Aww, the Discovery Institute is losing one of their most . . . hmmm, well I can't say 'effective' . . . so what word best describes little casey luskin? How about 'prolific', yea, that's the ticket. The DI is losing one of their most prolific members. Here is little casey's announcement on Evolution 'news' and Views:
"It is with a mixture of sadness and excitement that I write this to announce that, as the year 2015 closes, I am leaving Discovery Institute. I am doing so in order to fulfill a lifelong goal of furthering my studies. My colleagues, who entirely support this decision, are people of the utmost integrity and they have been incredibly generous and welcoming to me and my family. I know we will miss each other. Working here over the past ten years has been a wonderful experience for which I am extremely grateful. It has taught me an immense amount"(Big Announcement, and Reflections on a Great Decade")One of the lines that left me practically speechless was the line after that opening paragraph:
"One of the biggest things I've learned is that the truth doesn't always win out in the short term, but it does in the longer term."I am a little surprised that casey could get this out with a straight face. But then the DI has said many things that should never be taken at face value, and this is one of them. In my opinion, casey hasn't learned much, or he would have disassociated himself from the DI long ago. It does, however, explain the abject failure of the DI to achieve any of it's goals. Check out the goals from their Wedge Document and see how many they have achieved?
Governing Goals:While little casey hasn't been there since the beginning, his contributions over the last decade certainly didn't help achieve any of their goals. It's easy to say because they have yet to achieve any of them, and that have been at this for 20 years.
- Have they replaced "Materialism"?
- Have they replaces materialistic explanations with theistically friendly ones?
- Is Intelligent Design an accepted alternative and are there any actual scientific research being done form the perspective on 'design' theory?
- If design theory influences any spheres other than natural sciences?
- Are there major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda?
- Is Intelligent Design the dominant perspective in science?
- Is design 'theory' being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences?
- Does design 'theory' permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life?
While they might have considered getting invited to Texas to 'help' Creationist Don McLeroy fight off the influence of scientists on science, or helping draft the poorly names 'Louisiana Science Education Act' as wins. Can anyone really look back at the last decade since the Dover decision as anything but a win for the truth? Only the most delusional, or the ones with the biggest axe to grind for their religious beliefs.
Well, I for one will miss little casey luskin. I mean he could always be counted on for a little levity, especially when he tried so often to deny the religious basis of the Discovery Institute and their pet version of Creationism, Intelligent Design. He's come a long way since handing out press releases no one wanted at the Dover trials to helping set-up Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) centers are several colleges -- which seems to have fallen by the wayside since their last press release was June of 2014 -- to his constant ENV posts. But alas, he's moving on. Hopefully he will leave his Biblically-colored glasses back with the DI and actually learn something.
Good luck little casey! For some reason I am sure we haven't heard the last of you. Besides, once you get a PhD, maybe Answers in Genesis will be hiring! You can call yourself a 'Creation Scientist' and be one of kennie ham's Hamians, and provide us years of humor.