KQED radio appearance at 9 am PST


Well, this is an interesting feeling. I am sitting in Starbucks, in downtown San Francisco, slurping a Frappucino, blogging on my laptop, across the street from the KQED studio (KQED is the San Francisco public radio station that I listen to every day), waiting to go on KQED’s Forum with Michael Krasny. Could you get any more stereotypically-NPR-junkie-ish than this? I mean, apart from being in Minnesota at a Garrison Keillor event?

The show is obviously on Judge Jones’s Intelligent Decision on Intelligent Design. KQED’s audio is streamed on the web, so catch the show if you can. Apparently Casey Luskin will also be on. I imagine he has a few issues with the decision…


One of your links is broken and could you let us know if there is a transcript available (for the audio impared at work)? Thanks!

A transcript or an audio recording on the web would be good for me. I’m about to leave my house.

An appearance on radio?

It wouldn’t be a sudden appearance, would it?


Nick, if Casey will be on, I suggest you point out that one reflection of the unscientific nature of the controversy is that you, the evolution supporter, are a scientist, while Casey, the ID supporter, is a lawyer.

What kind of scientific movement has lawyers before it has experiments?

I say TEACH THE CONTROVERSY and use the Jones ruling as the textbook :-)

Now class, let’s start on page 1 of 139…


They seem to have some kind of mp3 archive available sometime after the segment airs. But you have to navigate through a maze of broken links to find the podcast page where you can actually reach a link that may serve an mp3 at some unspecified time in the near future.


Dang! Actual, ugh, work occupied me for the first hour of the day, which was also the first hour of the show–the evolution discussion.

It looks to me like it takes the station about a day to put up an audio in their archive, so I’ll try to listen tomorrow.

Though I’m sure, to the extent that the forum and the host allowed, Nick wasted Luskin…!

Just listened to this from the UK - weird to listen to a breakfast show while I’m cooking my tea. From the comments of some of the callers it would seem that you still have an immense task of public education. I’d love to ask some of them: - were you taught about evolution at school? (if not why not?) - why weren’t you listening? - if you were incapable of grasping the concept then, why should we listen to you now?

- one other thing - why did the program consistently refer to the DI as a ‘non-partisan’ body? and not say the same of the ACLU etc? - A party to one side of a case hardly deserves the title of ‘non-partisan’. We’d call them a political ‘think-tank’ here.

Thanks for the tip-off, great listening.

I just heard Behe is supposed to be on Hannity and Colmes (sp?) tonight…

I want to see what Behe has to say but I’m not sure I can take the Hannity that will go with it.…Hmmmm…

Just listened to the replay. Sounds like most of the call/write-ins … came down on the side of evolution. You came across very well, Nick. One question, though: When the that one caller (Martin, I think) went on about the complexity and wonder of nature and how could anyone not believe it was designed, I was expecting you to say something like “Certainly you can believe it was designed, but believing is not science. ID is about believing, not about science, and that is why it does not belong in public school science class.” I wondered why you didn’t address that when you finally got the mike back.

I had never heard Luskin before. Having spent the last several years reading up on this subject, I could see the holes (that’s a euphemism) in his arguments. But I could also understand that to someone who wants to believe in ID – or even someone who is confused by the debate – he could sound fairly reasonable.

(And yeah, my eyebrows went up when he said that HE (lawyer Luskin) had presented one of those papers at a conference.)


I just listened to the radio show (it’s up on the KQED site now). I agree that you came across well, and that many of the callers/write-ins made excellent anti-ID points.

My only complaint is that no-one pointed out that Luskin lied essentially every time he opened his mouth - the same lies that were presented in court, and the same lies that Judge Jones saw right through. I think, if we’re going to continue debating IDiots on public forums, that we really need to take the opportunities they present us to point out their blatant lies. We need to make it clear, every time, and say “That was a lie”, “That was another lie”, so that Joe Public will eventually start to wonder “Do these guys ever say anything that isn’t a lie?”.

Otherwise, top-notch effort.

We need to make it clear, every time, and say “That was a lie”, “That was another lie”, so that Joe Public will eventually start to wonder “Do these guys ever say anything that isn’t a lie?”.

Hear, hear!

Joe Public knows what a “liar” is as surely as he knows what a “flip-flopper” is.

Any thoughts on this Nick? Are you worried about being sued for slander?

That would make a great court case, too – one that Luskin and would be guaranteed to lose.

All you have to do is make sure that you don’t make up facts when you explain why Luskin full of it.

gregonomic’s suggestion seems like great advice to me.

Am I missing something?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 22, 2005 10:30 AM.

The Breathtaking Inanity of Joe Loconte was the previous entry in this blog.

Panderichthys rhombolepis is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter