Luskin pwned, again!

Posted 31 December 2008 by PvM

At the Loom, Carl Zimmer exposes yet another hilarious example of vacuity behind the statements of Casey Luskin. What a way to end a great 2008

"Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex."
— Casey Luskin

It took Zimmer a few seconds of searching on Google to find why we should not take Luskin's 'arguments' too seriously (and why Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous). Enjoy reading yet another reason why we should all pray for continued employment of Casey Luskin

93 Comments

Wheels · 31 December 2008

One-wheeled bicycles? It's sheer loomacy!

PvM · 31 December 2008

Lost your Wheels? Wheels?

novparl · 31 December 2008

"..a great 2008"? You mean millions losing their jobs? Oh - I get it - svival of the fittest. If ya good enough, ya'll find a job. If not...well...

Ron Okimoto · 31 December 2008

novparl said: "..a great 2008"? You mean millions losing their jobs? Oh - I get it - svival of the fittest. If ya good enough, ya'll find a job. If not...well...

A toad like Luskin still has his job. How great is that? It will be interesting to see how Luskin responds. Does anyone expect an honest response? Why is that?

iml8 · 31 December 2008

I admire the way Zimmer wasted no verbiage in his
response. "Nuff said, true believer!"

I tend to see Casey Luskin in terms of the old joke (customized a bit) that if he saw a video of Richard Dawkins
walking on water, he'd write in EN&V:
DAWKINS DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO SWIM!

I have to sigh at Luskin's single-minded determination to
churn out propaganda -- but on the other side of the coin,
it's comforting to think he's the best the other side's
got.

Cheers -- MrG (www.vectorsite.net)

Cubist · 31 December 2008

Regarding the title: "Again"? I thought the operative word was "Still"!

Nils Ruhr · 31 December 2008

But the removal of one wheel will clearly be a big disadvantage. I mean you can't drive 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel.

Carl Zimmer · 31 December 2008

Thanks for the link love. The post is now updated, with shocking VIDEO of bicycles breaking the law of irreducible complexity. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/12/30/oh-no-ive-seen-the-impossible-my-eyes/

By the way, Nils--it's true you can't ride 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel. But you couldn't do it on a kid's tricycle either. It's not--dare I say it--adapted for that ecological niche. Besides, the "argument" in which the one-wheeled bicycle figures claims that you cannot ride a bicycle AT ALL with one wheel, just as the blood-clotting cascade cannot work AT ALL without all its proteins. So the mountain stuff is beside the point...

J-Dog · 31 December 2008

What do Luskin's bosses at Teh Discovery Institute do when they fire up their inter-webs and view another big pile of Luskin on their monitors?

Top 10 Habits of Casey Luskin's Bosses

10.) Drink heavily, early and often
9.) View Travel Posters longingly
8.) Update resume and send out on a regular basis
7.) Send out Casey's resume to other employers every day
6.) Evolve from fervent ID Creationist to Type 1 Atheist (How could a good and loving God inflict a Luskin on me???!!!)
5.) Develop an unreasoning fear of caterpillars*
4.) Finally begin to realize what Shakespeare meant with his line about "the lawyers".
3.) Start to re-read old legal cases with verdicts of "justifiable homicide".
2.) Pressure HR to start hiring disgruntled Postal Workers
1.) Start writing fiction books as an escape from reality - first book called The Design Of Life

* For this of you that have not had the privilege of viewing Luskin in person, this is just a cheap shot about his unibrow.

J-Dog · 31 December 2008

I apologize for the formatting of my top ten list - when I hit send, it was a nice list. Oh well.

Nils Ruhr · 31 December 2008

@Carl Zimmer:

Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

DS · 31 December 2008

In order for Luskin's analogy to have any validity or relevance whatsoever, he must be claiming that the wheel was invented just for bicycles, that the wheel couldn't possibly have any other uses and that a bicycle couldn't possibly have any function whatsoever if even one part was removed. Now of course everyone knows that every one of these things is absolutely false. I guess Luskin was just hoping that no one would notice and that everyone would just play along wth his little proof for the existence of God.

Of course Luskin is perfectly free to believe in God whether he has any proof or not. He is also free to make nonsensical arguments trying to convince someone that they should also believe in God. And of course everyone else is perfectly free to believe in God whether they fall for Luskin's nonsense or not. Kind of makes you wonder why he continually tries to make his faith look so foolish and weak doesn't it? It is almost like he is trying to give people an excuse to not believe in God just so that they won't appear to have fallen for his nonsensical crap. Nice going Casey.

Maybe we should teach this stuff in public schools as a weakness of evolution. Of course then we would have to teach a critical analysis of it as well.

386sx · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: @Carl Zimmer: Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

Wow I wish I could define functions like that. Ummmm... the function of my hat is for holding gold doubloons! That's the ticket. I'll be rich...

John Kwok · 31 December 2008

Hey Carl,

Since I know you read PT occasionally, just wanted to say thanks for this great post of yours over at the Loom (And PvM, thanks for re-posting it.). You may recall that Ken Miller wanted to wear his mousetrap tie-clip while testifying as the first witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, but I believe Judge Jones had overruled him.

