Luskin’s Latest Lie

If you love predictability, you’ve got to love the Discovery Institute. Whenever someone publishes a paper about human evolution, it’s a pretty safe bet that someone there will soon take the time to explain how having learned something new means that we somehow know less than we did before. You can set your watch by it, almost.

The latest example comes from Casey Luskin. He “discusses” a paper that came out in Nature this week that reported on some fossils from Dmanisi, Georgia. Several skulls have been described from this site already, and the current paper focuses on post-cranial (less technically, non-skull) remains.

I’m not going to bother with a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of Casey’s claims. (See this post by Afarensis for that.) Instead, I’m just going to look at one of the more glaringly dishonest tactics that Casey used this time.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left):

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on September 24, 2007 8:09 AM.

Steven Pinker on Prof. Steve Steve was the previous entry in this blog.

Fiskin’ Luskin: Anti-religious or Pro-reality is the next entry in this blog.

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

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter