1. strangerfruit
  2. Luskin either slips up or is telling lies

Luskin either slips up or is telling lies

By jlynch on January 11, 2006.

Casey Luskin, lawyer and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the DI has this to say about the El Tajon creationism class:

Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator.

Umm. Strange. The DI, whom Luskin represents, has said approved of the following in the past:

The Discovery Institute is one of the major proponents of intelligent design, the idea that a divine being orchestrated the evolutionary process.

Let me repeat, ID is "the idea that a divine being orchestrated the evolutionary process" and "Creationism ... always postulates a supernatural or divine creator". A divine being … i.e. a deity … i.e. a god … i.e. a being of supernatural powers or attributes.

Casey, ID is creationism. Get over it.

Tags
Anti-evolution

More like this

More of That Famous DI Position Shifting
As usual, the Discovery Institute is having a little difficulty settling on a coherent position on the El Tejon ID class controversy. Their first response, written by Robert Crowther, is entitled "Darwinists Want To Ban Intelligent Design From Not Just Science Classrooms, But All Classrooms."…
Luskin, ID and Creationism, Take 2
This took place in the comments on a thread below, so I want to move it up to its own post so it doesn't get lost. Steve S, a frequent commenter both here and at the Panda's Thumb, dug something up that is both important and highly amusing given Casey Luskin's recent post at the DI blog proclaiming…
Luskin's Latest Redefinition
Casey Luskin is back with a brand new dance, a tap dance around all those pesky little previous statements by ID advocates that come back to haunt them every time they try and claim that the "intelligent designer" doesn't have to be supernatural. He's complaining that a news article referred to the…
Conflicting Explanations from the Discovery Institute
I was going to write about this, but Dave Thomas did such a good job I'll just refer you to his work. In the Dover trial, as you'll recall, Barbara Forrest testified that the book Of Pandas and People originally used the term "creation" to describe the idea that species appear abruptly with all…

Umm, the DI didn't say that ... the authors of the article did. The article was written at Law.com and taken from the Fulton County Daily Report, as it indicates at the top of the link you provided. The brief web search that I did of the authors indicates that they have no affiliation with the DI.

A better conclusion than that somebody "slipped up" or is "telling lies" is that the DI linked to a news article that they may not endorse 100%, don't you think?

Fair enough, but given the DI's propensity to jump on any misrepresentation of ID, I'm guessing that either (1) someone screwed up, or (2) this is what they are comfortable with.

Actually, it does not really make a difference. By attacking naturalistic explanations, they are admitting that super-naturalistic explanations are required (by definition). Supernatural powers imply a deity. Either way you cut it, they're screwed.

By John Lynch (not verified) on 11 Jan 2006 #permalink