Luskin vs. Luskin

Disco. hustler Casey Luskin pleads ignorance to fend off an argument by Ken Miller:

In a recent post, I noted that Ken Miller misrepresented Michael Beheâs 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 Millerâs 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")â¦

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 â badly â 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.