PZ Myers: Casey Luskin caught quote mining

| 155 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Imagine that, Discovery Institute spokesperson Casey Luskin was caught quote mining by an observant reader of Pharyngula.

Luskin wrote

In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“1 because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2 it. As an undergraduate and graduate student taking multiple courses covering evolutionary biology at the University of California San Diego, that is what I was told as well. My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed.

Now the context

The first part of the quote is from page 52, near the end of the book. Here it is in context:

[1] There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes.

Where do you think we’ll find the second half of his quote? Page 53, maybe? Page 54? No. You’ll have to thumb backwards through the book, to a place near the beginning: page 16

Sigh…

1 TrackBack

Shocking title, huh? Those of us who believe in God know He doesn’t lie. We try to live up to His example, to be Christ-like in our dealings. We aspire to the divine because of our love for Him. So it is with great distress that I read of acti... Read More

155 Comments

Hey Casey Luskin, if you’re still googling your own name looking for people to write threatening but ultimately toothless emails to, try this on for size:

Casey Luskin is a disgusting individual who manufactures quotes from fragments of what others have said out of desperation born of having to defend an undefendable position. His dishonest actions reflect poorly (but accurately) on the organization he is acting as spokesperson for, the Discovery Institute.

You may send your flaccid, impotent emails to me at stodolaxx at yahoo dot com. Except replace the two Xs with 76.

You can’t expect someone that knows that his employers lied about the intelligent design scam, before he joined up, to have any integrity.

Luskin participated in the Colloquy discussion on teaching intelligent design just before the Discovery Institute perps ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes, and he didn’t let on that the switch was going down, so he either didn’t know or he wasn’t telling. Either way what do you expect from someone that took a job with the Discovery Institute after that fact?

What an “A-Hole” Can the NAS sue him?

The funniest part of the quote mine is in the full context of the “no new evidence is likely to alter (them substantially)” portion:

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

IDeologists are, of course, perfectly free to compare themselves to geocentrists and other kooks if they like. If the shoe fits, as they say …

Casey wrote:

“My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed.”

Oh really. So just how can a course prevent you from entertaining a possibility? Did the course prevent you from doing any research? Did the course prevent you from finding evidence to support you views? Did the course control you thoughts and make it impossible for you to even think about any other possibilities? Or maybe the course simply resented evidence that you had no answers for.

Perhaps the problem was that you didn’t do any research. Perhaps the problem was that you had no evidence. Perhaps the problem was that you needed some excuse to justify your complete and miserable failure. Perhaps you can use the same excuse to justify your continued quote mining and misrepresentation of science.

You know you are completely free to present any evidence you want. Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed? Note that personal increduality does not count as evidence.

Just a note that in the Title heading for this thread Luskin is misspelled as Lusin.

If a scientist could actually prove that the theory of evolution is wrong, he would achieve fame that would eclipse Dawrin, Einstein and Newton put together! If that does not set up a juicy prize nothing will. But the fact is every new advance in technology and science, from plate tectonics to genetics and DNA, confirmed, not contradicted the theory of evolution. The micro fossils in rocks guide the geologists seeking oil.

BTW, why is there an obsession with Darwin? Scientists have shown many many things Darwin got wrong. He had no idea about how the beneficial traits remained undiluted. His theory about the origin of mammals and nursing were rejected ages ago. Many parts of his work in sexual selection remain unaccepted to this day.

Most creationists are confused about the cause and effect in the case of respect for Darwin and the acceptance of theory of evolution. The theory is NOT accepted because we worship Darwin. We respect Darwin because the theory of evolution has been confirmed over and over again. The cause for Darwin’s stature and fame among the scientists is the overwhelming confirmation and evidence for his theory, much of which he himself was quite unaware of.

I think this comes from the standard play book of the religious folk. Most Christian and Moslem armies would destroy and desecrate the revered holy objects, deities, idols and places of worship when they win over a pagan tribe/city/nation. To show that the deities the losing side worshiped had no power. They assume scientists are like those pagan tribes in the Amazon jungles. They expect the scientists to see that Darwin idol has no super natural powers and fall down to their knees quivering and accepting the One True God. The image of warriors chipping away the base of the pedestal of Darwin’s bust sells books! They remind me of Don Quixote and the wind mills.

And PZ’s name is misspelled as well. He spells it “Myers”. At least, that’s what he has on his web page.

I think this comes from the standard play book of the religious folk. Most Christian and Moslem armies would destroy and desecrate the revered holy objects, deities, idols and places of worship when they win over a pagan tribe/city/nation. To show that the deities the losing side worshiped had no power. They assume scientists are like those pagan tribes in the Amazon jungles. They expect the scientists to see that Darwin idol has no super natural powers and fall down to their knees quivering and accepting the One True God. The image of warriors chipping away the base of the pedestal of Darwin’s bust sells books! They remind me of Don Quixote and the wind mills.

Actually, many Christian armies often desecrated the churches and stole the holy relics of those Christians whom they defeated, like, for example, when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem, slaughtered almost all of its inhabitants, Muslim, Jew and Christian alike, and used the Church of the Manger as a horse stall and trash heap.

While I’m not saying that Muslim armies were not capable of desecration, either, but, many Muslim armies did make it a point to not ransack or violate the conquered’s holy places. Instead, many Muslim armies made it a point to convert such places into mosques, like the Hagia Sofia.

Imagine that, Discovery Institute spokesperson Casey Luskin was caught quote mining by an observant reader of Pharyngula.

In other news, the Earth continues to orbit the sun. No offense to PZ, but this doesn’t exactly strike me as shocking information. I realize such needs to noted for those who think Luskin is credible, but wouldn’t it be better for NAS to respond then have such posted on this blog? It’s yet another example of Luskin’s worthlessness, but hardly merits a lot of discussion.

Interesting debate:

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

Who is your Creator, this is about how ID creationists are quote mining the statements by scientists to serve their purpose. I understand you want to change the topic. I would be embarrassed to

To show that the deities the losing side worshiped had no power.

And to show which side won, and ultimately that there is less hope for a reversal.

Though if you want to destroy an empirical idea, the same scenario would even today play out in a dictatorship, theological or not. 500 Kelvin, anyone? … um, Fahrenheit 451 in other units. Luskin is showing us the future of a society run by his fellow cultists.

(The idea of F451 is IIRC that mainly or only literary texts are destroyed, but the same principle would hamper any meme. Know how, or the rediscovery of know how, has a minimal critical mass associated with it.)

Luskin is misspelled as Lusin.

Well, he is lusin’ it. But the Myers/Meyers misspelling is so commonplace it’s famous.

who is your creator:

Interesting debate:

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

There are no flaws in the Theory of Evolution. The Discovery Institute lies about there being flaws in the hopes that they can replace science with politically and religiously motivated pseudoscience. Why is that not cause to be upset over?

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

Biologists and educators are trying to prevent the political cronies of the Discovery Institute from passing laws that would compromise science curricula in the country. Unless, of course, you don’t care that the Discovery Institute and friends mean to destroy Science in the United States in the name of Jesus Christ.

Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

If, by “critical analysis of evolution,” you mean by pointing out alleged flaws in the Theory of Evolution that only scientifically illiterate frauds and religiously motivated snake-oil salesmen can see, then no.

If, by “critical analysis of evolution,” you mean by teaching the Theory of Evolution as it is taught in a college-level course at a reputable college or university, then yes.

“Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.”

To which flaws do you refer? Please cite a specific example for discussion.

“Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.”

False. The Creationists are the ones responsible for the legislation attempting to shove Creationist ideas down the throats of schoolchildren. Just within the past couple of weeks, for example, Florida state legislators have proposed such legislation.