Anyway, your bicycle example is almost exactly akin to Ken's mousetrap, since he demonstrates how one could make a crude, but still quite effective, mousetrap by removing a couple of parts..... and still have something working that is NOT irreducibly complex.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Nils Ruhr · 31 December 2008

@386sx:

The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop.
The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

phantomreader42 · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: @Carl Zimmer: Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

Also, many people would not be able to use it for this function even with both wheels. Is that a defect of the bike? What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike to the moon and back without a spacesuit in under 0.03 seconds"? In this case, it would be physically and biologically impossible for it to function under any circumstances! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to sit in a sealed vault at -40 degrees Celsius without spontaneously bursting into flame"? In this case it would still function no matter how many parts were removed! Of course, the whole thing would be meaningless, much like your example, because you don't get to just make shit up! You can't just arbitrarily declare a function for something and then demand that whatever bullshit you spew is the only function allowed and is never allowed to change. It doesn't work that way in the real world. But then, creationists don't live in the real world, they live in their own little fantasy world and hide from reality at all costs.

Stanton · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: @Carl Zimmer: Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

Of course, you don't honestly expect us to believe that this is the sole function for which the bike was invented for, right? That, and there is a concept called "change of function"

phantomreader42 · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

In this spirit, I define the function of Nils Ruhr as "showing off the undying stupidity and delusion of creationism while making a fool of himself." You are performing your function well. You are clearly a fool, and your posts show how stupid and delusional you and your fellow creationists are. No, you are not allowed to choose a different function for yourself. Because I said so. Piss me off and I'll add a requirement that you perform your function while wearing women's underwear three sizes too small and eating hot peppers without anything to drink. :P If you're not willing to accept whatever arbitrary bullshit other people make up, why should anyone accept your arbitrary bullshit? Meanwhile, I'll define my own function as "whatever I damn well feel like". If you have a problem with that, tough.

386sx · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Thanks. Very well, then I shall design my own hat, whose function shall be for the sole purpose of holding gold doubloons. :P

Stanton · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Bicycles, as well as virtually all other man-made devices, make for extremely poor analogies of biological systems, if one can even use them as analogies for biological systems to begin with. Among other things, for man-made devices, people already know what the intentions of the designers are because the intentions of the designer are literally written into the packages the devices came in. To state that "we don't know what the intention of the designer is" while also knowing that virtually every man-made device not only comes with a set of instructions, but with directions to how to put it together as well as a manufacturer's warranty, is pure idiocy. Furthermore, man-made devices can have change of functions through alterations: how do you think that people invent things in the first place, anyhow? Do you believe that people invent things through unknowable and indescribable processes?

Stanton · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Also, if we allegedly do not know what the intention of the designer is, then how would we know that the hat the designer designed is supposed to be worn in the first place? What if the designer of 386sx's hat intended it to hold rabbits instead of doubloons?

Dave Wisker · 31 December 2008

The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don’t know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Arbitrary indeed. In other words, IC is not an inherent property of a system. It is only a property of the system when the function and/or parts are defined a certain way. What an utterly useless concept.

Jedidiah Palosaari · 31 December 2008

I agree. And yet, I can see that what Casey said, for the scientifically uneducated masses, would make sense. Without thinking about it, many would say, "Yes- of course! Intelligent Design must be correct!"

The problem of course is most of the masses don't think about it. And that's why we need places like PT.

Mary H · 31 December 2008

I'm on dial up (really slow) so maybe one of those links covered this but here goes anyway. Casey Luskin said if you remove a wheel from a two wheeled bicycle it won't function. B.S.! As every 7 year old boy has discovered two wheeled bikes can do "wheelies" Gee it does function as a bike with only one wheel and you don't even have to be a scientist to figure it out. I knew the Discovery Institute had difficulty "discovering " things I had no idea they couldn't even replicate the discoveries of young children. Then again I did know they never try.

John Kwok · 31 December 2008

I'm sure the ever brilliant Casey Luskin - who has a M. S. degree in Geology - may conclude one day that Plate Tectonics is an elaborate hoax foisted upon the scientific community from some nasty "geologists" who think that the world's crust is comprised of shifting plates:

Mary H said: I'm on dial up (really slow) so maybe one of those links covered this but here goes anyway. Casey Luskin said if you remove a wheel from a two wheeled bicycle it won't function. B.S.! As every 7 year old boy has discovered two wheeled bikes can do "wheelies" Gee it does function as a bike with only one wheel and you don't even have to be a scientist to figure it out. I knew the Discovery Institute had difficulty "discovering " things I had no idea they couldn't even replicate the discoveries of young children. Then again I did know they never try.

As a loyal member of the Dishonesty Institute, Luskin would claim that Plate Tectonics doesn't work because it isn't irreducibly complex too. I am counting on him to make this stellar "observation" sometime in the new year.

Dave Luckett · 31 December 2008

The point is that not only is a bicycle still functional on one wheel, but that the rear wheel assembly can be used for other purposes. Powering a pump, for instance. Or as a pulley, with variable mechanical advantage. In that case, remove the tyres and front forks as well. And so on, down to the individual spokes on the wheels. They make excellent skewers, as I have seen, to my distress.

Luskin simply ignores - or denies, or has never heard of, or something - the well-known, frequently observed biological mechanism of exaption.

Dan · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: But the removal of one wheel will clearly be a big disadvantage. I mean you can't drive 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel.

Not only is this not "clear" ... it's not even true. If storage space for bikes is at a premium, then the one-wheeled bike is at an advantage. If covering mountainous terrain is the objective, then the two-wheeled bike is at an advantage. If rubber is rare, then the one-wheeled bike is at an advantage. If someone pays you to take rubber off his hands, then the two-wheeled bike is at an advantage. It's a common misconception that evolution is "aiming" at some sort of "perfection". No. What is an advantage in one circumstance can be a disadvantage in another circumstance.

Dan · 31 December 2008

Nils Ruhr said: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer.

I have to admire the honesty of Nils Ruhr. Whereas Casey Luskin claims that "irreducible complexity" is evidence for intelligent design, Ruhr is honest enough to admit that the concept of "irreducible complexity" is meaningless unless there is a designer. Because irreducible complexity assumes, by its very nature, that a designer exists, it can't be used as evidence for intelligent design.

