Luskin, ID and Creationism, Take 2

This took place in the comments on a thread below, so I want to move it up to its own post so it doesn't get lost. Steve S, a frequent commenter both here and at the Panda's Thumb, dug something up that is both important and highly amusing given Casey Luskin's recent post at the DI blog proclaiming that a reporter who equated ID with creationism was demonstrating "bias" and that the reporter had become a "mouthpiece for ID's critics". And here's what Luskin had to say about the equation of ID and creationism:

Despite Holden's editorializing, ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture. But intelligent design does neither.

But Steve took a look at the website of the IDEA Club, which was founded by Luskin himself, and replicated on college campuses around the nation. IDEA club, by the way, stands for Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness. And what did Casey have to say in the FAQ file for that club to explain to potential members what the IDEA Club was all about? I think you'll find this quite interesting. He wrote:

Fear not the creationists!!!: Hi there, thanks for coming to our FAQ page. IDEA exists on the UCSD campus to serve those at our school interested in having meaningful, critical, friendly, and informed discussion over issues related to creation and evolution among people of many viewpoints. Those from "both sides" of the creation-evolution issue at our club are dedicated to truth, friendship, and self-criticism above all things. As creationists, we have nothing to hide... If any of this appeals to you, we hope you would come to the club! Please read on as this FAQ tries to explain more about the club:

As creationists, the IDEA club had nothing to hide. Now that Luskin works for the DI, however, he has something big to hide - his own past admission that ID supporters are, in fact, creationists. Including himself. I would suggest to Casey that the reporter that equated ID with creationism has not become a mouthpiece for ID critics, she has merely become a mouthpiece for ID proponents and the things they said before they realized how important it was to pretend that ID is totally different from creationism. It takes some serious cojones to accuse a reporter of bias for saying what you said yourself only a short time ago. That sound you hear is what little credibility Luskin had left spilling onto the ground.

Oh, and in case you were wondering - of course I have the IDEA club page archived so they can't make it disappear it down the memory hole and pretend it never existed. I've dealt with Dembski and his lackeys long enough to have learned that lesson a long time ago.

Update: And it even gets better. Taking another look around that IDEA Club webpage, I found this subpage. Remember above where Luskin claims that ID does not postulate a supernatural creator? Well let's travel back in time and see what he was saying 6 years ago:

As seen in the IDEA Club mission statement, one goal of the club is to "Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism". Since these philosophies rest upon the premises that there exists nothing relevant to action of the world other than matter, energy, and the laws which govern them, we decided to challenge that premise by allowing people to give personal testimony of explicitly supernatural events from their lives. Thus, we decided to provide an opportunity for club members to present and witness personal testimonial evidence for the existence of God and the supernatural realm.

That sounds a lot like Luskin agreeing with the argument that our side makes consistently, that all of the rhetoric of ID advocates against naturalism demands that the designer be supernatural. Otherwise, what is the point of claiming that ID will reverse the dominance of naturalism in the sciences? If the designer is natural, then all of that focus on naturalism becomes completely pointless.

And that's not all. I also found this subpage, which discusses the anthropic principle, or the notion of cosmological ID. This idea is also promoted by the Discovery Institute, especially through Guillermo Gonzales and his work The Privileged Planet. It is also part of the DI's official defintiion of "intelligent design". And here's what Casey had to say about cosmological ID:

Anthropic principles show that a Power outside of space and time (not extra-terrestrials) has had something do with life on earth. Anthropic Prinples imply that there are Forces capable of providing all the energy for the universe, changing physical laws, manipulating a galaxy, precisely ordering a solar system, and controlling the geological history of Earth. The fact that anthropic principles are deduced all the way from the beginning of the universe to the last earthquake we had show that this Being must have had us in mind from the beginning, and that it is a single Power which did all this. To put it bluntly, the design of the universe imply there is a Creator God.

Now, Casey attempts to contrast this with "strict intelligent design theory" (which, of course, does not actually exist), but the DI includes cosmological ID, the anthropic principle, in their official definition of ID in their own FAQ file:

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And of course, The Privileged Planet, by DI fellows Richards and Gonzales makes clear that those features fo the universe that this definition refers to are precisely the "anthropic coincidences" that Luskin refers to. So while Luskin may try to distinguish between the anthropic principle argument and "strict intelligent design theory", the DI itself thinks they are one and the same. And as Casey admits, cosmological ID requires a supernatural creator God, not merely an alien.