Please do try to keep up with the facts here. Thank you.

who is your creator:

Interesting debate:

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

Well, why don’t you provide a critical analysis of evolution right here, and don’t make a fool of yourself, with strawman arguments, other lame fallacies, or even outright lies, like most Creationist bigots do?

Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education

As PvM noted you are trying to change the subject. Revealing the sources of Luskins quote mining tells you about the serious discussions of an established science - i.e. no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially, and the scientific discussion is among scientists and not between educators and students.

Btw, the above science is a strawman stuffed with old and rotten errors. Let me rephrase it to mean what you really can say on the subject:

“Scientists and proscience persons are concerned that the Discovery Institute pushes the erroneous idea that “academic freedom” means that the curricula shouldn’t reflect current science. Academic freedom means that scientists are free to explore nature without fear of reprisal, academic responsibility means that educators are obligated to teach accepted science (without fear of reprisal). It is academic responsibility that school boards should protect, while academic freedom is what mainly universities as institutions protect.”

Biology and especially evolution is accepted science, the alternatives aren’t. Deal with it.

who is your creator:

Interesting debate:

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

1. The claim is a lie. Serious discussions are allowed. Most of the discussions in question are not serious, they’re just ad nauseum repeats of old discredited arguments made from false pretenses. They are a waste of time. Furthermore, at what level of “education” are we talking about? High school biology classes? How much “discussion” of discredited arguments is there time for in high school? Who is to engage in these discussions? The entire class, whether they want to or not?

2. Who’s proposing legislation? Serious scientists are attempting to influence school boards to compose scientific (as opposed to pseudo-scientific) standards. Religiously-motivated legislators are proposing bills to oppose them. Show me a piece of legislation such as you speak of that is not in response to a legislator pandering to a Bible-thumping constituency.

“Critical analysis of evolution in education.” What a crock!

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

What flaws? We’ve heard all the logical fallacies over and over for a few hundred years.

If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Flagella irreducibly complex.

“I can’t see how my foot evolved so goddidit.”

Funny how only religious bigots and fanatics with no biology background can find the flaws.

Bill Gascoyne:

Show me a piece of legislation such as you speak of that is not in response to a legislator pandering to a Bible-thumping constituency.

“Critical analysis of evolution in education.” What a crock!

Yes, I would like to se that as well!!

If, by “critical analysis of evolution,” you mean by teaching the Theory of Evolution as it is taught in a college-level course at a reputable college or university, then yes.

One thing that hits you when you see the public framing of “critical analysis” that the creationist scammers now push as their latest stage in their evolution into ever more empty stands, is that critical analysis is what students do on their course material at a daily basis. That should probably be part of educators message.

Granted, resource constraints and lack of width and depth prohibits a systematic analysis on the level of the research front, naturally enough - or the participants would preferably be scientists instead. But there is a lot of pulling and tearing of the presented material by the more critical students.

And this uncovers faults and omissions in the texts books. Sometimes the omissions are there precisely to elicit such independent analysis.

One example I’m reminded of right now was the simplest (one dimensional) model for the density of modes for phonons in solid state physics. The lowest allowed wave mode for longitudinal displacements isn’t a common-sense wave as all particles must move uniformly, yet it was included in the spectra without explicit motivation in our text book. That engendered a discussion in and out of class, a critical analysis, of the applicability of such models.

[IIRC the solution we arrived at was that, yes, the model allows someone to hit the crystal and move it, but what it really tries to tell you is likely that thermal vibrations can move the whole crystal a few angstroms if placed on a surface, irreversibly or not. In either case the mode should be included in such models, and probably be observable to boot. I’m not sure anyone checked that - the time constraint of higher ed is a harsh master. :-(]

Yet again creationists are trying to slip the bait-and-switch behind the back of ignorant, willfully or not, supporters and public.

In regard to an above comment:

“Well, why don’t you provide a critical analysis of evolution right here, and don’t make a fool of yourself, with strawman arguments, other lame fallacies, or even outright lies, like most Creationist bigots do?”

OK - Here it is:

You guys can rant all you want but you would further your cause more if you could just articulate properly how evolution might work to create novel or more complex traits that create morphological changes needed to prove your theory.

Until you finally come up with solid ‘naturalistic’ explanations instead of silly scenarios that are reduced down to, “evolution did it,” evolution is nothing but ‘supernatural.’ Isn’t that violating your own standards?

Here’s a recent example:

“This ancient animal probably had very simple eye spots with no image-forming ability, but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead. These two forms arose by a simple gene duplication event and concomitant specialization of association with specific G proteins, which has also been found to require relatively few amino acid changes. This simple molecular divergence has since proceeded by way of the progress of hundreds of millions of years and amplification of a cascade of small changes into the multitude of diverse forms we see now. There is a fundamental unity that arose early, but has been obscured by the accumulation of evolutionary change. Even the eyes of a scorpion carry an echo of our kinship, not in their superficial appearance, but deep down in the genes from which they are built.” http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/20[…]t.php?page=3

To break this scenario down:

1. The premise of ‘need.’

“but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead.”

• The organism senses a need?

“Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.” “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.

2. An unknown mechanism

“simple gene duplication”

• What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before

3. An unknown mechanism

“concomitant specialization”

• Used to prompt the reader to think it means something more than the term ‘evolution.’ - Definition of concomitant: “existing or occurring with something else, often in a lesser way.” http://dictionary.reference.com/bro[…]/concomitant - Definition of specialization: “to be adapted to a special function or environment.” http://dictionary.reference.com/bro[…]ecialization

4. An unknown mechanism

“of association with specific G proteins”

• Explain in detail how a new molecular switch ‘evolves’ or an existing one ‘reprograms’ itself (which would render useless the other functioning gene that it previously controlled).

• How would the new or ‘evolved’ switch know how to specifically control the new gene that it previously had no exposure to?

• How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created?

(“Receptor-activated G proteins are bound to the inside surface of the cell membrane.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein

• If the G protein ‘evolved’ together while bound to the gene, explain the mechanism that would allow for the precise timing of the on and off switch adjusting itself to the new function.

Feel free to cite research that proves any of these above phenomena are “naturally occurring” and qualifying for being a ‘naturalistic’ explanation.

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.” “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2007, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, page 10.)

This is wildly off-topic, but I didn’t bring it up, so here goes, no blushes:

Stanton writes,

While I’m not saying that Muslim armies were not capable of desecration, either, but, many Muslim armies did make it a point to not ransack or violate the conquered’s holy places. Instead, many Muslim armies made it a point to convert such places into mosques, like the Hagia Sofia.

But from the Byzantine Christian point of view, seizing the Church of the Holy Wisdom by force and converting it into a mosque WAS “desecration” – precisely so. As for “ransacking,” the Muslim conquerers did ransack the church – stole its relics and other precious paraphernalia – as a matter of course, as any conquering army of the period, Christian or otherwise, would have done. As the Fourth Crusaders did do, in fact, several centuries earlier. So, how the Hagia Sophia shows how “many Muslim armies did make it a point to not ransack or violate the conquered’s holy places” escapes me. One might with equal logic cite the preservation of the Alhambra after the Catholics took it in 1492 as evidence of the restraint of “many Christian armies.” It would all be silly. These generalizations have little, if any, historical meaning and certainly say nothing about the nature of intrinsic Christianness or Muslimness, which probably don’t exist.

Larry

I’ll let the more knowledgeable here tackle that one …

I would still like to know what legislation you are referring to?

who is your creator:

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

who is your creator:

• How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created?

Good thing I didn’t have a mouthful of coffee when I read that one.

WIYC, this statement (among many others in your post) reveals that you know very little of modern molecular / cellular biology. When was your last exposure to a biology class? Are you interested in learning, or have you already made up your mind?

who is your creator:

• How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created?

