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause."

That’s exactly what you were asking for. Again, you can admit that ID meets your definition of science, or you can
throw up more fallacious objections.

You write: "Instead, your revealing choice of words makes clear that ID proponents 'seek to indicate that a
structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint.'
"

I reply: You took my quote out of context, as the very next sentence clearly indicates that we don't presume that
high CSI exists, but rather we "test" to see if it exists:

"Thus, ID proponents test ID by looking for complex and specified information, which is an indicator that some
goal-directed process, capable of acting with will, forethought, and intentionality, was involved in designing an
object."

You mischaracterized my argument and took my words out of context. ID tests natural structures to see if they
include the tell-tale signs that a structures was designed. It doesn't assume that they will have that evidence;
rather it studies the object and tests it to see if it has those properties. So you are taking my words out of
context and twisting my argument.

In closing, you have refused to engage my arguments, and have thrown up many fallacious objections. In that regard,
I am not sure if there's much basis for further discussion. You'll find that your comments about "evolution denial,"
etc. appeals to those who like snarky, mean-spirited internet quips, but it does not appeal to people who are
seeking truth. In that regard, I'm not sure if it is worth my time to continue corresponding with you.

If your reply actually engages my argument and stops using logical fallacies, perhaps I will. Otherwise, I might
not reply to future e-mails from you.

Thanks and all the best.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

 

To avoid any confusion, particularly where I am quoting Luskin -- or he is quoting me
(or I am quoting him quoting me!) -- I have coloured some of his words
red
and some of my own
blue
.

 

To: Casey Luskin
From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 22 March 2012

 

Dear Casey,

I responded to all of your arguments - such as they were (most being simply a reworking of the same one) - though,
I take it, not quite in the way you would have preferred, as your expectation is clearly that I should treat a
pseudoscience as something more than it is.

Unfortunately for your position, I do not "repeat misunderstandings of ID" but, instead, see it for what it is -
as, happily, do the vast majority of scientists.

You start out by telling me you "explained why you can have an entity that has flaws, but yet it is still designed"
though I have absolutely no idea why. First of all, this is blindingly obvious to anyone over the age of three and,
secondly, I had never suggested otherwise. I therefore did not need to have that "explained" to me at all. And nor
did I just "respond by citing flaws" as you dishonestly suggest. Instead, I made clear that the 139 examples on the
C4UD list are 'unintelligent' in both senses of the word. "Either they imply a designer who is 'not very bright' or
'a bit thick' or else they imply a designer that is 'literally mindless' - as well as blind, purposeless and
directionless.
" What part of that don't you get?

And what is this? - "For example, you suggest, "a worm burrowing into a child's eye is as good an example of
'intelligent' design as you imagine the eye itself to be."
" Again, I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out
that this was the logic (if one can call it that) of your "undesirable design" argument. That is what you appear to
be suggesting.

Next, you repeat your updated version of William Paley's Argument From Design, thinking it'll help if you use the
word "information" rather than the word "complexity" (or lump them both together in the ill-defined acronym CSI).

(Oh, and some natural phenomena are intelligently designed and some not? The eye but not the worm – or maybe the
worm but definitely the eye?).

And while you don't actually use the words 'pocket watch' in your Paley revamp, you might just as well. A watch
"requires multiple integrated parts which must be present, all-at-once, in order for the system to function." Eyes,
on the other hand, vary throughout nature from the simple (earthworm) to the complex (eagle). They vary in
complexity and grow in complexity. Again, what is it about that you don't get?

My references to "evolution denial" were not "snarky quips", but rather, factual statements. Is it "snarky" to
refer to someone touting an entirely unjustified scepticism about the holocaust - and who necessarily rejects
overwhelming evidence - as a "holocaust denier"?

Added to this, your "intelligent designer" (never designers, I notice) is "imagined" in the sense that we do not
know if this character exists or not. There is certainly no evidence justifying evolution denial either way. Again,
you 'detect' a "snarky quip" where one doesn't exist.

You make clear that, to your way of thinking, tiny variations can add up and up but not up and up and up and up -
that this branch is obviously related to/descended from that branch but, for heaven's sake, don't go thinking they
might both be from the same actual tree!

"Regarding (B), rather than responding to my arguments you misrepresent my arguments. For example, you write:
"
Would you be content for me to sum up ID as follows: 'You may not like (e.g.) the AIDS virus or a pain 'alarm' you
can't switch off but at least crediting an intelligent designer allows us to deny a blind, natural process as
ultimately responsible'?
""

That is not a 'misrepresentation' of your argument. It is a question. Your "reply" is just another rerun of Paley
("complexity" again replaced by "information") - the watch may not work but we can still conclude that it was
designed by an intelligent designer. I will explain again why this is a bad analogy but am quite sure it will make
no difference whatsoever. We do not know (or have any reason to believe) that worms or eyes were designed. We
do know, however, that, unlike watches, they grow and evolve.

You tell me my position "should be summed up as follows: "I don't like the AIDS virus or a pain 'alarm' you can't
switch off, or kidney stones, but at least invoking a blind, natural process as ultimately responsible allows me to
distance God from this structure."
" - a genuine misrepresentation of my position and definitely 'not' a question!
Can you see the difference?

I blame a blind, natural process because that is where overwhelming evidence points. There is no reason to
blame/credit God. Revealing, also, that you casually judge me by your own standards. What makes you think I 'want'
something that "allows me to distance God from this structure"?

If scientists ever create life from scratch in the lab or recreate the Big Bang in the LHC it will raise
fascinating philosophical questions: Perhaps we are just the latest in a long line of species to figure out how to
do this. Perhaps ours is a 'Russian doll' universe inside a Russian doll universe. Perhaps there is a God or gods.
But these will be questions based on 'real' science, not the nonsense of Intelligent Design or Creationism - the
difference between space telescopes looking for alien life, on the one hand, and cranks gibbering about abductions
and anal probes, on the other.

"Your site says more about your own theology than mine. You seem awfully motivated by theological and emotional
considerations rather than scientific ones.
" That is because I am not a scientist. But then neither are the vast
majority of ID proponents (including yourself) - and nor is ID a science. At least I'm not pretending to have found
a new science without having provided 'any' research evidence to reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals!

"So you think the AIDS virus is a structure which can evolve by an unguided natural process? It seems to me to be a
virus which is finely-tuned for killing humans. You might not like its function, but that doesn't mean it wasn't
designed. Same goes for guns, nuclear bombs, and genetically engineered viruses. All kill because they were
intelligently designed to efficiently carry out that mission.
"

We create bombs. Viruses evolve. And we have no reason to think otherwise. As you do not understand why the
watch-organism analogy is a bad one, you just keep making the same mistake over and over again. You're not saying
'anything' new - just rerunning your standard shtick (variously with machinery, computers, buildings, guns, bombs
and GM).

Who is it you imagine "designed" and "finely-tuned" the AIDS virus? God on an off-day? Aliens? The Prince of
Darkness?

"You wrote: "The C4UD site does 'not' imply that "designers must always design things so they NEVER break down." I
reply: Then why does "teeth prone to decay” refute design?
"

It doesn't. It shows it to be unintelligent in one or other sense and I have already answered this point.

You say you "acknowledge that some structures are best explained by natural selection acting upon random mutation.
For example, blind eyes on cave fish are probably best explained by neo-Darwinian evolution. So is antibiotic
resistance. So is changing frequencies of wing colors among peppered moths. There are many other examples of
small-scale biological changes/loss-of-function that is best explained by intelligent design.
" Again, this shows
only that, in your version of reality, tiny variations can add up and up but not up and up and up and up - like a
holocaust denier who admits there's evidence for thousands and thousands but not millions and millions.

Also, you really didn't need to remind me that you "never said anything about androids." I do recall that the AI
android analogy was mine - though the point obviously went whizzing over your head. Irrespective, how could
introducing an analogy/thought experiment you "never said anything about" render the point I was making
"irrelevant"? You might just as well have said, 'I never said anything about watches, so your point is irrelevant.'
What's the difference?

You tell me I "never established that humans evolved by natural selection" - but then I don't need to. That has
already 'been' established and there is no alternative explanation. I could refer you to Chris Stringer's new book,
The Origins of Our Species, but what would be the point? Regrettably, you obviously prefer the ID echo chamber.

To make matters worse, you simply 'assert' that humans contain "too much complex and specified information" - and
this as you laughably accuse 'me' of just making assertions!

What 'would' you consider a "reasonable timescale"? When is it you imagine complexity becomes "too much"? Humans,
insects, plants, etc all grow naturally in complexity. Androids do not. That is not "an assertion" - it is a fact.
Describing cells as "computer-like" tells us nothing we didn't already know. Our eyes are camera-like, our ears
microphone-like, our voice boxes speaker-like, and so on. But so what? Again, either the watch analogy works or it
doesn't and it would still give us zero reason to embrace evolution denial either way. Your comparison - as with
these others - therefore 'is' negated.

The atheists you quoted can get their heads around this - why can't you?

I have read and reread your quotations but still have no idea what you think the words "information", "digital" or
"code" mean - or prove - in the context of DNA. What is it that makes you think you've found a way to shoehorn in
your Intelligent Designer? Numerical values? Correlation? Self-replication? Sequencing? Mutations? Chromosome
proliferation? Genome diversity? What?

Further, "Who designed the designer?" is not an argument ("another fallacious argument") - it is a question. And
the questions that followed it were not intended to help you "detect design" (which you 'detect' in much the same
way paranoid schizophrenics "detect" conspiracies)! It genuinely embarrasses me to have to point that out to you.
As you well know, your imagined/hypothesised designer would have to be staggeringly complex, so you are attempting
to solve a mystery with an even greater mystery, ad infinitum - even where no mystery exists!

Worse, you reveal yourself to be employing a laughably simplistic view of "the scientific method" - with ID failing
even on that formulation - before rerunning the teleological argument (now CSI, CSI and CSI) yet again and throwing
credibility to the winds by bringing up irreducible complexity. A worm's eye is not missing a part. A limpet's eye
is not missing a part. A snail's eye is not missing a part. You appear to rely, almost entirely, on arguments from
ignorance and personal incredulity.

And since you earlier make a comparison with human language, do you also imagine some 'words' to be "irreducibly
complex"? Do you "detect" intelligent design in the grunts of early hominids?

You dishonestly repeat, over and over, that you make arguments whilst I merely make assertions, as if genuinely
believing that repetition creates truth.

And why bring up Ford Pintos? Do you seriously think this will give the impression you're saying something new? As
I've already said, you've now tried machinery, computers, buildings, guns, bombs and GM - what on 'earth' makes you
think Pintos will help?

Having understood none of the points I've made thus far, you (inexplicably) state that "if intelligently designed
structures can have flaws, then your whole argument falls apart.
" How many times do I have to say it - 'no-one'
suggests species or Pintos must be flawless! It is, however, a fact that species have evolved and that Pintos have
not. Your enthusiasm for evolution denial does nothing to change that.

On top of this, your (1) and (2) "argument falls apart" false choice is absolutely pathetic and I will be happy to
add it to the C4UD site - in bold type - to show just how low your reasoning can sink.

You also miss my point about your having chosen to talk in terms of ID proponents "seek[ing] to indicate that a
structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint
" rather than in terms of
'researchers seeking to find out whether or not a structure has features requiring a mind or minds...' - and
pointing out that you'd previously rerun the Argument From Design, in slightly less self-defeating terms, at
discovery.org really doesn't help.

Further, your imagined ID/CSI "test" is again just Argument From Design inference/assumption/presumption
(complexity relabelled as "tell-tale signs") - like someone claiming there's been a murder every time they see a
dead body - and you give me nothing to engage with if you are going to continue to pretend that the
theological/philosophical Argument From Design is a science.

But I am offered another false choice: "admit that ID" is science or throw up "fallacious objections." A pity for
your 'take it or leave it' reasoning that ID relies on a definition of science that would include astrology!

Beyond this, "evolution denial" is not for "those who like snarky, mean-spirited internet quips." It is an accurate
description of your position. Saying you accept 'some' evidence of 'some' evolution, here and there, is no better
than a holocaust denier accepting thousands of victims whilst rejecting evidence for millions (as most do).

Finally, I am curious to know what I 'could' have said or done (in an email!) to convince you "humans evolved by
natural selection." Included huge lists of books and links? Attached slides and photographs of the evidence? Would
the quantity have made any difference? The quality?

In reality, you know full well that there is 'nothing' I could have done to change your mind on this topic.

So, just as a little experiment, please go to any holocaust denial website and email the crank who set it up. Send
as many books, links, photographs and slides as you like - sadly, you will find that your best efforts will make no
difference whatsoever.

In all likelihood, you will be told that historians have "utterly failed to produce" the evidence deniers/sceptics
demand from them; that the deniers' position has "merit"; that there is "much" evidence "which conflicts with" the
holocaust; and that your points are just "mockery" and "snarky quips designed to make you feel better." You might
even be directed to a dozen or so holocaust denial webpages where this loon can "explain why" you've got it wrong.
Perhaps you'll even find yourself asking, 'Is that the sixth time he's erroneously used the word "fallacious" or
the seventh?'

Casey, if you were genuinely "seeking truth" and wanting to "follow the evidence where it leads" you would step out
of the Discovery/IDEA echo chamber and ask yourself why so many scientists are so contemptuous of your favourite
pseudoscientific conspiracy theory - but then journeying down that road might well wind up with you getting a lot
less of the attention you so obviously crave.

With best wishes,

Keith Gilmour

 

To avoid any confusion, particularly where I am quoting Luskin -- or he is quoting me
(or I am quoting him quoting me!) -- I have coloured some of his words
red
and some of my own
blue
.

 

From: Casey Luskin
Date: March 23, 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

 

Dear Keith,


Greetings and thanks for your reply. I find the extended posturing at the beginning of (and throughout!) your most
recent e-mail amusing, particularly the part about how you supposedly "responded to all of your arguments - such as
they were (most being simply a reworking of the same one)
". LOL. Of course nothing of the kind is the case (for
example, you responded to none of the links I provided where I wrote in great detail about the evidence that
challenges neo-Darwinian evolution) - but if posturing makes you feel better then feel free to do it.  I'm here to
seek truth and how I feel is secondary. (If there was any "a reworking of the same" argument on my part, it was
because I forced to repeatedly respond to your repeated misconception that poor design somehow falsifies design.)
Let's stay on the theme of feeling good vs. truth seeking for a moment.

I was saddened to see that your latest response is full of nasty namecalling and the like which has come to
characterize the discourse from defenders of Darwinism. Your reply repeatedly uses outlandish rhetoric (e.g.
"pseudoscience," "conspiracy theories," etc.), attacking me personally (e.g. "dishonest," comparing me to a
"holocaust denier" or "paranoid schizophrenics" etc.). The words of philosopher Larry Laudan come to mind here:

"If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' ...
[T]hey ... do only emotive work for us." (Larry Laudan, The Demise of the Demarcation Problem, in But Is It
Science? (Michael Ruse, Ed. Prometheus Books, 1988).)

He could say the same thing about much of your personal attacks against me. In any case, when an evolutionist
starts sinking into personal attacks against me, that's usually a good sign that I've made a strong argument,
because if they had a god rebuttal then they would not be resorting to substituting verbal abuse for arguments.

But I'll respond to a few of your points, but most of what you write is based upon misconceptions about my
arguments. So I'll correct the mistakes you have that I have time right now to correct. It's almost 8 pm on a
Friday night and I need to leave soon.

You write: "You start out by telling me you 'explained why you can have an entity that has flaws, but yet it is
still designed' though I have absolutely no idea why.
"

I reply: LOL. I think I said that because your website's primary argument is that if an entity has flaws then it
isn't designed.

You also called ID an "updated version of William Paley's Argument." Again, this shows a misconception on your
part. Paley argued to design from "perfection," but the modern theory of ID doesn't do that. The modern theory of
ID uses information-based arguments, where we seek to test natural structures to see if they contain the type of
information which in our experience comes from intelligence.

You wrote: "You make clear that, to your way of thinking, tiny variations can add up and up but not up and up and
up and up
".

I reply: In your words, YES, tiny variations can "up and up and up and up" so long as there is an advantage
provided along each small step of an evolutionary pathway. But when many mutations or changes are needed before you
get any advantage, then they can't add "up and up and up". Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne affirms this when he
states: "It is indeed true that natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not
confer a net benefit on the organism." [1] Though Coyne might claim otherwise, there is very good evidence that
many structures in nature just like this exist.

In 2004, Michael Behe copublished a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple
mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then "the mechanism of gene duplication
and point mutation alone would be ineffective... because few multicellular species reach the required population
sizes." [2] In 2008, Behe and Snoke's would-be critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed.
They found that to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution within humans "would take > 100
million years," which they admitted was "very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." [3] (That should answer
your question about what I mean by "reasonable timescale.")

