90% True

.: Back when 90% True wasn’t powered by Wordpress, I used to read a hilarious groupblog called Quietwater. I can’t remember exactly how I was introduced to them (was it through G-Fry? Hey wait a minute, he has a new blog now?!). Anyway, one writer was particularly memorable; if you didn’t skip the second title you know which one I mean.

.: I remember reading a post he wrote — back in 2003 or 2004 — at a school-sponsored Writer’s Showcase. It was written as an advice column, and this particular advice warned of not letting your girlfriend go to a video store without you. I have it saved somewhere. It shouldn’t disappear from the internet; maybe I could convince him to repost it?

.: Since then, college intervened and I hadn’t kept up with Maine (or G-Fry, for that matter). When I tried to find his blog a few years later, I was dismayed to find it empty. I quietly forgot about him until just a few minutes ago. Turns out he’s been doing the on-and-off thing for a few months now. Check out his archives: October and November 2006, one post last February, and finally a steady stream of posts in June and July.

.: He’s still damn funny, and if you want proof, check out his journal entry of an entire day.

.: Enjoy.

.: I helped my friend Kyle make a video for his film class last semester. I forgot almost all of the context, but that only makes the video more exciting and enjoyable. Actually it kind of sucks, but it’s only 1:46 long, so it can’t suck that much. Nonetheless, here is my wordless foray into the wonderful world of cinema:

.: Sam Chen said something again. Read this post over at Overwhelming Evidence. I don’t know for sure if the poster is a parodist or a real creationist (Russell’s Law, remember?), but that hardly matters. I want to focus on what Chen, a bona fide creationist, said in the comments section.

.: First, some background: hblavastky wrote a post about the latest free energy hoax where s/he claims it’s the real deal and, moreover, a challenge to those dogmatic materialists. I can’t exactly summarize his/her reasoning because there is none, but the gist of the post involves the so-called inviolable second law of thermodynamics being violated, so there! About the only sane voice in the entire thread is nagrom, who wrote: “This is not science yet. The findings have not been made public. Just because they say it is “peer reviewed” does not mean it is real.”

.: That’s all the background you need. Here is what Chen said that I find so amusing:

So after hearing all this shouting about how IDers aren’t peer reviewed we now find out that peer-review doesn’t mean it is real? So what is the point of peer review? And for something to be science it has to be made public?? So everything scientists are doing in their labs today isn’t science because it hasn’t been made public yet? What standards are you following?

Here is another classic example of evolutionists back tracking (this time on peer-review) because they are losing ground to intelligent design. Because IDers are being peer reviewed (more and more now), evolutionists are now claiming that peer-review doesn’t matter.

I wonder who is making a fool of themselves here.

.: I don’t want to challenge any of his points here (do I even have to?). I just want to ask Chen a simple question:

What do you think scientists do in a laboratory?

.: Or how about a more poetic question:

If a scientist publishes a paper in the forest, and there’s nobody around to read it, is it still science?

.: By the way, this post on 90% True has been certified peer-reviewed™ by anonymous experts, who have themselves been peer-reviewed certifiably. What, you don’t believe me? Well, who’s Mr. Anti-Science now?

*You hear me, Google?

.: It’s been awhile since I picked on our dear friend Sam Chen, of Overwhelming Evidence fame. Two reasons for this: 1) I’ve been doing other things (as evidenced by the general lack of posts) and 2) it’s too easy. How easy? Well, for starters, there are at least three posts up on the Overwhelming Evidence main page that are blatant parodies of intelligent design/creationist writings. (I don’t want to give the exact number, because then they might figure out which posts are parodies — although by not doing so I’m giving them a little bit of credit, which rest assured is not my intention.)

.: However, there are some items which are just too good not to ridicule. Here’s the latest:

The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is proud to present the 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award, presented annually to a deserving college graduate for excellence in student advocacy of intelligent design.

The recipient of the 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient. The many students, professors, and scientists who have been denied degrees or tenure, and removed from positions and jobs for no other reason than acceptance of—or even sympathy to—intelligent design theory is very telling of the importance of keeping these bright young minds out of the crosshairs of those opposed to open-minded investigation and critical thought. . . . - IDURC Announces 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award

.: A few questions will surely come to the casual reader, namely: What the hell is the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center, who the hell is Casey Luskin, and what does one have to accomplish to deserve such a prestigious award? I will try my best to answer these questions.