SMgr · 31 December 2008

.... What if I define the function of the bike as “being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain”? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function. ...

Umm. No. Apparently people havn't heard of mountain unicycling! ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXGi6zrYBIg

Wheels · 31 December 2008

PvM said: Lost your Wheels? Wheels?

It's heresy, I tell you! If wheelkind is made to believe that we are not specially created, two to a bicycle, that we can be removed from the bigger picture without much fuss, then what's to stop wheels from committing wholesale slaughter, debaucher, or combining the two into deslauchery!?
Then we'd have gay wheels getting married, or one wheel having multiple wheelwives! Wheels within the same bicycle might plot to remove their partner at every turn, thinking this one-wheeled-bike nonsense had validity! Throw out the Special Wheeldom and anything goes! While some cynics may reduce this to a purely pragmatic stance (civilization, as we know it, depends on the Noble Lie of Special Wheeldom), it is clearly a natural Truth! I've never seen a bicycle become a unicycle! Take off the front wheel, and you still have the frame! The chain! Besides, we all know that a loss of information can't possibly represent an improvement!

AnswersInGenitals · 31 December 2008

Poor Casey! The people at the Discovery Institute were a little too quick to remove the training wheels from his bicycle (and his mind).

And dare we recollect that the Wright brothers built the Kitty Hawk in their...yes...their... bicycle shop.

Our ever evolving language has just acquired a new word:

luskin.....(noun). An argument that can immediately and trivially be disproved in a way the proves the counter-argument.

............(verb). To use such an argument.

However, in this case, Luskin's argument can be salvaged if instead of removing one of the bicycles wheels, he removes one of the riders legs. (OK. Let's see you find a YouTube of a one legged unicycle rider)

Stacy S. · 31 December 2008

AnswersInGenitals said: However, in this case, Luskin's argument can be salvaged if instead of removing one of the bicycles wheels, he removes one of the riders legs. (OK. Let's see you find a YouTube of a one legged unicycle rider)

Is this close enough? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fqFg3VLyA

Amadán · 31 December 2008

Wheels said:
PvM said: Lost your Wheels? Wheels?
It's heresy, I tell you! If wheelkind is made to believe that we are not specially created, two to a bicycle, that we can be removed from the bigger picture without much fuss, then what's to stop wheels from committing wholesale slaughter, debaucher, or combining the two into deslauchery!?
Then we'd have gay wheels getting married, or one wheel having multiple wheelwives! Wheels within the same bicycle might plot to remove their partner at every turn, thinking this one-wheeled-bike nonsense had validity! Throw out the Special Wheeldom and anything goes! While some cynics may reduce this to a purely pragmatic stance (civilization, as we know it, depends on the Noble Lie of Special Wheeldom), it is clearly a natural Truth! I've never seen a bicycle become a unicycle! Take off the front wheel, and you still have the frame! The chain! Besides, we all know that a loss of information can't possibly represent an improvement!

What an eloquent spokesman! How noble his bearing! His defence of his cause is truly tireless. Pumped up with pride in his faith, it would surely be wrong to puncture his beliefs.

Ed Garrice · 31 December 2008

I think it's safe to say that the wheels have fallen off of the Intelligent Design propaganda machine.

Stanton · 31 December 2008

Ed Garrice said: I think it's safe to say that the wheels have fallen off of the Intelligent Design propaganda machine.

Indeed, it's as if we can hear the splinters being spit out of the circles in the spirals of the wheels within the wheels of the windmills inside their minds.

Karen S. · 31 December 2008

They have started to respond on the Uncommon Descent site. It seems that if a wheel is removed from a bicycle it is no longer a bicycle, does not function as a bicycle, and is therefore is IC. So there! (Huh?!)

I suppose it's like a 3-toed sloth with an amputated toe on each foot-- it's no longer a 3-toed sloth, right? Ah, intelligent design...

ragarth · 31 December 2008

Karen S. said: I suppose it's like a 3-toed sloth with an amputated toe on each foot-- it's no longer a 3-toed sloth, right? Ah, intelligent design...

A three toed sloth is a different Kind from a two toed sloth, so yes, it's no longer a 3 toed sloth if it loses a toe from each foot in a horrible toe tragedy.

Dave Luckett · 31 December 2008

If the wheel is removed, and it doesn't work as a bicycle any more, then it functions as some other sort of machine, if the environment be changed a little.

Let's see... it becomes some other sort of beast entirely....

Casey, wasn't that what evolution has been saying all along?

Just Bob · 31 December 2008

More than once I've seen a circus performer on a bicycle remove one part at a time--handlebars, front wheel, fork, even most of the frame--continuing to ride it all the while.

How can anyone be so dumb as to state that you can't remove any part of a bike and still have it function? I know for a fact that I can remove over 50% (by number) of the parts on my bike and still have a 2-wheeled, easily rideable bike.

Stanton · 31 December 2008

Dave Luckett said: If the wheel is removed, and it doesn't work as a bicycle any more, then it functions as some other sort of machine, if the environment be changed a little. Let's see... it becomes some other sort of beast entirely.... Casey, wasn't that what evolution has been saying all along?

Just Bob said: More than once I've seen a circus performer on a bicycle remove one part at a time--handlebars, front wheel, fork, even most of the frame--continuing to ride it all the while. How can anyone be so dumb as to state that you can't remove any part of a bike and still have it function? I know for a fact that I can remove over 50% (by number) of the parts on my bike and still have a 2-wheeled, easily rideable bike.

When you're arguing against Reality in order to make ~~Jesus~~ The Intelligent Designer happy, logic and common sense are two of your most insatiable, bloodthirsty adversaries.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 January 2009

AnswersInGenitals said: luskin.....(noun). An argument that can immediately and trivially be disproved in a way the proves the counter-argument.

So, this is a Case o' Luskin?

John Kwok said: As a loyal member of the Dishonesty Institute, Luskin would claim that Plate Tectonics doesn't work because it isn't irreducibly complex too.

Sure he would; remove one plate and the surrounding plates can't subduct, retract, or glide against the removed plate, thus proving that plate tectonics is IC and simply can't evolve into existence from solidifying crust in an Hadean Earth. In fact, Luskin would claim that numbers are IC; you can't axiomatically get to a defined (working) successor, like 2, without first having a predecessor, like 1. Even logic is IC as proved by Luskin set theory; large sets are made out of smaller sets, so sets are IC too, by the bicycle definition. [I leave as a trivial exercise to prove that Luskin is IC by his own account, for example by considering removing some of his age, and that IC is IC, for example by considering removing some complexity. Hey - if IC is IC, it can't work, can it?]

Nils Ruhr said: But the removal of one wheel will clearly be a big disadvantage. I mean you can't drive 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel.

If there is huge selection pressure you would expect the population of one-wheeled cycles to adapt, perhaps into bicycles if they are more viable. A possible pathway would then be a gene duplication resulting in two wheels with gears. (After which either gear could be mutated into a dud, as there is redundancy, making the bicycle we all know and love.) Note: I'm note a bicycle-ologist, so I might have spun the Theory of Revolution out of gear. OTOH one wheel is an advantage in some environments. Circuses have been mentioned...

Stuart Weinstein · 1 January 2009

Well folks, you might say the "wheels came off" this argument for ID

AR AR AR ARrrrrrr !

iml8 · 1 January 2009

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: OTOH one wheel is an advantage in some environments. Circuses have been mentioned...

Just imagine what Agatha Heterodyne could do with a unicycle. Of course you might be terrified to get on it. Hey -- since "belabored bicycles" is a "Mad Science" argument to begin with, we might as well make the most of it. Cheers -- MrG (www.vectorsite.net)

DS · 1 January 2009

If I take a wheel off of my bike I can't ride it - therefore God exists and evolution is a lie. Man, just think what earth-shaking discoveries they will make when they find out that you can't eat walnuts wthout first removing the shell! Happy New Year.

Wheels · 1 January 2009

DS said: If I take a wheel off of my bike I can't ride it - therefore God exists and evolution is a lie. Man, just think what earth-shaking discoveries they will make when they find out that you can't eat walnuts wthout first removing the shell! Happy New Year.

I think Mr. Luskin can get around that one quite easily, in that he's already cracked.

Silver Fox · 1 January 2009

Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

Surveying the landscape of Christian apologetics, the heavyweights are notable missing from atheistic critique. I suspect that's for the most part because they are thoroughly schooled in Theology, Philosophy, and, in most cases, Science. It is in that transdisciplinary arena that proof for God and for most of his works is going to be played out. The resolution is not going to be found in the backwaters (no pun intended) of evolutionary biology.

But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics. So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

PvM · 1 January 2009

Silver Fox said: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

Come on SF, you and Luskin make for quite a clowning duo. Don't be so shy.

S E E Quine · 1 January 2009

What about sidecars?

Stanton · 1 January 2009

Silver Fox blathered: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

So, let's make a deal then? You convince Mr Luskin to stop using gross stupidity, suggestive of severe dementia, to disprove reality while simultaneously proving God, and we'll chip in to slip a strong sedative into Professor Myer's martini, ok? Oh, and given as how the only coherent idea you've been able to broadcast to us in the week that you've infested Panda's Thumb is that you have a wild disdain for "atheists" to the point where you're projecting what you do onto them, I really don't think you should go around calling anyone "blowhards," unless you want to point out that you're also a hypocrite, too.

Surveying the landscape of Christian apologetics, the heavyweights are notable missing from atheistic critique. I suspect that's for the most part because they are thoroughly schooled in Theology, Philosophy, and, in most cases, Science. It is in that transdisciplinary arena that proof for God and for most of his works is going to be played out. The resolution is not going to be found in the backwaters (no pun intended) of evolutionary biology.

So tell us, why hasn't there been a single thing to come out of Christian apologetics that can explain the diversity of life on earth better than evolutionary biology in the last couple hundred years?

But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics. So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

Scientists and atheists are unconcerned with what spiritual snakeoil salesmen like Lee Strobel have to say, as such apologists are too concerned with whoring their spiritual relationship with God in order to sell their books to worry about anything else. For anyone to worry what somebody like Lee Strobel has to babel about science, well, you have heard of a certain chicken who went around screaming "the sky is falling," right?

John Kwok · 1 January 2009

Thanks for keeping us posted, Karen S.:

Karen S. said: They have started to respond on the Uncommon Descent site. It seems that if a wheel is removed from a bicycle it is no longer a bicycle, does not function as a bicycle, and is therefore is IC. So there! (Huh?!) I suppose it's like a 3-toed sloth with an amputated toe on each foot-- it's no longer a 3-toed sloth, right? Ah, intelligent design...

