Disco. DJ Rob Crowther is upset.
A few days ago, I pointed out that his underling, Casey Luskin, has repeatedly misrepresented the Texas science standards revisions, in particular alleging conflicts of interest which do not exist while ignoring the profound conflicts of interest affecting expert reviewers Stephen Meyer (of the Discovery Institute) and Ralph Seelke.
In response to my post, Crowther writes:
Josh Rosenau has a post up yesterday attacking Casey Luskin that has a number of errors.
After a bit of whining about how the evil MSM have treated him cruelly, Crowther contrasts my claim that
At issue is a Disco.-inspired standard in the older TEKS which requires teachers to have students “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information” (my emphasis).
Crowther insists, “I corrected this back in June,” and quotes himself:
Let’s review. In 1998, the Texas Board of Education adopted the current set of science standards calling on students “to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.” You can read the standards for yourself here.
I see no conflict between his quote of my post and his restatement of his earlier position. I did not claim that the language was of some vintage other than 1998, I merely asserted that the language in those standards was inspired by Disco. That inspiration could have taken any of several forms, and Crowther has taken no steps to deny that.
Crowther continues by complaining that:
As for claims that we try to get intelligent design into the curriculum, that’s just not the case.
I cannot say for certain where I claimed otherwise, since the closest I came to such a claim is this:
Disco. and their allies had hoped to use that language about “strengths and weaknesses” to push their brand of creationism into classrooms,
Is Crowther conceding that ID is “their brand of creationism”?
If not, this is a complete non sequitur. If so, that rather changes the whole dynamic of this discussion.
What I wrote, though, encompasses both the teaching of IDC, and the teaching of long-repudiated creationist claims as “weaknesses of evolution,” a tactic employed by Explore Evolution, a book promoted by Disco. and written by Disco. staff and fellows. Casey acknowledges that the strengths and weaknesses standard would make it easier for that book to be introduced into Texas classrooms. I fail to see the error on my part.
I hope that Crowther will correct his misstatements about me at his very earliest convenience.