Thus, my claim that "humans contain 'too much complex and specified information'" to be generated by Darwinian
evolution under reasonable timescales is not a mere "assertion." Here are some specific examples of what I’m
talking about:

Some evolutionists have claimed that a mutation that decreased the production of myosin in jaw muscles, a protein
that effectively increases muscle strength, allegedly caused jaw muscles to be weaker. Some have hypothesized this
loss in jaw-muscle strength allowed the human braincase to grow larger, causing an increase in human intelligence.
This is a nice story, but does it make sense? Around the same time this research was first reported, leading
paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood explained why simply identifying the effects of a mutation does not imply that we
have an accurate evolutionary story:

"The mutation would have reduced the Darwinian fitness of those individuals... It only would've become fixed if it
coincided with mutations that reduced tooth size, jaw size and increased brain size. What are the chances of
that?" [4]

So simply expanding brain size appears to be the kind of multi-mutation features which are beyond the ability of
neo-Darwinism to construct—as the critics of Michael Behe concede. Moreover, if we accept the story that human
braincases enlarged due to this unlikely mutation, the implication is that this explains human intellectual
evolution. But the well-known paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersal observes that simply enlarging the brain does very
little to explain the evolution of human cognition:

"[T]he arrival of the modern cognitive capacity did not simply involve adding just a bit more neural material, that
last little bit of extra brain size that pushed us over the brink. Still less did it involve adding new brain
structures, for basic brain design remains remarkably uniform among all the higher primates." [5]

So how did our brains evolve? Look at what some evolutionary thinkers have said about problems evolving language in
a Darwinian fashion:

"How could we move from communication systems in nonhuman primates to human language in a manner consistent with
evolutionary principles? Arguments that humans are fundamentally different from nonhuman animals either set the
stage for creationist explanations or simply avoid the attempt to develop a persuasive evolutionary argument.
Bickerton's proposal of a single-gene mutation is, I think, too simplistic. Too many factors are involved in
language learning - production, perception, comprehension, syntax, usage, symbols, cognition - for language to be
the result of a single mutation event." [6]

"Humans are quite different because they possess language, which underlies every major intellectual achievement of
humanity. This discontinuity theory is implausible because evolution cannot proceed by inspired jumps, only by
accretion of beneficial variants of what went before" [7]

Again, human language requires multiple coordinated mutations before there is any benefit, so these would seem
unlikely to arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisims.

Since humans appear hard-wired for language, one evolutionist, Elizabeth Bates, suggests that this leaves two
unpalatable options for evolutionists:

"If the basic structural principles of language cannot be learned (bottom up) or derived (top down), there are
only two possible explanations for their existence: either Universal Grammar was endowed to us directly by the
Creator, or else our species has undergone a mutation of unprecedented magnitude, a cognitive equivalent of the
Big Bang." [8]

"What protoform can we possibly envision that could have given birth to constraints on the extraction of noun
phrases from an embedded clause? What could it conceivably mean for an organism to possess half a symbol or three
quarters of a rule? ... monadic symbols, on a yes-or-no basis - a process that cries out for a Creationist
explanation." [8]

So evolving a larger or more intelligent brain with the language-abilities that humans have would require many
coordinated changes - the very kind of changes which cannot be coordinated by Darwinian mechanisms under
reasonable timescales.

Pro-ID molecular biologist Douglas Axe corroborated the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce multi-mutation
features in a 2010 peer-reviewed study which calculated that when a "multi-mutation feature" requires more than
six mutations to give a benefit, it is unlikely to arise in the history of the earth. [9] Axe's previous research
published in Journal of Molecular Evolution had suggested that many simultaneous changes would be necessary to
produce new functional protein folds. [10] Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one
enzyme into a closely related enzyme - the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen - would
require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes, [11] exceeding the probabilistic resources available for
evolution over the earth's history. Another empirical study by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke similarly found
that when merely two mutations were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even here Darwinian processes
failed. [12]

So throughout biology we see structures that would require MANY CHANGES before any advantage is given. These
structures cannot evolve in a manner where changes add "up and up and up" because their functions do not arise
until many changes are present, all at once. Darwinian evolution can’t select for non-existent functions, and those
pose a strong challenge to Darwinian evolution.

You write: "I blame a blind, natural process because that is where overwhelming evidence points. There is no reason
to blame/credit God.
"

I reply: OK, then why don't you stop pointing to alleged examples of poor design and start showing evidence for
Darwinian evolution? J

You wrote: "I am not a scientist. But then neither are the vast majority of ID proponents (including yourself)"

I reply: That's fine if you're not a scientist; I don't fault you for not being a scientist. But how do you define
scientist? I'm not a practicing scientist today, but I do hold 2 science degrees, including a graduate degree in
earth sciences from University of California at San Diego where I studied evolution extensively in both my
undergraduate and graduate studies. So while I may not be a practicing scientist today, you understate my
scientific qualifications.

You write: At least I'm not pretending to have found a new science without having provided 'any' research evidence
to reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals!

I reply: Perhaps you're not aware there are a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers which support ID. For
details, please see: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

You write: "We create bombs. Viruses evolve. And we have no reason to think otherwise."

I reply: Except you haven't provided a reason other than making assertions like this, and comparing me to a
Holocaust denier for disagreeing with you.

You write: "As you do not understand why the watch-organism analogy is a bad one, you just keep making the same
mistake over and over again.
"

I reply: I don't recall making a "watch-organism analogy." Rather, I showed that biological systems contain the
same type of information we find in designed objects. Hubert Yockey explains that when you study life's
information in a mathematical sense, the comparison is not an "analogy" but is much stronger. I explained this to
you previously:

"It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order
of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written
language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical."

(Hubert P. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical
Biology, Vol. 91:13-31 (1981).)

This is another one of many examples where I refuted your prior arguments but you continue to repeat your erroneous
claims, and fail to respond to my arguments. The irony is that you repeatedly, over and over again accuse me of
doing that same thing. I fear you’re projecting.

In closing, regarding your repeated comparison of me to "Holocaust deniers," it saddens me to see that you have
sunk to this depth in your discourse. I am of Eastern European Jewish descent and had family members impacted by
the Holocaust. A very close friend of mine is a Holocaust survivor who every one of her 50+ family members at
Auschwitz. So I’m not even going to dignify your Holocaust denier comparison to skepticism of neo-Darwinism with a
logical rebuttal because it doesn’t deserve it. It's saddening to see that you are sinking to make these kinds of
arguments, but it says something about the weakness of your arguments when you choose to resort to these kinds of
comparisons. Again, comparing me to a Holocaust denier might make you feel better, but it is a sordid comparison
that says far more about the strength of your position than it does about mine.

And finally, you write: "Finally, I am curious to know what I 'could' have said or done (in an email!) to convince
you "
humans evolved by natural selection." Included huge lists of books and links? Attached slides and photographs
of the evidence? Would the quantity have made any difference? The quality?
"

I reply: Feel free to suggest any books, links, slides, photographs, etc. which you like. I've studied human
origins extensively, have read hundreds of mainstream technical papers on the subject, and I own (and have read)
dozens of books on human origins by evolutionary scientists. I enjoy studying this topic and would welcome any
references you provide.

You also write that "I could refer you to Chris Stringer's new book, The Origins of Our Species, but what would be
the point
?"

I reply: Sounds like a good book! I just ordered it on Amazon. I'll add it to the collection of dozens of other
books I own (and have read) by evolutionists on human origins.  If you want to know about what books and technical
papers I'm talking about, then you can browse through the endnotes of my chapter on the lack of fossil evidence for
human evolution in the forthcoming book "Science and Human Origins" (it's Chapter 3 in the book.) The book will be
out next month - you might enjoy it!

Thanks and all the best.

Sincerely,

Casey


p.s. OK I'll dignify your pernicious Holocaust denier comparison with this one comment: Holocaust deniers don't
hold degrees where they studied the subjects they deny, and they also don't cite extensive peer-reviewed scientific
papers backing their claims.

p.p.s. I probably don't have the time or stomach to dialogue with people who repeatedly compare me to Holocaust
Deniers. As a result, if you reply, I will not be replying back. But if you do suggest some of your favorite
references on human origins, I'll gladly take a look even if don't want to expose myself to your repeated verbal
abuse against me further.


References Cited:


[1.]    Jerry Coyne, "The Great Mutator," The New Republic (June 14, 2007).

[2;]    Michael Behe and David Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require
         Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science 13 (2004): 2651–2664.

[3;]    Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence
         Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution," Genetics 180 (2008): 1501–1509.

[4.]    Bernard Wood, quoted in Joseph B. Verrengia, "Gene Mutation Said Linked to Evolution," Associated Press,
         taken from the San Diego Union Tribune, March 24, 2004.

[5.]    Ian Tattersal, The Monkey In the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human (Orlando, FL:
         Harcourt, 2002) , 160.