I wonder how they explain a unicycle. On a more serious note, Zimmer's bicycle example is almost akin to Ken Miller's elegant refutation of the "irreducibly complex" mousetrap. Seems like the DI IDiot Borg drones never, ever, learn..... Hope yours is a happy and prosperous 2009. Appreciatively yours, John

John Kwok · 1 January 2009

Hey Silver Fox: Didn't realize that it's not April Fool's Day yet:

Silver Fox said: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like. Surveying the landscape of Christian apologetics, the heavyweights are notable missing from atheistic critique. I suspect that's for the most part because they are thoroughly schooled in Theology, Philosophy, and, in most cases, Science. It is in that transdisciplinary arena that proof for God and for most of his works is going to be played out. The resolution is not going to be found in the backwaters (no pun intended) of evolutionary biology. But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics. So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

Luskin is an easy "target" because he's someone trained in science who has allowed himself to become a prostitute to his religious beliefs, in much the same vein that Young Earth Creationist Kurt Wise did. As for Timothy Keller, I have glanced at some of his prose on evolution, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Choose a better example, maybe? Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone), John Kwok

iml8 · 1 January 2009

There is actually nothing unique about Casey Luskin -- there
are many people on his side of the fence operating at a
similar level of credibility. The really awkward fact
about Casey Luskin is that the Discovery Institute uses him
as a spokesman, when they would seem wiser to distance
themselves from him.

Incidentally, Steve Fuller is busy over on Uncommon
Descent. I tend to find him something of an interesting
read. Unlike Egnor, O'Leary, and Luskin, Fuller actually
can surprise me -- if admittedly in the sense of staring
at my display with a "huh?" expression on my face.
I get the impression that Fuller is honestly trying to
do the right thing, but that his reach far
exceeds his grasp.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Silver Fox · 1 January 2009

It's amazing how much ink Luskin has received from the atheist bloggers and how little attention any of the more erudite apologists has received.

"Luskin is a scientist"?
Luskin has a degree in geology.

"Timothy Keller...I glanced at some of his prose on evolution and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it."

I think you'll find that none of the more competent apologists would have a problem with evolution. They know that proof for the existence of God is not found in delving around in whether some slimy little creature in the Devonian era came crawling up on shore as a tetrapod and then went back out to sea.

The fertile areas of exploration are in the universality of basic belief, the resolution of the existence of time/space in the singularity, etc.

PvM · 1 January 2009

Silver Fox said: It's amazing how much ink Luskin has received from the atheist bloggers and how little attention any of the more erudite apologists has received.

Many of the more erudite 'apologists' are not confusing science and religion. What's your point? That PT is not interested in pursuing Christian Apologetics unless it makes foolish claims about science?

Silver Fox · 1 January 2009

"PT not interested in pursuing apologists unless...make foolish claims about science."

The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all. Getting into science in order to prove the existence of God and his works is, pardon the expression, sucking a dry tit. Atheists take advantage of this futility and exploit it to the end of pursuing their own agenda, i.e. "there is no God". Let the slimy little tetrapods of the Devonian to the scientists and atheists and concentrate on the cosmological and philosophical areas that I alluded to before.

PvM · 1 January 2009

Funny how you seem to be under the impression that only atheists abuse science for their purposes. When asked to support your claim, you suggested PZ Myer, but failed to support your claim. Sure of philosophers want to speculate about the purpose of this all, then fine, we will take it out of the realm of science. It amazes me a bit that you seem to be under the impression that the abuse of science to support religious faith is somehow an atheist approach. I have in fact seen few examples, especially when compared to the vast amounts of Christians who foolishly confuse science and faith. Your point again is?

Silver Fox said: "PT not interested in pursuing apologists unless...make foolish claims about science." The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all. Getting into science in order to prove the existence of God and his works is, pardon the expression, sucking a dry tit. Atheists take advantage of this futility and exploit it to the end of pursuing their own agenda, i.e. "there is no God". Let the slimy little tetrapods of the Devonian to the scientists and atheists and concentrate on the cosmological and philosophical areas that I alluded to before.

Stanton · 1 January 2009

So what is your point beyond broadcasting the fact that you hate atheists for allegedly using science to disprove God to the point of becoming incoherent? DO you realize that the point of this post is about how Casey Luskin continues to make a total fool out of himself by trying and failing to debunk evolutionary biology by making tortured and stupid analogies? That you insist on changing the subject of discussion to how horrible it is for atheists to be allowed to "disprove God with science" (without ever actually producing an example) suggests that you're nothing but a Christian bigot who always works himself into a daily froth simply because it's neither fashionable nor legal to torture non-Christians to death in the majority of Christian nations this day and age.

Silver Fox blathered:
PT not interested in pursuing apologists unless...make foolish claims about science.
The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all.

We're talking about Casey Luskin making an idiot out of himself again, not proving or disproving God through science.

Getting into science in order to prove the existence of God and his works is, pardon the expression, sucking a dry tit. Atheists take advantage of this futility and exploit it to the end of pursuing their own agenda, i.e. "there is no God".

Can you actually produce an example of atheists (ab)using science to further this "atheism agenda"?

Let the slimy little tetrapods of the Devonian to the scientists and atheists and concentrate on the cosmological and philosophical areas that I alluded to before.

And yet, you refuse to realize that the people here happen to be scientists who are very much interested in studying things like Devonian tetrapods. Demanding that they not study what they love in order to match wits with a witless bigot like you in forced navel contemplation is nothing but bigoted idiocy.

Flint · 1 January 2009

The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all.

To be accurate, very few atheists attempt this, and those who do are misguided. The exercise of science is independent of any gods. There may be atheists who use the fact that the gods are not necessary for scientific understandings or explaining our world, to try to conclude that therefore, there are no gods. But all they can establish is that no gods are required for scientific explanations. If one were to argue that science establishes the means the gods use to accomplish their goals, the atheists have no good response.

Sylvilagus · 1 January 2009

Silver Fox said: But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics.

