Shorter Casey Luskin: Waa, waa — they call me mean names!

Really, that’s the whole of his extended whine in US News & World Report, a long complaint that “darwinists” aren’t nice to him. It’s pathetic, but that’s what we’ve come to expect from Mr Squeaky. You really only need two pieces of information. 1) His opening paragraph:

Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

And 2) the knowledge that he wrote a 6800 word opinion piece that never once mentions any of that hypothetical scientific evidence for ID. Not one tiny scrap. You know, if I had 6800 words that I began with the assertion that I had scientific evidence for an idea that a shadowy cabal was keeping from the public, I think I’d take advantage of that opportunity to reveal the hidden wisdom that had been suppressed. Funny how they never manage to do that.

For some perspective: my Seed column is about 1500 words. A newspaper column might be 6 or 700 words. Luskin took the opportunity to run off his mouth at extravagant length, and said absolutely nothing.

One frequent motif recurs in creationist email: they may believe in god, but they don’t believe in paragraphs. This one also hits another frequent theme: the racist creationist. Oh, and an obsession with incest.

[Read more…]

Creationists do not like the idea of vestigial organs, no sir. That their divine creator might have slipped up and stuck in some tissue that is less than perfect is anathema to them, and so we often encounter bitter denunciations of the whole concept of vestigial organs — organs which have a modified or reduced function, and which are largely superfluous. The best example is the human appendix, which can be snipped out and thrown away with the patient no worse for the experience (other than, of course, the general consequences of surgery). You can find many examples of creationists insisting that the appendix really is a an important organ, but I was just pointed to a real doozy at Kent Hovind’s site. This one had me laughing out loud before the end.

Start with the title: it is one of a series called “Things that make evolutionists look stupid”. This particular article is about the appendix, and it starts out conventionally enough, for a creationist screed.

For years surgeons removed appendixes with the attitude that they had no function and were no serious loss. It is only fairly recently that it has been realized that the appendix has a number of functions, all of which are important. The appendix is an important part of our immune system. It is a germ free section of the dirtiest part of the body that helps the body produce antibodies and protects the intestinal tract from infection, It also is on the bottom of the only part of the intestinal tract where waste materials must move upward. The appendix performs an important role by creating fluids that force waste matter up this section of the intestines. Without an appendix we become more susceptible to a large number of diseases that are caused by bacteria and viruses, as well as to cancer.

Furthermore, as Ian Taylor has pointed out, many of our alleged ancestors, including monkeys and apes do not have appendixes, while rabbits, wombats and opossums do.

“Vestigial” does not mean “functionless”. It means that it has become superfluous or reduced. The appendix is loaded with lymphatic and immune system components, but this is unsurprising: such tissues are scattered throughout the digestive system. The question is, why is this patch of lymphatic tissue associated with a little protrusion of the gut? The author’s explanations don’t work. The idea that it’s producing fluids to push the gut contents upward is novel, but ridiculous — it’s tiny compared to the volume of the colon, and can’t produce that much fluid. If you’ve ever seen the small intestine, you’d also know that the ascending colon isn’t the only part of the tract where contents must flow upwards. It also isn’t “germ-free”, which is a silly assertion—your gut contains somewhere around 10¹⁴ bacteria. It’s a great sloshing tube of culture media for happy microorganisms.

As for the claim that it’s vital for health, I’ve seen a number of studies that look for statistical correlations between appendectomies and cancers, and even some experimental studies in animals where it was removed and outcomes measured against controls…and I’m sorry, I haven’t seen any suggestion that it had the effect described. The author would be better off moving to a more nebulous claim. I like the idea that it is the location of the soul, since I had mine removed when I was nine, and a few years later decided I was a godless atheist.

I don’t know who Ian Taylor is, but he seems willing to make up facts. Other primates do have an appendix; chimpanzees have even been known to develop acute appendicitis. The creationists just keep making stuff up! And need I add that up until now, he’s been arguing that the appendix is an essential organ, and now he is (falsely) claiming that other animals don’t need it?

But wait, this isn’t the funny part. That was the boring typical part. Here’s where I started laughing.