[6.]    Charles T. Snowdon, "From Primate Communication to Human Language," 224, in Tree of Origin: What Primate
         Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, ed. Frans B. M. de Waal (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
         University Press, 2001).

[7.]    Richard W. Byrne, "Social and Technical Forms of Primate Intelligence," in deWaal, ed., Tree of Origin,
         148–49.

[8.]    Elizabeth Bates quoted in Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (New York:
         Harper Perennial, 1994), 350, 377.

[9.]    Douglas Axe, "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured
         Bacterial Populations," BIO-Complexity 2010 (2010) (4): 1-10.

[10.]  Douglas Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal
         of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295–1315; Douglas Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative
         Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology 301 (2000): 585–95.

[11.]  Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe, "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the
         Biotin Pathway," BIO-Complexity 2011 (2011) (1): 1-17.

[12.]  Ann Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations
         from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness," BIO-Complexity 2010 (2010) (2): 1-9.

 

To: Casey Luskin
From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: April 29, 2012

 

Dear Casey,

I don't know whether or not you actually did find my imagined posturing "amusing" but I genuinely was amused to see
you reduced to typing "LOL" (twice!), quote-mining, ending a sentence with a smiley face, and falsely claiming to
have "refuted" my points.

Instead of telling me which of your "arguments" you think I failed to respond to (zero, by my count), you instead
chide me for not having responded to all of your links. I take it from that gripe that you had actually expected me
to write essay-length replies to each one. In response to that criticism, I would only point out that (a) my last
email ran to over 2500 words as it was, (b) this one runs to over 6000, and (c) life is short. I would also add
that, had you opted to take up my challenge and emailed a holocaust denier, I am almost certain you would have
received just as many links to yet more holocaust denial/scepticism verbiage - coupled with demands that you answer
each and every point about what happened where, when and in what order.

In all honesty, I can't quite decide how much of my time I should reasonably be devoting to this but keep coming
back to the fact that you can't even answer the most basic, bumper sticker objections to your pseudo-science.

I was bemused by your clumsy edit ("... [T]hey ...") of the unpersuasive Larry Laudan quote you culled from a book
published a year before the ID racket was born. Why remove "unscientific"? And anyway, what conclusion am I
supposed to take that to? Am I to conclude that 'pseudo-history' and 'pseudo-scholarship' should not be used when
referring to holocaust deniers/sceptics? That dowsing, dianetics, phrenology, astrology and ESP are "science" after
all? They write in "great detail" on those sites too, by the way - and of their "evidence that challenges"
mainstream science.

Also, what makes you think "posturing" would make me "feel better"? Or that I need to "feel better"? Or that I
might need (or want) your permission? What an odd point to make.

Your excuse for drearily repeating your same stock point in a slightly different way was as follows: "If there was
any "
a reworking of the same" argument on my part, it was because I forced to repeatedly respond to your repeated
misconception that poor design somehow falsifies design.
" However, you were "forced" to do no such thing as I had
repeatedly made clear that I was saying nothing of the sort. This is the argument you 'want' me to be making so
this is the argument you attack.

You accuse me of calling you "nasty" names but fail to offer a single example. I did not compare you to a holocaust
denier "for disagreeing with me" and, in fact, did not compare you to a holocaust denier at all. Instead, I
compared your reasoning and denial of scientific fact/evidence to the reasoning of someone who denies historical
evidence (a holocaust denier being the most blatant example of that). Because you can clearly see what I am getting
at, you pretend to interpret this as an attack on your character, as if I'm implying that both sets of deniers are
driven by hatred.

You could have attempted to explain how - if at all - your 'detection' of "intelligent design" differs from a
paranoid schizophrenic's 'detection' of conspiracies. Instead, you resort to faux outrage and disingenuously accuse
me of "verbal abuse" and "personal attacks." Please reread my email of 22nd March and see if you can find a single
example of my having used abuse instead of argument/rebuttal.

Outside of the Discovery Institute bubble, it is not "outlandish rhetoric" to describe ID as a "pseudoscience" -
merely an accurate description. And if your 'theory' is that the vast majority of scientists are 'conspiring' to
dismiss it as such, then why should I avoid using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe your thinking on this?

Also, it 'was' dishonest of you to "repeat, over and over, that you make arguments whilst I merely make
assertions.
" And if I have displayed any "misconceptions" about your "arguments", then it is surely incumbent upon
you to set me straight as to what those misconceptions are. Unfortunately you don't even 'try' to do this.

"You write: "You start out by telling me you 'explained why you can have an entity that has flaws, but yet it is
still designed' though I have absolutely no idea why.
" I reply: LOL. I think I said that because your website's
primary argument is that if an entity has flaws then it isn't designed.
"

No, that is 'not' my website's "primary argument" - as I have repeatedly made abundantly clear (including in the
second half of the "You start out..." paragraph cited above) - "...the 139 examples on the C4UD list are
'unintelligent' in both senses of the word. "Either they imply a designer who is 'not very bright' or 'a bit thick'
or else they imply a designer that is 'literally mindless' - as well as blind, purposeless and directionless."
"

Paley did not imagine (e.g.) eyes - or, indeed, watches - to be 'perfect' and was, to use your description of ID
(from an earlier email), pointing to "an indicator that some goal-directed process, capable of acting with will,
forethought, and intentionality, was involved in designing an object.
" Paley argued from complexity not
"perfection" (flawlessness), as you wrongly assert, so yet again the misconception is yours rather than mine.

ID is not a "theory" and has, as far as I'm aware, passed no tests whatsoever and added 'nothing' to the store of
human knowledge. If it actually worked, you would presumably be able to tell me which forest fires were started
deliberately and which by accident, which deaths were natural/accidental and which premeditated murder, which rocks
were chipped and scratched by humans and which by natural phenomena, which canvases feature an action painting and
which were inadvertently splashed with paint when a shelf collapsed - and you would be able to manage this without
employing any of the techniques detectives, scientists and art critics are already able to call upon.

Your use of the phrase "information-based arguments" does not help. By saying "...we seek to test natural
structures to see if they contain the type of information which in our experience comes from intelligence
" all that
you are really saying is, 'We're dissecting this eyeball to see if it's a bit like a watch!'

"You wrote: "You make clear that, to your way of thinking, tiny variations can add up and up but not up and up and
up and up
". I reply: "In your words, YES, tiny variations can [add] "up and up and up and up" so long as there is
an advantage provided along each small step of an evolutionary pathway. But when many mutations or changes are
needed before you get any advantage, then they can't add "
up and up and up.""

WHAT can't add up and up? - tiny differences? (Remember, we are supposed to be talking here about the origin and
development of species). And do you seriously imagine every mutation must be beneficial? One might be neutral,
making no difference either way - another could be a disadvantage the organism gets away with (or that is a
disadvantage in one way but an advantage in another) - and besides, this is not happening in a vacuum! Do you
really imagine that what's going on round about makes no difference at all? And what on earth do you take "net
benefit" to mean?

"Though Coyne might claim otherwise, there is very good evidence that many structures in nature just like this
exist.
" There's no "might" about it - as you well know - and it's notable that you opted not to name any!

On Behe and Snoke, I take it you've read Michael Lynch's 'Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins' (2005).
If not, here's a chunk of his abstract: "It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artefact
of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modelling, and faulty logic. Numerous simple
pathways exist by which adaptive multi-residue functions can evolve on time scales of a million years (or much
less) in populations of only moderate size. Thus, the classical evolutionary trajectory of descent with
modification is adequate to explain the diversification of protein functions."

And this is from 'The Rate of Establishment of Complex Adaptations' - Michael Lynch and Adam Abegg in 'Molecular
Biology and Evolution' (2010): "However, the message to be gained from the preceding results is that the elevated
power of both random genetic drift and mutation may enable the acquisition of complex adaptations in multicellular
species at rates that are not greatly different from those achievable in enormous microbial populations."

Why no mention of "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" in the Behe/Snoke paper, by the way? Was that
by accident - or design?

And what makes you think everything scientists can't (fully) explain (yet) must somehow be a point for the ID
crowd? Isn't that exactly the tactic holocaust deniers/sceptics employ? No wonder you don't like that comparison!

If you have come up with a new mutational mechanism then what is it and how do you think it works? Please tell me
it's something more than, 'God did it!'

Which "critics of Michael Behe concede" his points on this, by the way?

On hominid skulls, you can easily find examples showing incremental shrinkage of cheek/jaw bones and expansion of
the cranium. (Why do you think our teeth are so crammed?). Are these down to multiple mutations or to a single
mutation in a control gene? I don't know (and nor do you) but I do know that repeated interventions from your
proposed Intelligent Designer (interventions your friend Jonathan McLatchie tells me "ID is not committed to")
would not be an explanation and would move us not one step further forward. Beyond this, I'm not sure how you'd
even 'begin' to try and explain away the skulls of Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo
habilis, Homo erectus, and etc (as well as those of our closest living relatives) - but doubtless you'll have come
up with some ruse!