I'm sorry, but did you say "Lee Strobel"? "Able thinker"? Surely you can find someone to take more seriously. His Case for a Creator book was so incompetent, and in my opinion intellectually dishonest, as to be beneath contempt. Can't speak for his other works, but that book was truly one of the worst wastes of my time to wade through (at the request of a creationist friend). My recommendation to my friend at the time: if you want to defend creationism, find a more reputable and intellectually capable defender. As for Hugh Ross, this is the guy who claimed UFO's exist and are demonic phenomena and that this is demonstrable scientifically. His evidence (I'm not making this up): real Christians never have UFO encounters! His website also spews out some probability-based arguments that make basic conceptual math errors my high school students spotted.

Wheels · 1 January 2009

Silver Fox said: It's amazing how much ink Luskin has received from the atheist bloggers and how little attention any of the more erudite apologists has received.

With the exception of Lee Strobel, right? Because I've seen plenty of negative commentary about him and his ability to argue out of paper sacks.

Karen S. · 1 January 2009

So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

Not everyone here is an atheist, don't you understand that? And as long as Luskin says silly things he's going to get slammed. Silliness is silliness, and does not depend on one's philosophy or religious beliefs, as others have tried to point out. If you think Luskin is correct in his post, give us a detailed explanation why.

Dave Luckett · 1 January 2009

Tell you what, SF: you go someplace where you don't have to endure discussion about slimy Devonian tetrapods. Seriously. You won't find much to interest you here.

See, I know that this doesn't make sense to you, but slimy Devonian tetrapods interest many of us, but Christian apologetics doesn't, because there's evidence for the tetrapods, and - call us heathens, if you like - we're interested in what you can find out from evidence, not in what you can build out of airy structures of pure logic. Not that the logic is ever truly pure, rather like the human mind itself. But you see what I mean.

Evidence, SF, verifiable, testable, physical, material evidence. Reasoning, sure, but from the evidence. Not reasoning, no matter how rarified, no matter how elegant, that's based on nothing. That's what science is - and this is a science blog, you know?

Andrew · 1 January 2009

Flint said: There may be atheists who use the fact that the gods are not necessary for scientific understandings or explaining our world, to try to conclude that therefore, there are no gods. But all they can establish is that no gods are required for scientific explanations. If one were to argue that science establishes the means the gods use to accomplish their goals, the atheists have no good response.

I actually do have a good response: you are begging the question. This is a logical fallacy in which one assumes what one claims to prove. You cannot claim that science is studying the methods of gods without first demonstrating that gods exist. I'm neither a scientist nor a theologian, but the way it works for me is that we can explain (or at least study) how humans got here, how life got here, how the planet got here, and how the universe got here all without ever making a reference to any god. It's impossible to establish whether there's an intelligent designer who set all the rules up initially, pushed the on button, and let things go, but this potential designer would have to be so uninvolved in the workings of the universe that I can't see how it could be called a god. Certainly there's no benefit to worshiping such a being, even if one assumed for no reason at all that it exists.

Dave Luckett · 1 January 2009

Flint is not arguing, (donning the deist cloak for the nonce) that there are gods. He is arguing that if there were gods, we would not necessarily see any change to the way the Universe functions as opposed to the way it does if there were not. God, or the gods, could reasonably run the Universe by the means that they have established, which we call "natural law", with the occasional miracle thrown in where He, or they, deem it necessary.

Miracles, by definition, stand outside the order of natural law, and cannot be observed in a systematic way, producing repeatable, testable evidence. Therefore science has nothing to say about them. Natural law can be observed, but who is to say that its fundamentals - whatever they may be, for we do not know them, yet - are not the ordinance of God, or a god, or the gods?

Hence, the deist is perfectly entitled to posit a deity or deities, and good luck to him, her or them. It just doesn't get anyone very far, which is the real point. It doesn't actually even break the principle of parsimony, exactly, though that is often averred. The laws have come from somewhere. They have been caused by something. Call the something "god", if you like.

As to benefits of worshipping such a thing, what makes you think that there have to be any benefits? I don't know about you, but I reckon any agency that caused the laws of nature to be such that every snowstorm is made up of billions of perfect crystals, or who designed the laws that make a rainbow, would be worthy of worship, if I could convince myself that such an agency existed. Ah, but there's the rub.

dhogaza · 1 January 2009

Luskin's claim is really hilarious. Not long ago there was a dude here in Portland who used to ride all over my neighborhood on his rear wheel, front wheel off the ground. Removing the front wheel would've only made his trick *easier*. Luskin must not get out of the cubie very often, eh? Never saw a motorcyclist doing a wheelie?

David Fickett-Wilbar · 1 January 2009

Silver Fox said: I think you'll find that none of the more competent apologists would have a problem with evolution.

But you mentioned Lee Strobel, who does. Is he competent or isn't he?

Stanton · 2 January 2009

So tell us again who gave you the authority to dictate what atheists can and can not write about, and tell us again specifically what this has to do with Casey Luskin making a total fool out of himself?

Stanton · 2 January 2009

Silver Fox said: "That's what science is and this is a science blog, you know" The following is from this blog's statement found under the ABOUT label above: "Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of comments ranging from the picayune to the pedantic" "The Panda's Thumb" encourages a wide variety of comment"

And tell us why you think we should cave into your demands that we stop discussing Devonian tetrapods and start ~~navel-contemplation~~ babbling about the metaphysics of searching for God? Why do you think that that is appropriate for a science blog?

Stanton · 2 January 2009

To PvM:

Pim, as much as I know how much you like watching pious bigots like Silver Fox use their piety and self-righteous indignation to make complete and total morons out of themselves, would it be too much to ask if you could put a muzzle on Silver Fox to stop him from further derailing this thread? He's repeating his rant, and it's already boring.