It doesn’t, but the organisms in which this happened to occur had a reproductive advantage.

Two points that you probably don’t care about, but for the benefit of the lurkers:

“Seed Magazine” and “Wikipedia” are not primary sources. They are, in effect, layman’s popularizations of scientific findings. Critiquing them as though they are the definitive word on scientific thought is spurious.

Whether found in primary sources or popularizations, phrases like “needed to” are anthropomorphizations intended only as figures of speech and not to be taken literally. Of course, those who insist on taking things literally, or who are incapable of taking them any other way, are likely to erroneously assume the same of others, just as the man with a toothache assumes that everyone with sound teeth must be happy.

You guys can rant all you want but you would further your cause more if you could just articulate properly how evolution might work to create novel or more complex traits that create morphological changes needed to prove your theory.

Our “cause” was won decades ago in the arenas of science and well educated adults. In my own field, medical research, the average life span has gone from 47 to 78 in the last century. The difference between religious bigots lying and science is that science works. You don’t even have to believe in it. Your car will still run, your computer operate, and the average life span will still be 3 decades longer.

As to morphological traits evolving, that is just an observable fact. We have a reasonably complete fossil sequence showing how the 4 lobe fins of lobe finned fish eventually turned into the arms and legs of humans or the legs and wings of bats or birds.

The molecular details are being discovered today, in a field called evo-devo. To no ones surprise, the answers are there. The changes are mostly regulatory and we don’t know all that much. That will change with more work. To cite just one common example.

As rare as hen’s teeth? Not any more, say scientists

Katherine Demopoulos Thursday February 23, 2006 SocietyGuardian.co.uk

If you thought hen’s teeth were the rarest thing in nature, think again: researchers from Britain and the US have succeeded in growing teeth in a chicken. Far from being rarer than students who turn up at 9am lectures or lecturers who like giving them, a hen with teeth does occur naturally, scientists based at the universities of Manchester and Wisconsin have found.

And by studying that mutant chicken - which is too weak to hatch, explaining its rarity - the team has been able to stimulate “natural” tooth growth in chickens.

The mutant chicken harks back to toothier days: the ancestors of today’s birds lost their teeth about 80 million years ago, but not the ability to grow them.continues

To put this in perspective. 1. We know that birds are avian dinosaurs from fossil and DNA sequence evidence.

2. We know that the early birds were mostly toothed, a feature inherited from their nonavian ancestors.

3. We now know that the pathway forming teeth was turned off in modern birds. We know this because it is dormant and can be reactivated.

All of this is predicted and consistent with the modern TOE. None of it is consistent with creationism which claims that birds were formed de novo 6,000 years ago and that was the end of the story.

Have you considered some college biology courses?

1. The premise of ‘need.’

“but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead.”

Need does not refer to a need, but rather the idea that it would be benificial to have. Your second point about sensing this need is just silly. It’s called Natural selection.

2. An unknown mechanism

“simple gene duplication”

• What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before

Again this is simple genetics. Gene duplication mutations happen relatively frequently. That is the mechanism. There is no foresight needed or involved.

3 and 4 again represent not understanding molecular biology. Enzymes, receptors, and channels naturally vary in their specificity. Cocomittant specialization refers to rather than having two copies of a gene do two things poorly they both specialize on one substrate. These are all well understood widely applicable molecular processes.

When people grouse about non-testability these are exactly the reasons they are dead wrong. All of genetics was one huge test of Natural selection and the fact it keeps working is awesome evidence to the power of Darwin’s hypothesis (especially considering his own genetic theories were far off the mark). Of course we’ve also added some interesting wrinkles to MET as a result of molecular biology, but all the quote mining in the world does not make that refute the fact of evolution or the ability of Natural selection to explain adaptation.

who is your creator:

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

The Creator is just lying. The relevant law separating church and state was written over 200 years ago. It is part of the US constitution. It is illegal to sneak religious mythology into our kid’s science classes.