Highly revealing, also, that you should choose to describe a scientific hypothesis as "a nice story." NOTHING could
better sum up your contemptible attitude towards science.

And, just out of interest, what's your answer to Bernard Wood's curious question, "What are the chances of that?"
You say that Wood (author of Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction) "explained why simply identifying the
effects of a mutation does not imply that we have an accurate evolutionary story
" but who thinks it does? Also,
there are plenty of mutations that reduce the fitness of individuals but sometimes those individuals get away with
having them.

I would very much doubt that one game-changer mutation can be credited with Homo sapiens but, as far as I can tell,
you only bring this sort of thing up because, again, you imagine anything scientists don't know (or agree upon) as
yet must automatically be a point for the 'nothing to offer' ID crowd. What a worthless approach.

I'm not even sure it's accurate to say that a mutation "only would've become fixed if it coincided with" other
mutations. What is Wood basing that on? Do you know? Or do you never get beyond the quote-mining stage?

"Moreover, if we accept the story that human braincases enlarged due to this unlikely mutation..." We don't have to
accept any such thing at this stage - we need only keep an open mind and carry on investigating (as opposed to,
say, shoehorning in an Intelligent Designer and exclaiming, 'That's solved that!').

You quote Ian Tattersal (The Monkey in the Mirror) 'observing' that (your words) "simply enlarging the brain does
very little to explain the evolution of human cognition
" as if this is some great, new revelation. Who has 'ever'
said, "Ah! - Bit bigger! - Well, that's that solved!"?

Surely you know that through the evolution of primates, brain sizes have sometimes increased and sometimes
decreased; that Homo floresiensis appear to have been no less intelligent than Homo sapiens despite their very much
smaller brains; and that environmental factors, the advent of meat eating and cooking, radiation, transgenerational
responses, proviruses and adeno-associated viruses that insert themselves into the human genome, and etc clearly
have their part to play. Do you know 'anything' about epigenetics or epigenomics? - Or are you just as desperate to
shoehorn in an 'Intelligent Switcher' who turns certain genes on and off?

You also quote Tattersall as follows: "[T]he arrival of the modern cognitive capacity did not simply involve adding
just a bit more neural material, that last little bit of extra brain size that pushed us over the brink. Still less
did it involve adding new brain structures, for basic brain design remains remarkably uniform among all the higher
primates."

But what is it you think this proves? And why that particular quote?

Here is Tattersall in the prologue to 'Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins' - "Because of the
peculiar construction resulting from their complex history, our brains are far from directly comparable to a feat
of human engineering. Indeed, they are probably not comparable at all. For engineers always strive, even where they
are consciously or unconsciously constrained, for 'optimal' solutions to the problems they are facing. In contrast,
during the long and untidy process that gave rise to the modern human brain, what was already there was always
vastly more influential on the historical outcome - what actually 'did' happen - than any potential for future
efficiencies could be. And thank goodness for that. After all, if our brains had been designed like machines, if
they had been optimized for any particular task, they would 'be' machines, with all of the predictability and
tedious soullessness that this would imply. For all their flaws, it is the very messiness and adventitiousness of
our brains that makes them - and us - the intellectually fertile, creative, emotional, and interesting entities
that they and we are."

Why do you keep using snippets from scientists - Ian Tattersall (The Human Odyssey: Four Million Years of Human
Evolution), Richard Byrne (The Thinking Ape: Evolutionary Origins of Intelligence), Richard Dawkins (The Greatest
Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution), Bernard Wood (Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction), Jerry Coyne
(Why Evolution is True) - who find the Intelligent Design racket as risible as I do? Is it so you can pretend that
they've inadvertently proved ID/CSI right without even noticing? - that you have wisely deduced what they have
myopically missed? There is another group notorious for employing this tactic but I hesitate to mention them again,
lest I be accused of making a "sordid comparison."

Moving onto language, you quote Charles Snowdon as follows: "How could we move from communication systems in
nonhuman primates to human language in a manner consistent with evolutionary principles? Arguments that humans are
fundamentally different from nonhuman animals either set the stage for creationist explanations or simply avoid the
attempt to develop a persuasive evolutionary argument."

Except that "creationist explanations" explain nothing at all and would serve only to raise yet more questions - as
you are well aware. To repeat, it is not the case that anything not yet clear to scientists must somehow mean
points for the ID crowd. Added to this, your decision to follow "Arguments that humans are fundamentally different
from non-human animals..." (Snowdon) with "Humans are quite different because..." (Byrne) is, in the context of
your evolution denial/scepticism, too obviously intended to mislead.

"Again, human language requires multiple coordinated mutations before there is any benefit, so these would seem
unlikely to arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms.
"

"Multiple coordinated mutations"? Another ignorant 'gem' I will be only too delighted to add to my C4UD site's ID
Hall of Shame! Only someone hopeless on genetics - and desperate to believe in an Intelligent Coordinator could
make such a stunningly stupid remark! To make matters even worse, you clearly know next to nothing about the
evolution of language, non-human communication, bonobo language research, proto-syntax in monkeys, and etc.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/monkey-chat-sheds-light-on-evolution-of.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11756-bonobos-and-chimps-speak-with-gestures-.html

"Since humans appear hard-wired for language, one evolutionist, Elizabeth Bates, suggests that this leaves two
unpalatable options for evolutionists: "
If the basic structural principles of language cannot be learned (bottom
up) or derived (top down), there are only two possible explanations for their existence: either Universal Grammar
was endowed to us directly by the Creator, or else our species has undergone a mutation of unprecedented magnitude,
a cognitive equivalent of the Big Bang." "What protoform can we possibly envision that could have given birth to
constraints on the extraction of noun phrases from an embedded clause? What could it conceivably mean for an
organism to possess half a symbol or three quarters of a rule? ...monadic symbols, on a yes-or-no basis - a process
that cries out for a Creationist explanation.""

This quotation comes from a (TWENTY-YEAR-OLD) book edited by Norman A. Krasnegor, Duane M. Rumbaugh, Richard L.
Schiefelbusch and Michael Studdert-Kennedy, 'Biological and Behavioral Determinants of Language Development' and
stops just before Ms Bates, writing in a chapter entitled 'Symbols and Syntax: A Darwinian Approach to Language
Development' (and under the heading Toward a Darwinian Solution), goes on to try and answer this puzzle,
"presenting a view of the biological basis of language that invokes five concepts from evolutionary theory:
preadaptation, dual function, limited recapitulation, heterochrony, and functional branch points." However, the
last part of your quotation ("...monadic symbols...") follows a jump of twenty-six pages and stops just before this
summary: "With distributed symbols and probabilistic syntax, we can resolve the problem of origins and yet, at the
same time, foresee a way to arrive at all the advantages of a deterministic architecture."

Whilst your use of this text is highly suspect, I can certainly see why you would pounce on it. But give it just a
moment's thought and you'll see that all you're really doing is trying to recycle the "two possible explanations"
alternative into a false choice then using the "half a rule" line in the same way that an ignorant creationist
might demand to know, 'What use is half an eye?'

Were I able to interest you in more than just quote-mining and distortion, there is plenty of fascinating research
to be read (and done) on how human language evolved - from warning sounds, pleasure/pain, onomatopoeia, a desire
to cooperate (and deceive), oral imitations of sign language, and so on. And does it come from one original
'proto-human' language (from which all others have evolved) or have languages evolved independently - in isolated
human populations - many times? I have no idea, but I do know that using God to plug gaps in our knowledge will
progress things not one iota - either for science 'or' religion.

You simply assert that "evolving a larger or more intelligent brain with the language-abilities that humans have
would require many coordinated changes
" and then assert that these changes "cannot be coordinated by Darwinian
mechanisms under reasonable timescales
" - and having previously had the nerve to repeat (time and again) that you,
Casey Luskin, make arguments whilst I merely make assertions!

It is obvious from your claim, that humans could not have been "generated by Darwinian evolution", that you have
not "studied human origins extensively." Had you done so, you would not have tried to make so much of human brain
size. You would know that Neanderthals' brains were the same size as those of Homo sapiens but that we wound up
with more developed temporal lobes (for language, listening and long-term memory) along with a more flexed upper
respiratory tract, allowing sounds to be produced faster and in greater variety.

On your misguided obsession with multiple mutations, here's Steve Mirsky's June 2nd 2011 introduction to Daniel
Schrider, Jonathan Hourmozdi and Matthew Hahn's 'Pervasive Multinucleotide Mutational Events in Eukaryotes'
(Current Biology):

Multiple Mutations May Be Common

"By examining the genomes of various multicellular organisms, researchers concluded that about 3 percent of all
mutations are actually multiples, in which more than a single letter in the DNA code gets changed at the same
time."

"In a point mutation, a single letter of the genetic code changes to another letter. When a protein gets made from
that new code, it'll be slightly different from usual. But new research finds that it may be fairly common for
multiple mutations to happen in DNA simultaneously. Which could make big evolutionary jumps possible immediately,
without waiting for the changes to accrue over generations. The work is in the journal Current Biology. [Daniel
Schrider, Jonathan Hourmozdi and Matthew Hahn, Pervasive Multinucleotide Mutational Events in Eukaryotes]."

"The researchers did close examinations of the genomes of organisms ranging from yeast to fruit flies to the plant
Arabidopsis to humans. And they concluded that about three percent of all new mutations must be multiples. A
likely explanation is that some polymerase enzyme is particularly prone to errors when it's weaving a strand of
DNA."

"Here's why having multiples could be a big deal. The single mutation-at-a-time view would be like hoping you hit
the Pick 4 lottery by getting one number a day for four days. Sadly, what you really get is four losing tickets.
But multiple mutations could let you hit the Pick 4 all at once. And win the evolutionary lottery."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=multiple-mutations-may-be-common-11-06-02

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00540-9?switch=standard

Current Biology

Pervasive Multinucleotide Mutational Events in Eukaryotes -- Daniel R. Schrider, Jonathan N. Hourmozdi and
Matthew W. Hahn

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211005409

When you talk of "the inability of Darwinian evolution" all you're really doing is asking, 'How could there
possibly be a natural explanation for that?' But real science is about 'looking' for natural explanations. 'An
Intelligent Designer did it!' does nothing to help.

You seem to dismiss the concurrent as well as the consecutive; to leave junk DNA out of the equation; to ignore
neutral traits, radiation, RNA, errors in copying, exaptations, side effects of selection, random genetic drift,
and etc - and whilst cheerfully accepting any assumptions that might allow you to deny multiple mutations. But,
once more, you get no further than implying anything still unclear to scientists somehow garners points for the ID
crowd - a tactic ever-popular with the other half of the "sordid comparison" - seemingly imagining evolution to be
an optimizing process and, when all else fails, just falling back on arguments from ignorance and personal
incredulity (mainly the unravelled goof of irreducible complexity) along with baseless assertions about
unreasonable timescales, "too much" (as opposed to 'almost too much') CSI, non-existent functions and
all-or-nothing changes. And throughout, it isn't even clear whereabouts you're trying to shoehorn in your
Intelligent Designer/Gene-switcher/Mutations-coordinator/Protein-folder/Knob-twiddling fine-tuner!

Worse, you twice tell me what couldn't have happened in the history of the earth - seemingly unaware that we've
been down this road before. People used to think natural selection was just too slow to work but this scepticism
died out when our understanding of the age of the earth improved. Unfortunately you now have to hope that our
understanding of genetics won't improve - making it embarrassingly easy to guess what your attitude might have been
towards Big Bang cosmology and special relativity when some stars appeared to be older than the universe and when
CERN neutrinos apparently travelled faster than the speed of light (though, of course, this assumes a degree of
consistency on your part).

I would also add that had Axe and Gauger proved even a fraction of what you claim for them (and what they appear to
be claiming for themselves) they would be picking up Nobel prizes by now!

"So throughout biology we see structures that would require MANY CHANGES before any advantage is given." And an
example would be?

"You write: "I blame a blind, natural process because that is where overwhelming evidence points. There is no
reason to blame/credit God.
" I reply: OK, then why don't you stop pointing to alleged examples of poor design and
start showing evidence for Darwinian evolution?"

Why do you refer to "alleged examples of poor design"? Which of the C4UD examples do you consider 'good' design?
And why should I turn my website into yet another compilation of evidence?

Or what am I (a non-scientist) going to add to The Greatest Show on Earth, Why Evolution is True, The Triumph of an
Idea, Your Inner Fish, What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, The Origin of Our Species, The Incredible Human
Journey, Almost Like A Whale, and etc?

Should I be impressed if those titles feature in the "collection of dozens" of books you "own (and have read) by
evolutionists on human origins
"? As you clearly read scientific theory and fact as mere opinion and conjecture -
and with a closed mind, to boot - I rather think not.

"You write: At least I'm not pretending to have found a new science without having provided 'any' research evidence
to reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals!
I reply: Perhaps you're not aware there are a number of
peer-reviewed scientific papers which support ID. For details, please see:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640"

Having spent 'ages' wading through your list of 'Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the
Theory of Intelligent Design' (I'd type "LOL" at this point but I'm not ten!), I find that my point still stands -
'where' is the ID research evidence? There isn't any - just a roll call of ID proponents whose support for a
pseudoscience obviously cannot falsify their 'legitimate' scientific work. No-one would suggest that someone who
researches (and writes well on) aspects of the Second World War but then disgraces themselves by questioning the
scale and policy of the holocaust instantly controverts everything else they've ever written on WWII.

Why are books on the list? What is 'that' supposed to prove?

There are even odd little riders underneath them - "It was peer-reviewed by a philosopher of science, a rhetorician
of science, and a professor in the biological sciences from an Ivy League university." Wow! Who were they? "The
publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological
scientists." Fantastic! Who were they?

My favourite was this: "This article argues that intelligent design is recognizable in the human heart, stating:
"Comparative anatomy points to a design and a Designer. Surgeons, anatomists and anyone studying the human form and
function have an unsurpassed opportunity to ponder over the wonders of creation and contemplate the basic
questions: where did we come from? why are we here? and where are we going?"

I even found a reference to "the current boom" (presumably the seven submissions that somehow made it past
bio-complexity.org's "editorial team" of ID proponents) along with the comical claim that "ID's peer-reviewed
publication record shows that it deserves -- and is receiving -- serious consideration by the scientific
community." Which scientific community? The miniscule ID and/or creationist "scientific" community?

Added to this, some papers are clearly only on your list because they 'mention' certain ID proponents. And why on
earth does William Lane Craig feature on this list - and FOUR TIMES, for heaven's sake!

"You write: "We create bombs. Viruses evolve. And we have no reason to think otherwise." I reply: Except you
haven't provided a reason other than making assertions like this..."

We can watch viruses evolve in the lab. Is that a good enough reason for you?

"You write: "As you do not understand why the watch-organism analogy is a bad one, you just keep making the same
mistake over and over again.
" I reply: I don't recall making a "watch-organism analogy." Rather, I showed that
biological systems contain the same type of information we find in designed objects.
" That 'is' a watch-organism
analogy - or brain/computer, eye/camera, software/DNA, machinery, computers, buildings, guns, bombs, GM, Ford
Pintos, etc. Besides, I've already conceded that you didn't explicitly use a watch as a comparison: "And while you
don't actually use the words 'pocket watch' in your Paley revamp, you might just as well. A watch "
requires
multiple integrated parts which must be present, all-at-once, in order for the system to function.
" Eyes, on the
other hand, vary throughout nature from the simple (earthworm) to the complex (eagle). They vary in complexity and
grow in complexity. Again, what is it about that you don't get?
"

"Hubert Yockey explains that when you study life's information in a mathematical sense, the comparison is not an
"analogy" but is much stronger. I explained this to you previously: "
It is important to understand that we are not
reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies
directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is
mathematically identical.""

Two things. Firstly, your 'explanation' was nothing of the sort. You are comparing what humans make to what nature
makes. Refusing the word 'analogy' changes absolutely nothing and the fact that something can be counted and
measured tells us zilch about whether it evolved or was designed. Secondly, I find it absolutely contemptible that
you are trying to make it sound like Hubert Yockey is agreeing with you. He isn't and I think it a disgrace that
his daughter should feel compelled to add the following to her father's website: "The first thing I want noted
about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design.
He supports Darwin's theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science."

To repeat what I have already said above, I did not compare you to a holocaust denier. It was your reasoning and
denial of scientific fact/evidence -- and, I would now add to that, your tactics -- that I compared to the
reasoning and denial of historical fact/evidence of a holocaust denier. Further, it is positively ludicrous to
try and claim that this comparison is something I have "sunk" - or am "sinking" - to as it is one that I have
already made, several times, both on the C4UD site and elsewhere over the past year.