Joe Mc Faul · 2 January 2009

Silver Fox is dodging the questions directed to him about Lee Strobel. It has been pointed out to him that Lee Strobel's anti evolution arguments are worse than Luskin's, if that is possible.

According to Silver Fox, "None of the more competent apologists would have a problem with evolution."

Lee Strobel, of course, does, and he wrote a whole book about it, uncritically parroting the DI line and misrepresenting science in the process.

Silver? Your thoughts on Strobel? Are you still offering him as an example of a competent apologist for Christianity?

PvM · 2 January 2009

So why are you attempting to change the topic of the thread then? Who is truly making a fool of himself here? Just asking

Silver Fox said: "Tell me again what this has to do with Casey Luskin making a total fool of himself" Tell me again what does Casey Luskin making a total fool of himself has to do with Richard Dawkins making a total fool of himself.

PvM · 2 January 2009

Pim, as much as I know how much you like watching pious bigots like Silver Fox use their piety and self-righteous indignation to make complete and total morons out of themselves, would it be too much to ask if you could put a muzzle on Silver Fox to stop him from further derailing this thread? He’s repeating his rant, and it’s already boring.

Oops, I forgot, I am in charge of this thread... Time to flush some to the bathroom wall.

Silver Fox · 2 January 2009

The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.

The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

novparl · 2 January 2009

What I notice is the fantastic overkill. The way that mere abuse is constantly repeated and repeated. It's as if under the surface you're worried that evolution is not so obvious after all.

Now for more peer-reviewed abuse! Punish me! I love it!

10.10 a.m.

iml8 · 2 January 2009

novparl said: It's as if under the surface you're worried that evolution is not so obvious after all.

No. They just like to argue. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

PvM · 2 January 2009

Ah, the good old 'tu quoque' argument. Unlike Dawkins, Luskin is arguing that his nonsense should be taught in public schools. ID is not just theologically suspect but also scientifically vacuous. Quite a difference really. This is the final distraction on this thread I will allow.

Silver Fox said: The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself. The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

Dan · 2 January 2009

Silver Fox said: The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself. The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

Anyone who says "other side of the issue" is being simplistic: any issue has far more than two sides, just as there are far more colors than red and green. Anyone who says "both ends of the spectrum" is slightly better, realizing that there's a broad spectrum with an infinite number of positions between the two ends. But this is still simplistic: most positions don't fit into something like 80% red plus 20% green. The reality is on any issue there are multiple facets and multiple positions within each facet, just as there are colors like red, chartreuse, maroon, and ultraviolet. In using the phrases "other side of the issue" and "both ends of the spectrum" Silver Fox has taken two contradictory positions, both of which are simplistic.

Wheels · 2 January 2009

novparl said: What I notice is the fantastic overkill. The way that mere abuse is constantly repeated and repeated.

Ever notice how anti-evolution bullshit gets constantly repeated and repeated? It’s as if under the surface they’re worried that Creation is not so obvious after all.

eric · 2 January 2009

Nils, Actually 386sx's "to hold gold dubloons" function isn't too far off. Because the desginer's intention in desigining and building that hat was to make money, not protect his head. :)

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Patrick · 2 January 2009

Just Bob said: More than once I've seen a circus performer on a bicycle remove one part at a time--handlebars, front wheel, fork, even most of the frame--continuing to ride it all the while. How can anyone be so dumb as to state that you can't remove any part of a bike and still have it function? I know for a fact that I can remove over 50% (by number) of the parts on my bike and still have a 2-wheeled, easily rideable bike.

If anyone can find an online video of this I will give them a hatful of gold doubloons.

iml8 said: Just imagine what Agatha Heterodyne could do with a unicycle. Of course you might be terrified to get on it.

Maybe she could use it to find some way to improve Phil Foglio's art so that his characters' facial features actually stay in one place on their heads instead of shifting around like some sort of bizarre tectonic plates floating on an amorphous blob of flesh.

Ted Powell · 2 January 2009

The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.

The main foolishness is that whether a bicycle—or anything else—is irreducibly complex has no bearing on Luskin's thesis. Irreducible complexity is not a counterexample to natural selection, it is a consequence. Features that can be removed without detriment to an organism (e.g. because some other feature that does the job better has evolved) no longer have selection pressure to keep them around. Reducible complexity is either selected against, if the feature has a cost, or at best is left to the fates of genetic drift.

Biologists, please forgive me if I'm belabouring the obvious, but in the comments so far people seem to be chasing after the irreducibility-of-bicycles issue as if it were relevant—other than as a joke.

Ted Powell · 2 January 2009

The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.

John Kwok · 2 January 2009

Hey Silver Fox: You're really a delusional DI IDiot Borg drone. If anyone hasn't told you that yet, then let me be the first:

Silver Fox said: The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself. The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

Your inane observation about Luskin stands in stark contrast in your rather blatant attempt to shift the topic (@PvM, I wish you hadn't removed our "dialogue", but I understand your motives completely.). If any "side" has been foolish, then it's been Luskin's side, to which you most definitely belong. Again let me note that I have no interest in talking about Christian apologetics with anyone, especially delusional religious fanatics such as yourself. If you want to discuss why fools like you, Dembski, Wells and Luskin constantly distort and ignore the incredible wealth of information in the fossil record - especially the marine invertebrate fossil record - that supports the scientific veracity of evolution, then be my guest. I'm quite certain you'll all lose in a metaphorical landslide. Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone), John Kwok

Ted Powell · 2 January 2009

The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.

Ted Powell · 2 January 2009

Sorry about the multiple posting—the software kept telling me that the submission had failed, and I believed it.

Stanton · 2 January 2009

Ted Powell said:
The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.
The main foolishness is that whether a bicycle—or anything else—is irreducibly complex has no bearing on Luskin's thesis. Irreducible complexity is not a counterexample to natural selection, it is a consequence. Features that can be removed without detriment to an organism (e.g. because some other feature that does the job better has evolved) no longer have selection pressure to keep them around. Reducible complexity is either selected against, if the feature has a cost, or at best is left to the fates of genetic drift.

Technically speaking, all of the examples of so-called irreducibly complex systems are, in fact, reducibly complex, in that either the systems are more than capable of functioning just fine with missing components, like in bacterial flagella, or that we see a spectrum of simple to complex versions within a single taxon, like immunoglobins as seen within Phylum Chordata, or when some crucial component is discovered to have been co-opted from some other system, such as how the protease enzyme used to cleave platelets in the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade is the same protease used in digestion of proteinaceous food, or even when we see the evolutionary history of some allegedly irreducibly complex system, like the evolutionary history of the antifreeze glycoprotein in Antarctic icefish and their closest relatives.

Biologists, please forgive me if I'm belabouring the obvious, but in the comments so far people seem to be chasing after the irreducibility-of-bicycles issue as if it were relevant—other than as a joke.

I think you're spinning your wheels about that.

iml8 · 2 January 2009

Patrick said: Maybe she could use it to find some way to improve Phil Foglio's art so that his characters' facial features actually stay in one place on their heads instead of shifting around like some sort of bizarre tectonic plates floating on an amorphous blob of flesh.

Well, you expect a certain amount of irregularity in a cast involving a good number of members who were assembled from available bits and pieces. "The baron's taste in women was very strange. Fortunately for him, he could build his own." Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

iml8 · 2 January 2009

Stanton said: I think you're spinning your wheels about that.

Possibly the thread has thrown its chain of thought. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Flint · 2 January 2009

I think Andrew's reply could use some response

I actually do have a good response: you are begging the question.

I don't think so, but...

This is a logical fallacy in which one assumes what one claims to prove. You cannot claim that science is studying the methods of gods without first demonstrating that gods exist.

Note quite. By this argument, atheists cannot deny the methods of the gods are being examined without establishing that no gods exist. The fallacy lies in addressing the non-question of whether some "higher motivation" exists at all. Science carefully does not address this question.

I’m neither a scientist nor a theologian, but the way it works for me is that we can explain (or at least study) how humans got here, how life got here, how the planet got here, and how the universe got here all without ever making a reference to any god.

Granted. We can ALSO explain all this by invoking gods, and it works just as well.

It’s impossible to establish whether there’s an intelligent designer who set all the rules up initially, pushed the on button, and let things go, but this potential designer would have to be so uninvolved in the workings of the universe that I can’t see how it could be called a god.

You have reversed your field here. If such an entity exists and behaves as postulated, what ELSE could it be called? Since science has no means in principle of isolating and testing the hands of the gods in the operation of reality, any such involvement might be ubiquitous and continuous. How would you know? Dave Luckett is correct - such involvement is by definition invisible to scientific investigation.

Certainly there’s no benefit to worshiping such a being, even if one assumed for no reason at all that it exists.

On the contrary, a great many people derive immense benefit by projecting gods onto the ordinary operation of reality. Perhaps you mean there is no additional explanatory benefit, in which case this is true. To the best of my knowledge, the psychological benefits of worshiping gods neither aids nor hinders the research of competent scientists. In any case, many people consider that they have ample reason to believe gods exist, at least in their own minds. Similarly, scientists believe explanations exist for what nobody yet understands, and this is also an example of faith.

Henry J · 2 January 2009

It’s as if under the surface you’re worried that evolution is not so obvious after all.

Evolution isn't obvious; it takes study to understand it. Henry

greg lorentz · 3 January 2009

What does "pwned" mean? I keep seeing that term everywhere but it's not in any dictionary.

Please use only real words, not made-up ones.

iml8 · 3 January 2009

greg lorentz said: What does "pwned" mean? I keep seeing that term everywhere but it's not in any dictionary.

Try online slang directories. It means "perfectly owned" == "somebody's well more than one step ahead of you". It appears to have started in online gamer circles and is associated with the "leet / 1337" pidgin favored there. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

phantomreader42 · 5 January 2009

Silver Fox said: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

Luskin is a paid Liar For Jesus™. He makes his living at the Dishonesty Institute loudly babbling inane bullshit. Apologetics is his JOB. So why is he such a piss-poor apologist? Why can't the DI manage to hire any of these "heavyweights" you speak of? If Luskin is underperfoming, why hasn't he been fired and replaced by someone who knows what the fuck they're doing? Is it simply that the frauds at the DI are too stupid to recognize competence if it bit them on the ass? And since every group doing apologetics (read: Lying For Jesus™) is clearly infested by idiots, why are you so shocked that they're being called idiots? OH, yeah, the truth is anathema for an apologist. Why is the landscape of christian apologetics so dominated by idiots, frauds, and nutcases? Why, in all these centuries, have christian apologists produced nothing worthy of notice? If there's a better class of apologetics out there, why are idiots still babbling about ontological wordgames and renaming old debunked arguments with silly words like "kalam"? You're just pulling the old Courtier's Reply out of your ass again. It doesn't matter how sophisticated arguments for god are. What matters is if they're TRUE. And they aren't. Every argument for god that has ever been advanced has been shown as bullshit centuries ago. The apologists are just desperately trying to distract from their total lack of substance.