Considering Luskin is an "earth sciences" graduate, now pursuing a law degree, I wonder if he really writes this stuff, or if it's a DI Team effort.
If it's a team effort, I think they need a new coach!
I've long thought that viruses and parasitic life-cycles fit the bill for ID pretty well and that the ID crowd ought to at least own up to them. Looks like they now have--for viruses anyway. I don't think this should be forgotten.
Absolutely. Additionally, all kinds of nasty things can exhibit "irreducible complexity" by Behe's definition (not only pathogens, but cancer cells, for example). Luskin does comment on that a bit, suggesting that the morality and other implications of that have no bearing on ID "theory" (no matter what The Wedge might say!)
What I found most remarkable about this post was the way that Luskin interprets the "mutation limit": instead of a limit on the rate at which mutations can accumulate, he seems to interpret it as a limit on the net amount of mutational change that can accumulate.
This is like observing that the speed limit is 25mph and concluding that it's impossible to drive more than 25 miles from your home.
This blog is very interesting. Most of the material I've seen from the DI in the past has been relatively polished. But much of the material posted by Chapman and Luskin recently feels as though it's come detached from reality entirely, to the point where they've lost even the pretense of credibility. I am reminded of the Iraqi Minister of Information during the US invasion, the fellow who proclaimed that the heroic Iraqi Army was thrashing the cowardly invaders even as the US tanks were pulling up to the Ministry of Information.
--B
What I found most remarkable about this post was the way that Luskin interprets the "mutation limit": instead of a limit on the rate at which mutations can accumulate, he seems to interpret it as a limit on the net amount of mutational change that can accumulate.
This is like observing that the speed limit is 25mph and concluding that it's impossible to drive more than 25 miles from your home.
That's a very good point. I glossed over that section because I was having trouble coming up with a good way to explain it without being overly dull, but that's a nice analogy.
This blog is very interesting. Most of the material I've seen from the DI in the past has been relatively polished. But much of the material posted by Chapman and Luskin recently feels as though it's come detached from reality entirely, to the point where they've lost even the pretense of credibility. I am reminded of the Iraqi Minister of Information during the US invasion, the fellow who proclaimed that the heroic Iraqi Army was thrashing the cowardly invaders even as the US tanks were pulling up to the Ministry of Information.
Absolutely. This is the second time this week I've seen the DI spinmeisters compared to Baghdad Bob. At least he was entertaining--you can't even say that for the DI.
On Luskin's second point, I just now read in Science (7 October p. 2
"That means the 1918 flu likely arose from a bird virus and did not need to combine with a flu strain already adapted to humans to become so deadly." If it happened once, it could happen again.
Definitely. There's no rule that says it needs to reassort with a human virus to become human-to-human transmissible; it just seems to be the easiest path. But who knows--one point mutation in the right place may be all it takes. Like I said, Luskin really needs to bone up on his epidemiology and virology if he's going to be writing pieces like this on a regular basis.
A straight up question here, which I am sure is on everyone's mind.
Do you think that Luskin was so intellectually lazy that he managed to base his entire article on a few unchecked factual mistakes?
Or is it more likely that he knew what he was stating was a factually incorrect, and yet knew full well that the kind of people he is trying to convince aren't the kind of people who would check out those kinds of facts?
I'll play the eternal optimist and hope there's a third option--he really just is lost in this field, and pierced together a few things he'd read in the popular press about reassortment and H5N1 without a good understanding of the whole story (even if he thought he "got" it). I'm sure I'd be similarly lost if I were to try to write something about law or geology (Luskin's fields)--but of course, that's why I don't write about those areas as if I was an authority in the field.
"It's painful for any expert in a field to read articles authored by those who are very clearly not trained in that area."
Yes, his recent foray into human evolution nearly had me beating my head against the wall. Aweful stuff.
Wonderful post, Tara. I've been reading all your recent items relating to bird flu with great interest.
A relative of mine, I probably shouldn't say who, was responsible for writing the disaster plan that would be enacted in the event that a pandemic reaches our city (Perth, Australia). Last week I asked her what hope we would have if a birdflu pandemic hit. Her response, "not much.", how reassuring.
Is Luskin aware of your blog? I'd be interested to see if he'd rebut your reply to his article.
lowk asked
Do you think that Luskin was so intellectually lazy that he managed to base his entire article on a few unchecked factual mistakes?to which Tara answered
I'll play the eternal optimist and hope there's a third option--he really just is lost in this field, and pierced together a few things he'd read in the popular press about reassortment and H5N1 without a good understanding of the whole story (even if he thought he "got" it).I think Tara's too generous. I think that Luskin knows he doesn't know a damned thing about what he blathers on about, and it doesn't make any difference to him!
Nic George wrote,
A relative of mine, I probably shouldn't say who, was responsible for writing the disaster plan that would be enacted in the event that a pandemic reaches our city (Perth, Australia). Last week I asked her what hope we would have if a birdflu pandemic hit. Her response, "not much.", how reassuring.
Hi Nic. Sadly, that's pretty much the situation in every country. The politicians don't want to get involved until the writing's on the wall, and by then, it's too late. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that this one won't happen, and that the next time we have a looming threat like this, we'll be better prepared.
Is Luskin aware of your blog? I'd be interested to see if he'd rebut your reply to his article.
I tried several times yesterday to bring up the trackback url, but it wasn't working (and others posted similar comments on Panda's Thumb, so it's not just my incompetence.
) I've not contacted him personally. RBH wrote,
I think Tara's too generous. I think that Luskin knows he doesn't know a damned thing about what he blathers on about, and it doesn't make any difference to him!
Heh. I know you and others have had more dealings with Luskin than I have, so I'll defer to your expertise in that area.
The link to Luskin's piece is broken. A convenient accident perhaps? Maybe they have realised how poorly thought-through that piece was even by their own low standards.
I think it might be the whole evolutionnews.org site; I can't even get their main page to load, and was having troubles with it yesterday as well.
Well, sure, some scientists may be creating antibodies -- infected scientists. They just aren't doing it in the lab. Unless they came to work sick.
Heh. Good point. I'm sure that's what Luskin was referring to.
Commenting by HaloScan