The creos have been doing it anyway wherever they can and occasionally getting hauled into court and losing.

And trying lately to pass the DI written “religious freedom” bill allowing kids to put down goddidit to any questions they feel like.

In regard to a response to my posting: “What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before?”

Response “Again this is simple genetics. Gene duplication mutations happen relatively frequently. That is the mechanism. There is no foresight needed or involved.”

Since it’s so simple, why don’t you share with the world the step-by-step genetic explanation of it occurring and cite specific research that verifies your claim that it happens “relatively frequently”?

I know Pim is not the only one who has removed your comments, I recall PZ Myers and Kevin Vicklund doing the same.

Whoa! Hey now, I couldn’t possibly have removed Larry’s comments, as I am not one of the contributing bloggers. I have pointed out when he was violating the ban, especially at first when he was still trying (and failing) to be clever. I should also point out that despite my efforts to convince him to stop posting under mutiple names (which would normally get a person banned) -even going so far as to offer him information he was seeking if he would agree to resume posting as himself- I was one of the people he impersonated in the action that got himself banned.

My apologies Mr. Vicklund. My memory is not infallible. I suppose I remember, now that you mention it, that you were a key player, i.e. that Larry started impersonating you and that you were very good at tracking down just about every post he made after he was banned and making those in charge of the site aware of them. Hopefully my jogged memory of the events is more accurate.

J. Biggs:

I find it humorous that he [Larry] calls me dunghill since I used to affectionately refer to him as Larry Farflungdung …

ROFLMAO!!

And it so aptly describes his debating technique! Fling enough - er - manure, and some of it will stick.

Nomad said:

Hey Casey Luskin, if you’re still googling your own name looking for people to write threatening but ultimately toothless emails to, try this on for size:

Casey Luskin is a disgusting individual who manufactures quotes from fragments of what others have said out of desperation born of having to defend an undefendable position. His dishonest actions reflect poorly (but accurately) on the organization he is acting as spokesperson for, the Discovery Institute.

You may send your flaccid, impotent emails to me at stodolaxx at yahoo dot com. Except replace the two Xs with 76.

Why is there such hatred for Casey Luskin? He is making a statement that is totally true! You cannot question the dogma of evolution! It is treated as fact and science is hurt by it. The “evolution” we see in nature can be argued from a design perspective, but “mainstream” scientist and dogmatists want to clamp down on the minds of people. Do you honestly think any design paper could be published? But it would be rejected, not on the merits of the paper, but purely because it addressed design! I have no problems with the quotes. He captures the bias - though you don’t want to admit it!

Mike said:

Why is there such hatred for Casey Luskin? He is making a statement that is totally true! You cannot question the dogma of evolution! It is treated as fact and science is hurt by it. The “evolution” we see in nature can be argued from a design perspective, but “mainstream” scientist and dogmatists want to clamp down on the minds of people. Do you honestly think any design paper could be published? But it would be rejected, not on the merits of the paper, but purely because it addressed design! I have no problems with the quotes. He captures the bias - though you don’t want to admit it!

It’s not hatred, it’s just that Luskin seems to be having problems with accurately quoting. Evolution is a fact and the only thing we need to explain is how this fact happened. To argue from a design perspective, ID has to explain all these facts of evolution and show that it is a more fruitful explanation. However ID refuses to present a competing hypothesis, in fact, many of its key proponents have lamented the lack of much of anything even resembling a theory.

Since ID’s concept of design is nothing more than ‘science cannot explain it’, it seems self evident that there is at best a bias against ignorance on the part of ID which insists on calling it, design and than equivocate on the meaning of the term.

That’s why.

Glad you asked.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on March 10, 2008 1:04 AM.

Greg Laden: Teachers Under Fire was the previous entry in this blog.

NY Times: Expelled from “Expelled”? 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 4.381

Site Meter