I would not offend the bought and sold fascists who regulate the health industry in America by offering medical advice,

Wait for it. You just know with a lead-up like that that what he is about to do is…offer medical advice.

but I will relate alternatives to appendectomies that have worked for others without actually advising anyone to follow these procedures. Richard Schulze, the successful naturopathic doctor so hated by the FDA and AMA for being successful, has outlined the way that he has dealt with appendicitis, which I will outline here. Appendix problems are caused by poor diet and severe constipation. The first thing that he recommends is to immediately stop eating and get an enema. A high enema, or high colonic, is very much preferable. A series of regular rectal enemas may have to suffice, if the proper equipment is not available. The enema will relieve the pressure that has built up inside of the appendix. It might even be a good idea to start with a rectal enema and work your way up to a high enema.

I’ve noticed that quacks are often obsessed with sticking things up people’s asses. I detect some sublimation going on here…

But wait, he’s not done.

Fasting is recommended to be done for a few days, during which time only juice or water should be drunk and some herbal laxatives. An appendix problem is much more serious if there has been a perforation. If there has been an infection caused by a perforated appendix, antibiotic-like herbs should be taken in very heavy doses. Purple coneflower (or echinacea, echinacea purpurea, pallida and angustifolia) and garlic (Allium sativum) are recommended. A light massage of the abdomen would help at this point, but it should only be done with great care, if there is inflammation.

This guy is actually prescribing enemas and herbs for a perforated appendix?

A final procedure is to apply castor oil packs 24 hours per day over the appendix. Only fresh caster oil should be used. Rancid castor oil can be more detrimental than beneficial.

OK, enough is enough. This is too silly, and going on much too long, especially for an article in which he says he isn’t going to give medical advice.

Oh, no. Here come the anecdotes.

Sandra Ellis describes treating her daughter for appendicitis in which the appendix actually did appear to have ruptured. She followed Jethro Kloss’s advice and used a lobelia poultice, which was supplemented by Christopher’s formula that added ginger, slippery elm and mullein. She also used comfrey tea and herbal enemas, olive oil and lobelia poultices, chamomile tea, catnip tea, alternating cold and heat packs, and reflexology. Her daughter recovered without an appendectomy, and without any infection. She provides the following formula for a poultice.

Shut up. That’s enough. I don’t need any recipes.

“Mix 1 tbs. of granulated or powdered lobelia with a large handful of granulated or crushed mullein leaves, and sprinkle with ginger. Add water to the herbs and mix into a paste, adding powdered slippery elm.”

Some doctors advise against using any type of laxative and suggest that this may cause a dangerous irritation of the appendix. This may be good advice, but these same doctors fail to suggest releasing pressure through the other end, which would precede the laxative and relieve most of the potential for a “dangerous” irritation.

The enemas…the creationists cannot resist them.

Once you get over an appendix problem, you must learn from the experience. Your eating habits should change and you should work to ensure that you remain regular. If you eat garbage that acts as intestinal glue, you get what you ask for. Most doctors have acquired the opinion that mutilation is the only option in the case of an appendicitis, and that without them death is inevitable. We can thank the stupidity of evolutionists for this harmful misconception.

See what I mean? This crank splutters out a bunch of nonsense about appendix function and phylogeny, then dedicates most of his article to tales of curing appendicitis with enemas and herbs, and then he closes by accusing evolutionists for promoting harmful misconceptions!

It’s good for a laugh, but there is one useful bit of information here. Never turn your back on a creationist.

How do these yahoos get elected? We’ve got another dumb-ass bill about to emerge from the state of Florida:

State Sen. Stephen Wise of Jacksonville announced through an article in the Florida Times Union that he plans to file a bill this legislative session to require evolution to be balanced with a discussion of intelligent design. Yes, require. Not just allow, but to require.

Are there no senior, wiser heads in these legislatures who are willing to take these clowns by the collar and explain to them that they are an embarrassment to the state and the nation? Or are legislatures all brain-dead from top to bottom?

Not much, I’m afraid. The weirdly awful paper has been retracted, but we still don’t know how it got published in the first place. NCSE Reports has an excellent summary of the affair, but the conclusion is still highly unsatisfactory (the conclusion of the event, that is, not the summary, which is spot on).

