So, the question is whether the Intelligent Design Creationists really understand modern evolutionary theory or not. If they do, then they must be lying when they claim that it's just natural selection and "Darwinism." It can't be excused as ignorance in that case. Alternatively, if they don't understand modern evolutionary theory then they must be stupid.
Which is it?
Let's look at two recent posts on Evolution News & Views from Casey Luskin: Information for Students about the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List and Is Darwinian Evolution "Just a Theory"?.
The main point of these blog posts is the so-called "Dissent from Darwinism" list. These are creationists who have signed the following statement:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.It should be obvious to most of you that all evolutionary biologists are skeptical of the claims that natural selection accounts entirely for the complexity of life. That's because there's much more to evolution that just mutation + selection. "Darwininan theory"—whatever that is—is not equivalent to modern evolutionary theory.
Casey Luskin has pretended to know this in the past and he has certainly been told it many times. Why then, in his first post, does he cover all kinds of objections to "Darwinian Theory" without mentioning random genetic drift or Neutral Theory? He must be lying. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation.
In his second post he says,
However, as the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List shows, when it comes to what I termed Evolution #3 -- the idea that an unguided process of natural selection and random mutation can account for the complexity of life -- there is major scientific controversy and cause for doubt. It is when we speak about Darwinian evolution in this sense that the scientific evidence turns decidedly weak, as the mainstream technical literature confirms.Casey Luskin knows damn well that the "Darwinian Theory" he talks about is not equivalent to modern evolutionary theory and that's what the "mainstream technical literature" says. He knows damn well that his flock of followers will interpret his statements to mean that legitimate scientists are skeptical about evolution.
How, then, should we speak about "evolution" as a theory? Rather than using imprecise language, and saying things like "Evolution is just a theory," a better way to express legitimate doubts on the subject is simply to say, "The scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution."
It would be kind to just say that Casey Luskin is guilty of a simple logical fallacy like attacking a strawman. It may have been possible to be kind 15 years ago when Intelligent Design Creationists were truly ignorant of evolutionary theory. It is not possible today.
Either they are too stupid to understand the science they criticize or they are lying. Probably both.