"Both object that a minority of highly educated people reject what 99% of scientists/historians accept - and that
this fringe group will eventually be proved right. (For holocaust deniers, see Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson,
Arthur Butz, The Institute for Historical Review, and etc). Both are notorious for quoting experts out of context
(to give the misleading impression their crank view has some serious support), for mischaracterising scholarly
debate (on details) as a failure to agree even on the basics, and for seizing upon any mistake (however minor) to
argue that the entire field of study is riddled with incompetence, ignorance and deception. Both rely on a kind of
'book disproved by its missing pages' reasoning and are forever demanding 'caught in the act' evidence before
they'll believe a single thing (though usually only in this area of life). Both groups imagine themselves to be
victims of a massive conspiracy that shuts them out of some imagined 'debate' and both accuse their critics of
misunderstanding them (like we think holocaust deniers imagine no killings took place at all and evolution deniers
believe nothing has evolved, anywhere - ever). Call them evolution/holocaust sceptics, if that seems more
appropriate!"

Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The ID Crowd

"Both denialism groups reject overwhelming existing evidence, offer no real evidence to the contrary, dishonestly
quote experts out of context, mischaracterise scholarly debate, and take comfort in paranoid conspiracy theories."

Contrary Evidence To Evolution And Global Warming?

"I first read about the similarities in Michael Shermer's excellent 1997 book Why People Believe Weird Things:
Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (link below) and came across it again most recently
in Richard Dawkins' equally excellent 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution."

Contrary Evidence To Evolution And Global Warming?

And here is Michael Shermer in Why People Believe Weird Things: "The irony of this analogy is that the Holocaust
deniers can at least be partially right (the best estimate of the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz, for example,
has changed), whereas the evolution deniers cannot even be partially right - once you allow divine intervention
into the scientific process, all assumptions about natural law go out the window, and with them science."

I'm sorry I couldn't persuade you to email a holocaust denier but - let's leave it as a thought experiment - could
you at least tell me, honestly, whether or not you would have been impressed by a response containing some, or all,
of the following:

"You responded to none of the links I provided where I wrote in great detail about the evidence that challenges"
the Holocaust; "if posturing makes you feel better then feel free to do it. I'm here to seek truth and how I feel
is secondary.
"; "I was saddened to see that your latest response is full of nasty namecalling and the like which
has come to characterize the discourse from defenders of
" the Holocaust; "Your reply repeatedly uses outlandish
rhetoric
" (e.g. 'pseudohistory,' "conspiracy theories," etc.), attacking me personally (e.g. "dishonest,"
comparing me to a '9/11 denier' etc); When a historian "starts sinking into personal attacks against me, that's
usually a good sign that I've made a strong argument, because if they had a god rebuttal then they would not be
resorting to substituting verbal abuse for arguments.
"; "it saddens me to see that you have sunk to this depth in
your discourse.
"; "I'm not even going to dignify" this "with a logical rebuttal because it doesn't deserve it.";
"you haven't provided a reason other than making assertions like this, and comparing me to a" 9/11 denier "for
disagreeing with you.
"; "It's saddening to see that you are sinking to make these kinds of arguments, but it says
something about the weakness of your arguments when you choose to resort to these kinds of comparisons.
"; This
"might make you feel better, but it is a sordid comparison that says far more about the strength of your position
than it does about mine.
"; "Feel free to suggest any books, links, slides, photographs, etc. which you like. I've
studied
" the Holocaust extensively; "I own (and have read) dozens of books" on the Holocaust; "I enjoy studying
this topic and would welcome any references you provide.
"; "most of what you write is based upon misconceptions
about my arguments.
"; "I explained this to you previously"; "This is another one of many examples where I refuted
your prior arguments but you continue to repeat your erroneous claims, and fail to respond to my arguments.
"; "my
claim that
" the Holocaust couldn't have happened "under reasonable timescales"; "This is a nice story, but does it
make sense?
"; "this shows a misconception on your part."; we do not have an "accurate" story; "beyond the ability
of
" historians to explain - as their defenders "concede"; "a strong challenge to" historians; "alleged examples";
"unpalatable options" for historians; "you understate my" historical qualifications; "how do you define"
historian? -- and so on.

How easily could you (a non-historian) answer points about toxicity, flammability, capacity, mechanisms, timings,
logistics, fumigation, estimates, ventilation systems, ash, gas, staffing, feasibility and fuels? Or questions
about how much would have been possible in what period of time, which part of which camp was designed (or
converted) for what, how many each camp could/did hold, what methods were used, contradictions in survivors'
testimonies, disputed diaries, speeches, letters, reports, demographic and forensic evidence, meetings, and/or
phone logs?

And I'm assuming wilful misinterpretations, quote-mining, misrepresentations, lists of essays and books - and links
to yet more cranks - would do nothing to dilute your contempt.

The reason you chose not to "dignify" this comparison "with a logical rebuttal" is, I have every reason to believe,
because you have no such rebuttal to offer. Rather than addressing any of the similarities in reasoning and
tactics, you revealingly opted instead to highlight a couple of things holocaust and evolution deniers/sceptics
DON'T have in common. Doesn't that strike you as rather pathetic?

If not, then I am happy to throw in the towel and leave you with just one piece of C4UD email feedback I have
received regarding this comparison:

"You're much too kind. Given the evidence (unforeseen even a few decades ago) from molecular phylogeny, denying
universal common descent is not like denying the Holocaust; it's like denying that Hitler ever invaded Poland. As
to JM's list of "scientific difficulties", they fall into three classes: straightforward misrepresentation of
standard science, logical puzzles based on a refusal to understand how the alternation of random variation and
selection is bound to generate new information (we can even calculate how fast), and (the smallest class) unsolved
problems. What makes ID USELESS is that it gives no account of the process by which information is transferred from
the mind of the Designer to the material of the object. What makes ID POISONOUS is that an unsolved problem is
immediately elevated to the status of an insoluble problem, so that instead of going to the lab we go down on our
knees."

"...if you reply, I will not be replying back."

Pity - you get away with way too much unchallenged. And now I'll never know who it is you imagine "designed" and
"finely-tuned" the AIDS virus; what it is you think 'has' been going on for thousands of millennia; whereabouts you
would seek to shoehorn in an Intelligent Planner, Supplier, Provider, Manufacturer, Builder, Distributor, Developer
and Engineer (or if, instead, you just lazily assume a "Designer" does the lot); how this whole project is
supposedly managed; and why you even bother to draw a distinction between "high" and 'low' levels of "CSI" whilst
simultaneously assuming that absolutely everything was, in the final analysis, intelligently designed.

Still, I can, at least, look forward to your 126-page Discovery Institute tract - and with Ann Gauger and Douglas
Axe! My goodness, what a treat!

For some reason, I couldn't find it on Amazon.

Kind regards,

Keith Gilmour

  

 

 

The Strange, Selective Memories of Noble and McLatchie

 

 

From: Alastair Noble  [in response to a 19/05/12 site update link]
Sent: 21 May 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

Thanks Keith. Your usual high standard of objectivity!

Best

Alastair

From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 29 May 2012
To: Alastair Noble

And wouldn't a holocaust denier/sceptic also be accusing his critics of a lack of objectivity? Or is that
comparison still verboten with you? A pity, if it is, that Casey Luskin so comprehensively highlights the many
similarities, in both reasoning and tactics, between evolution deniers/sceptics, on the one hand, and holocaust
deniers/sceptics, on the other!

But whilst I've got you in a good mood, couldn't you please have a go at answering the questions put to you in
Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The ID Crowd (April 2011)?

Kind regards,Keith

From: Alastair Noble
Sent: 30 May 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

Dear Keith,

I've really no idea what you are talking about. If this refers to the pamphlet you pushed into my hand at a
meeting some time ago, I neither read it or kept it, so I'm not sure what the questions are. But if they are, as
it seems, a complete confusion of religious, historical and scientific matters, I think further discussion is
futile. I don't think it will matter how often I tell you ID is an inference to the best explanation of scientific
data, like the information banks in DNA, and no more than that. I think you've made up your mind. The facts will
only confuse you!

Best,

Alastair

From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 17 June 2012
To: Alastair Noble

Dear Dr Noble,

In April of last year, I emailed you a copy of Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The ID Crowd. It contained
thirteen salient questions for you. In your reply (27/04/11), you referred to this short essay/report as an
"inquisitorial email" and opted to answer only 'one' of the questions put to you (the one about Creationists and
The ID Crowd being more akin, in your view, to Sinn Fein and the IRA than to the National Front and the BNP). I
emailed you again the following day and, having responded to all of your points, asked you again to please answer
the twelve remaining questions. I did not receive a reply.

At the Glasgow Skeptics event, "Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled" (15/09/11), I
publicly reminded you of these questions and handed you a print version of Creationism, Holocaust Denial and The
ID Crowd (as before, featuring the thirteen questions put to you five months earlier).