THE EDITOR’S RESPONSE
I contacted the editor-in-chief of Proteomics, Michael Dunn, to find out more about what happened. Many scientists have speculated publicly that the peer review process went seriously wrong for this paper. Dunn assured me that the paper was reviewed by two “well-respected and highly competent reviewers” both of whom recommended minor revisions. For some reason, though, “neither picked up the references to creationism, nor did they recognize that sections of the text were plagiarized,” according to Dunn. It is not too surprising that the reviewers missed the plagiarism, but the title and abstract should have raised huge red flags warning the reviewers that this article had questionable science. I have to conclude that the reviewers were very sloppy, incompetent, or both; at the very least they were inattentive in this case, despite the editor’s claims to the contrary. And Dunn himself is not without responsibility in this case: he must have seen the reference to “the soul” in the article’s title, and he should have been more pro-active. His failure to make any public statement about the creationist claims in the article also raises questions about the leadership at the journal.

CONCLUSION
This entire episode points out a weakness in scientific peer review that creationists and other pseudoscience proponents may try to exploit again. We only caught this attempted fraud thanks to the diligence of bloggers: the journal itself had already missed it. What is perhaps more troubling is the fact that the journal relied solely on the plagiarism to force the retraction: if not for that, the article might have been published despite its unsubstantiated creationist claims. I asked Dunn specifically about this issue, but he declined to comment. The Warda and Han paper demonstrates a new strategy that proponents of creationism might attempt again, and perhaps next time they will not be so foolish as to plagiarize their text. We can only hope that the publicity surrounding this incident will alert both reviewers and editors of scientific journals to be on the lookout for “stealth” creationist claims in the future.

The title of the paper was “Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence.” I’m still baffled by the fact that “well-respected and highly competent reviewers” could completely overlook the title and an abstract that makes extravagant claims for a complete and rather revolutionary revision of the most widely accepted explanation for the origins of mitochondria.

Forbes has published a collection of pseudoscientific nonsense, giving free rein to the hacks and frauds of the Discovery Institute, along with a few other crackpots. There is no hint given that these are marginal characters with no connection to modern science, who are following an ideological agenda with the admitted goal of replacing science and secular government with a Christian “spiritual” rule. There are no rebuttals. I’m sure the DI was thrilled to use Forbes as an arm of their propaganda machine.

I can’t possibly go through all of it; practically every sentence these guys write is misdirection, error, or outright lie. I’ll just try to give you a taste — a nasty, bitter taste, vile and rancid, but apparently the flavor Forbes wants to attach to their magazine — and you can decide whether you want to dig deeper into the cesspit.

Jonathan Wells, one of the more contemptible charlatans behind the Intelligent Design movement. Here’s one snippet of his sleight of hand.

Before 1859 science meant (and still means, for most people) testing hypotheses by comparing them with the evidence. For Darwin and his followers, however, “science” is the search for natural explanations. Such explanations should be plausible–that is, they cannot blatantly contradict the facts–but instead of being based on evidence they are based on the assumption that everything can be explained materialistically.

See what he did there? He implies that Darwin was doing something that his peers of that time should not have recognized as science, because science is based on “evidence” and not on “materialism”…and if you read further in his load of tripe, you’ll discover that he claims that “Darwinism” has no evidence, and that ID does, and will therefore win.

In addition to redefining the meaning of science, the intelligent design creationists apparently want to redefine evidence, too. Somehow, the fact that science demands material evidence — evidence that can by measured, repeated, analyzed, and integrated into theory — is a rule that means the kind of evidence that the DI wants to present is invalid. Which is true. We aren’t going to accept immaterial, supernatural claims as evidence, no matter how much Jonathan Wells whines that his Moonie fantasies ought to constitute legitimate support for his anti-science crusade.

Of course, Michael Egnor has to ramble vacuously in there. He’s a neurosurgeon, you know. It’s always the first thing he types. But then he makes the same empty claim as Wells.

But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.

What evidence? All they do is wave their hands at the wonderful complexity that real scientists have discovered — which nobody denies — and repeat their mantra that natural processes can’t generate complexity, therefore God. But we know that natural, unguided processes are remarkably good at building elaborate innovations, and that chance can produce surprising novelties … and that natural selection acts to prune back the exuberance of random variation to a functional diversity. Their syllogism is false. One example: look at the nylonase enzyme, produced by a frameshift error. That’s a natural process, not design, and it produced new functionality.

John West repeats his bogus argument that Darwin was to blame for 20th century racism and mass murder.

Darwin waffled about following these ideas to their logical conclusion, but his followers were not so squeamish. The Darwinian rationale for eugenics was embraced by leading biologists at Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, as well as by leading European scientists, giving the movement the clear backing of the scientific community for decades and providing for justification of the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 people in the United States and the killing of more than 200,000 disabled persons in Nazi Germany.

Darwin did not “waffle”. He understood the sense of what people like Galton were proposing, that by protecting against selection by smallpox, for instance, we are allowing people with susceptibility to the disease to propagate, which would result in populations having a greater weakness to disease. That does not mean that he endorsed shutting down modern medicine, or any of the other institutions which support the poor or infirm. He had his own ideas about better ways to promote the common good.

The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through Natural Selection as one of the most important elements on the social instincts.

It is also true that some few in the scientific community did endorse eugenics, and even that some scientists helped the Nazis. But it is a complete lie on the part of West that there was a “clear backing of the scientific community”: there were many vocal dissenters from the eugenics program, and eugenics as a whole was less the product of scientific consensus than a façade for the endemic racism of the population as a whole. Martin Luther was pushing his crude version of eugenics in the 16th century, after all.

Another clown in this show is Michael Flannery, someone I’ve never heard of before, who has apparently written a biography of Alfred Russel Wallace that I don’t think I need to read, if this is the quality of his history.

For one thing, Darwin’s own theory could hardly be called objectively scientific. Early influences on Darwin’s youth established his predisposition to materialism and a dogmatic methodological naturalism long before his voyage on the Beagle. In short, Darwin’s metaphysic compelled his science. Wallace, on the other hand, was a tireless investigator who increasingly discerned design in nature. Unlike Darwin, Wallace’s science compelled his metaphysics.

Say what? Darwin, trained to be a theologian, admirer of Paley, was philosophically predisposed to dogmatic materialism? That is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

But I think it’s part of the DI’s general strategy. Relying on real, physical evidence to make a case is to be declared anathema; True Scientists™ build their case on metaphysical imaginary supernatural “evidence”, like the creationist’s rationale for a god.

I think their new motto ought to be “Making Stuff Up for Jesus”. It’s all they’ve got.

Now why Forbes would willingly act as a mouthpiece for these shills is the real mystery — I‘ve written for Forbes before, and they usually seem sensible. But since they are implicitly endorsing the DI’s approach to evidence, I guess I actually don’t need to find out — I can just invent an explanation and it’s as good as any other. Therefore, I think somebody snuck into the editorial staff’s homes late at night and carried out involuntary lobotomies on everyone. And if you try to disagree with me, obviously you are an ideologue with an a priori commitment to the metaphysic of materialism.

The Darwin Day website has a calendar of events, and you can search for cool things that might be happening near you next week. Except…well, apparently the site organizers aren’t very discriminating about who and what can be posted there. Like this…

Darwin Conference (Free)
Location: 3800 S. Fairview St
Santa Ana/CA 92704

Activities: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:30 AM to 8:55 AM Video (All Ages) 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM Ken Ham: Answers for Racism – Darwin & Evolution`s Racist Roots. (Ages 11 & Up) 10:20 AM to 11:10 AM Dr. Andrew Snelling:Answers from Geology – The Catastrophe of Noah`s Flood (Ages 11 & Up) 11:25 AM to 12:15 PM Dr. David Menton: Answers about the “Ape-Men” (Ages 11 & Up) 12:15 PM to 1:25 PM Lunch Break (All Ages) 1:30 PM to 2:40 PM Ken Ham: Answers for Effective Evangelism in the 21st Century (Ages 11 & Up) 3:00 PM to 3:50 PM Dr. Andrew Snelling:Answers from Science and Scripture on the Real Age of the Earth (Ages 11 & Up) 4:05 PM to 4:55 PM Dr. David Menton: Answers from Design – Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution (Ages 11 & Up) 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM Ken Ham: Genesis: Key to Reaching Today`s World (All Ages)

So if you want to celebrate Darwin’s birthday by listening to some cranks and crackpots make up stuff about the science, preach about jebus, and teach your children a hodge-podge of lies, there you go, have fun.