What the hell is the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center?
.: Good question! According to their About Us page, IDURC “is a student organization dedicated to”:

1) investigating intelligent design as a viable scientific theory
2) promoting education and critical thinking about neo-Darwinism
3) supporting efforts of those trying to revise school standards to include discussion of the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory
4) providing a forum for high school and college students to present, debate, and discuss their ideas about intelligent design and neo-Darwinism
5) clarifying the debate concerning neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and creationism
6) encouraging creative exploration of the aesthetic dimensions of design.

.: Would you be surprised if I told you they’ve accomplished none of these things? A cursory examination of their archives will find no original research pertaining to any scientific principles developed or discovered under an intelligent design framework. Nor will you find critical thinking or actual education of neo-Darwinian theory. However, you will find plenty muddled criticisms, like this one:

Think about it. No matter what evidence is presented, no matter how convincing our arguments are, can we really convince die-hard Darwinists that they’re wrong? It’s just like a religion. Now, I’m not saying religious devotion isn’t a good thing. Refusing to conform to the current popular trend reflects a deep-seated commitment to one’s principles and beliefs. At the same time, however, an ideological doctrine such as this should not be taught as fact in public schools. There will probably always be a naturalistic explanation for something. Just because evolutionists believe fervently that they’re right does not, in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, “make it so.” - Tristan Abbey

.: If I can get this straight, evolution is an unfalsifiable religion — not that religion is bad — and so it shouldn’t be taught in school as a fact, even though there is probably a naturalistic explanation for everything, but I support a theory that suggests otherwise . . . what? This is a one-step-forward-two-stumbles-back defense of intelligent design if I’ve ever seen one. Maybe he means “science can always give a plausible naturalistic explanation for anything, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t caused by [totally counter-intuitive non-explanation X]!”

.: That said, they have provided a forum for “high school and college students to present, debate, and discuss their ideas,” but it’s a yahoo group, and I unfortunately was denied access when I tried to join. I don’t understand why; I’m a college student, which means I meet all the criteria their group requires.

.: Other than that, IDURC really hasn’t done anything since Samuel Chen succeeded Tristan Abbey as director (in January 2006!). Well, except for their Casey Luskin Award, which leads us to our next question:

Who the hell is Casey Luskin?
.: From the announcement:

Luskin, for whom the award is named, was the first student truly to step out of his comfort zone as an undergrad and take a stand for intelligent design—a stand that would be seen across the nation. His founding of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center has been a great step forward for the intelligent design movement and, more importantly, for academic freedom everywhere. Today, Luskin continues his work with the ID movement as a lawyer and legal analyst for the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington.

.: Most scientific revolutions are the result of hard-working scientists working years to accumulate evidence to support their hypothesis and challenge orthodoxy (see Transposons). Luskin, wanting to challenge “Darwinian” orthodoxy with intelligent design, became . . . a lawyer? He might as well; he could never make it as a geneticist.

Miller started off his “prediction” by simply observing that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pairs; therefore two ape chromosomes were fused into one human chromosome. Miller claims that this simple chromosome-counting requires a fusion event if common ancestry is true. But is that really the case?

. . .

(Note: If Miller had added the argument that Darwinists try to maximize parsimony, i.e. minimize the number of evolutionary steps, he could have made this prediction that humans should have a fused chromosome. But in my understanding, that is not the line of argumentation Miller used in his testimony.) - Casey Luskin [emphasis added]

.: The ellipsis represents a single paragraph, which evidently is the minimum length of text required before Luskin can utterly contradict what he has just written (this is only a hypothesis; if you have examples of Luskin contradicting himself within a paragraph, please let me know).

What does one have to accomplish to deserve such a prestigious award?
.: Keeping in tradition with most ID awards, it helps if the award is named after yourself:

We are proud to name the IDURC’s graduate award after Mr. Casey Luskin and delighted to name him an honorary recipient. Casey will receive a certificate of achievement and be listed as a recipient of the award which now bears his name.

.: Other than that, all you need to do to win this award is demonstrate “excellence and courage in research and promotion of intelligent design.” Since no such research was highlighted in the announcement, owing to the anonymity of the recipient, I can only speculate as to what that entails.

.: I’m really clueless here, folks. What could he have done to deserve this award? I hope the certificate winds up on eBay; I’d love to hang it on my wall. It’d go well next to my other certificate: