Now on ScienceBlogs: The significance of 2/13

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « On bullshit | Main | Chamber of Commerce plans a monkey trial »

    Luskin vs. Luskin

    Category: CreationismPolicy and Politics
    Posted on: August 22, 2009 12:14 AM, by Josh Rosenau

    Disco. Inst. offices, artist's conceptionDisco. hustler Casey Luskin pleads ignorance to fend off an argument by Ken Miller:

    In a recent post, I noted that Ken Miller misrepresented Michael Behe’s arguments on the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade in his book, Only a Theory. When I blogged at the end of last year about Miller’s similar mistakes at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Dr. Miller responded by making me aware of something I did not previously know: apparently Michael Behe wrote the section in Of Pandas and People on blood clotting.
    Under normal circumstances, it would suffice to congratulate Casey for finally acknowledging his ignorance, but alas, we must not pause to revel in that minor miracle. Like so many miraculous claims, it vanishes under investigation.

    First of all, it is implausible that Casey wouldn't have been aware of Behe's involvement in Pandas. Casey, after all, has been involved with Behe, Pandas, and the broader ID movement for long enough that ignorance of any widely known fact in any of those three areas is a dubious claim.

    Indeed, Casey was at the Dover trial when Behe discussed his involvement in writing parts of Pandas. He even used that involvement to browbeat reporters during the trial itself, writing:

    Behe was a contributor to Pandas, it was on the blood clotting cascade section (found in Chapter 6, "Biochemical Similarities")…
    Casey completes the passage by whining that "Apparently this reporter wasn't listening when Behe testified as to his limited role in Pandas." Casey clearly was listening in 2005, but has conveniently forgotten that salient fact since then.

    This is only tangentially related to Casey's persistent efforts at relitigating a case his side lost – badly – 4 years ago. His immediate point is that "There's nothing wrong with … updating and improving … arguments." A fair point, though not one well served by degrading one's own arguments and attempting to obscure inconvenient facts.

    Furthermore, Casey claims (in bold face!) that he "never advocated" using Of Pandas and People in schools. Which may or may not be true, but it is surely the case that the Discovery Institute joined with that book's publisher to oppose efforts which would block the book's use in schools.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/118171

    Comments

    1

    Casey Luskin pleads ignorance ...

    Well, if I'm on the jury, that's one claim by Luskin I'd be inclined to believe.

    Posted by: John Pieret | August 22, 2009 2:47 PM

    2

    Luskin wakes up every morning, looks around at the wood shavings in his cage and wonders, "Wow, where did all these come from??"

    Posted by: Doc Bill | August 30, 2009 4:47 PM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.