All of this has been on The Centre For Unintelligent Design website for the past nine months and I emailed you
the link on September 19th of last year.

For you now to say, "I've really no idea what you are talking about" and "I'm not sure what the questions are"
strikes me as absolutely incredible. Ditto your refusal to read anything which might jar with your beliefs. When
we first met, I gave you a copy of a two-page BBC Focus article (with pictures) entitled "Unintelligent Design."
Without even glancing at it, you stuffed it into your case and told me you probably wouldn't read it. I found
this extraordinary at the time and unfortunately can now add to that: "If this refers to the pamphlet you pushed
into my hand at a meeting some time ago, I neither read it or kept it."

Beyond this, and as far as I am aware, I have at no point confused "religious, historical and scientific
matters" - unless, that is, you consider comparisons and confusions to be one and the same thing, by definition!

"I don't think it will matter how often I tell you ID is an inference to the best explanation of scientific data,
like the information banks in DNA, and no more than that."

Why would it matter how often you tell me what you believe? Would you really expect me to say, "This is the sixth
time you've repeated this line to me - I am now convinced!"? Am I wrong, or misguided, to favour evidence and
reasoned argument over repetition?

Finally, I would like to know what you think I should make of the following: "I'll desist from trying" (27.4.11),
"I think further discussion is futile", "I think you've made up your mind", "The facts will only confuse you."

What conclusions would 'you' draw if on the receiving end of that sort of thing?

Once again, can I ask you to please answer the twelve remaining questions first put to you in April of last year.

Extract:

"Following my encounter with Dr Noble, I now have a number of questions for him:

As well as being a proponent of Intelligent Design, does he also (perhaps separately) consider himself a
creationist? Although they are coming at things from different angles, there is no reason he cannot be both.

During our post-debate discussion of Wednesday 20th April, Dr Noble objected to my suggestion that Intelligent
Design growing out of Creationism was akin to the BNP having grown out of the National Front. Instead, he claimed
a better analogy would be the IRA and Sinn Fein! Does he stand by this? And, if so, who is meant to be which?

Does he consider himself to be in 'coalition' with creationist groups?

Roughly what percentage of his beliefs does he imagine he might share with the average creationist?

If supernatural explanations can be considered suitable for Science classes, why not also History, Geography and
Modern Studies?

Why does his website refer to both ID and Creationism as "theories"?

Does he agree with Michael Behe's definition of Science (shown, in court, to encompass astrology)?

Does he condemn the ludicrous 'Atlas of Creation'?

In what sense is "a supernatural designer" the "best explanation"? Or any explanation at all?

Dr Noble told me that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. What did he mean by this?

In addition, I would also appreciate answers to the questions raised, that same night, by my friend and colleague
Professor Paul Braterman:

Why is the Centre for Intelligent Design promoting creationist materials such as Explore Evolution and Uncommon
Descent?

Why is CID hosting the creationist Jonathan Wells as a summer school instructor?

Can Dr Noble honestly claim that his organisation's core mission has nothing to do with Creationism?"

(April 2011)

I will look forward to receiving - and reading - your answers.

With best wishes,

Keith

From: Alastair Noble
Sent: 18 June 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

Ah Keith, you’ve got me this time. I had completely forgotten about our email exchange in April 2011. It must have
been really memorable!

I doubt there is anything I can say which would alter your view about Intelligent Design and creationism. So
let's leave it there. However, If you want to know what I think, you’ll find most of it on our web site at
http://www.c4id.org.uk/.

I suggest you read Stephen Meyer's book, 'Signature in the Cell – DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design'
(HaperOne 2009). You may not agree with his conclusions, but at least it might help you see that ID is a
legitimate inference from scientific, not theological, data.

I am not going to respond to your inquisitorial email as most of it is irrelevant to the core issue and just goes
on and on. However, if we ever meet up I'd be happy to discuss these matters.

Best wishes,

Alastair Noble

From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 23 August 2012
To: Alastair Noble

Dear Dr Noble,

I am not trying to 'get you', in any way ("Ah Keith, you've got me this time.") -- I am simply trying to get
answers to twelve very straightforward questions.

And I'm sorry to have to say it, but you and Jonathan really do seem to have 'very' selective memories.

"I doubt there is anything I can say which would alter your view about Intelligent Design and creationism."

Of course there is something you can say. You can say, "Here is some evidence for Intelligent Design and/or
Creationism" and then back those words up with some actual evidence of a designer/programmers. If there is 'any'
evidence of a "signature" (over and above the 'signature' of evolution) in our cells, then I will be fascinated
and excited to know of it.

(Ditto 'Fingerprints of the Gods', 'Living Rainbows', a 'Bible Code', etc).

And I know you don't like me comparing pseudo-science to pseudo-history but what, honestly, would you make of a
holocaust denier/sceptic who responded to you with, "I doubt there is anything I can say which would alter your
view about the Holocaust"? Or what about, "I suggest you read Paul Rassinier's book, 'Debunking the Genocide
Myth: A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry' (Noontide Press
1978). You may not agree with his conclusions, but at least it might help you see that holocaust
denial/scepticism is a legitimate inference from historical data."?

Is Stephen Meyer's book any better than his 'Argument from Design/Ignorance/Incredulity' and 'God of the gaps'
Discovery Institute writings? If simply an expansion of them, why should I devote time to it? Those arguments --
and those gaps -- are not 'evidence' for Intelligent Design. Also, as a non-scientist, how would I be able to spot
the exact points at which science is carefully replaced by pseudo-science? As I asked Casey Luskin, back in April
(regarding history, on the one hand, and the pseudo-history of holocaust deniers/sceptics, on the other), "How
easily could you (a non-historian) answer points about toxicity, flammability, capacity, mechanisms, timings,
logistics, fumigation, estimates, ventilation systems, ash, gas, staffing, feasibility and fuels? Or questions
about how much would have been possible in what period of time, which part of which camp was designed (or
converted) for what, how many each camp could/did hold, what methods were used, contradictions in survivors'
testimonies, disputed diaries, speeches, letters, reports, demographic and forensic evidence, meetings, and/or
phone logs?"

"...If you want to know what I think, you'll find most of it on our web site at http://www.c4id.org.uk/."

Dr Noble, I waded through all sections of your C4ID site after the EISF/Humanist and Sceptics talks and so already
know what you think, but unfortunately just cannot seem to persuade you to answer a dozen straightforward
questions that are 'nowhere' answered on your website.

I note, also, that you expect me to wade through a 600-page book even when you won't take a few minutes to
read a two-page BBC Focus article or a 1200-word essay.

Finally, I would be delighted to "meet up" to "discuss these matters." If it'll help, I'll even pay for lunch! --
'anything' to get twelve straight answers to twelve straight questions!

With best wishes,Keith

 

From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 19 September 2011
To: Jonathan McLatchie

Hi Jonathan,

Good to talk with you the other evening - and interested to hear you describe yourself as a "deist."

Thought this might be of interest to you:

http://centreforunintelligentdesign.yolasite.com/

All the best,

Keith

From: Jonathan Mclatchie
Sent: 25 January 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

Keith,

On your C4UID website, you claim that I told you that I am a "deist". I've no idea where you got that idea from.
I have always been quite explicit concerning my Christian theistic views.

J

From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 28 January 2012
To: Jonathan McLatchie

Jonathan,

You know 'exactly' where I "got that idea from" -- I got it from your good self!

Whilst you and I were waiting to speak to Dr Eugenie Scott (just after the Q&A), you very clearly described
yourself to me as a "deist." I made reference to this (surprising) remark in the email I sent to you on 19th
September last year.

If you have changed your mind about this - or wish now that you hadn't said it - that is one thing, but it is
downright dishonest to imply or pretend you didn't say it!

Also, you will be disappointed to hear that I may have to upgrade my little site sometime soon, to access a few
extra features. But - fear not! - the revamp will be very minor, so you'll still be able to use your "aptly
named"/"poor design" line of attack.

Kind regards,

Keith

From: Jonathan McLatchie
Sent: 28 January 2012
To: Keith Gilmour

I have absolutely zero recollection of this. I remember saying to Eugenie Scott that I was a Christian theist.
Maybe you misheard me. I can't think of a reason I'd have described myself as a deist.

I trust you're well.

J

From: Keith Gilmour
Sent: 1 February 2012
To: Jonathan McLatchie

Jonathan,

I am frankly 'flabbergasted' by your reply!

You very clearly said to me that you considered yourself a "deist" -- which, as I've said already, did rather
surprise me.

Unless I missed it, you did not repeat this to Dr Scott.

I most certainly did not 'mishear' you - you could hardly have been clearer! - but if you now feel that you
misspoke that evening then that is fine with me.

All the best,

Keith