I think it’s a bit inappropriate, myself. Although I am looking forward to a fun summer when I can reciprocate and crash Vacation Bible School to tell the little kiddies about the fallacies and inconsistencies of the bible, and how the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life evolved upon it.

Don’t tell me that would be rude. They started it!

P.S. Shame on you, DarwinDay.org. Could we maybe have a little quality control?

Nothing new here, just more of the same. I thought this time I’d insert my reactions into the stream of a fairly typical creationist letter that I received this morning. Really, people: you may think you’re very clever and persuasive, but I hear all of this same stuff every single day, and you’ve never got a new argument.

Thanks for removing all doubt as to what will be taught at U-Morris.[Yes. We will be teaching science, not creationism.] My daughter was considering attending after she graduates next year. [Good for her! She sounds like a smart young woman already]That will not be the case anymore.[I am very sorry to hear that—she clearly needs a good education to correct the indoctrination of her father. But then, any good school she gets into will teach her the same things I would]

For you to take it upon yourself to have people e-mail U of Vermont, protesting the invitation to have Ben Stein speak at commencement, shows a narrow minded disdain for relevant[From Stein? Nixonian hack with no knowledge of science and a failed track record in economics?] opposing [Some opposing views can be wrong because they are stupid, you know] views
in not only science but probably everything else.

Everyday. And I mean everyday. Your ‘we come from goo’[Uh-oh. Your true colors as a devotee of the crazy people at Answers in Genesis are showing] stance is loosing[Maybe your daughter can be an English major] ground [Actually, no — evolution is doing very well, is beautifully supported by the evidence, and is getting stronger year by year among people who bother to evaluate the evidence] and you and your ilk[Nice word] are scared to death of continually being proven wrong[Not at all. Easy to refute: prove evolution wrong. Go ahead. I’ll listen. Just don’t regurgitate AiG nonsense at me, OK?]. So you go nuts at these opposing views of creation[Just being an “opposing view” does not make it valid. You really need to learn some critical thinking skills.] and what not. Funny thing is Stein is a nice guy[Stein: “Science leads to killing people”] and probably wouldn’t even talk about that scary creation point of view anyway[Maybe instead he’d talk about his inane and demonstrably wrong views on the economy. Which is scarier?]. You have got to lighten up.[Dude, you’re the one writing a long letter to a stranger protesting that you’re going to dictate which schools your daughter can attend, because you don’t want her exposed to different ideas about evolution.]

Please do not take this personally[Since yours is one of 11 weird harangues I found in my mailbox this morning, I won’t. I just laugh.], since I have never met you or even heard of you[Nor I you. But I have heard this same cookie-cutter, boring creationist spiel a few thousand times.] until I saw Pharyngula. There are lots of people over the years that have been ramming[Really? Ramming? I suppose you could say your math teachers also rammed algebra down your throat.] this impossible Theory of Evolution[Sir, you do not understand the theory of evolution, and you are clearly planning to make sure your children don’t, either. Not only is it possible, it’s been demonstrated time and again] down our throats. But that does not mean its true.[Funny. I have never heard a scientist say evolution is true because we have indoctrinated people into it. That’s more the kind of thing that is true of creationists]

We need to keep open minds and field and teach opposing views and let truth take it where it leads no matter how improbable a direction[I repeat, guy: your whole letter is built on an assertion that you will not allow your daughter to be exposed to ideas you dislike. Why are you creationists always so oblivious?].

Respectfully,[Somehow, I doubt it]

Steve Broten

This is curious: apparently, the DVD of Expelled now comes with a little book of quotes which are supposed to support its thesis. Only they don’t. Somebody ought to scan these in so we could all share the hilarity.

Not me, alas. Not only didn’t I get to see the movie, the makers haven’t even had the courtesy to send me a complimentary copy. Maybe they’re anticipating that I’ll be able to get one in my goody bag at the Oscars.