Saturday, April 10, 2010

Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics

I think we need a new category of . . . well shall we say 'untruths'? Now I think it's 'Lies, damned lies, statistics, and anything Casey Luskin says'. No, that's a bit to long. How about 'Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Luskinisms.' That sounds better. I guess I should tell you why I feel this way. Well other than the other many times I have posted about Casey's foolishness, he really sank to a new level of idiocy.

In April 3 post on his usual place, the poorly names Discovery Institute 'news' site, he tried to take Michael Zimmerman to task. As usual he failed. The post was titled "Right for the wrong reasons" started off sort of well. But then took a right turn that set up the usual Luskin misdirection. OK, if you are not familiar with Michael Zimmerman, he's the brains behind the Clergy Letter Project, something I know I have mentioned numerous times. Well he posted an interesting article on the Huffington Post that you might want to read. His main point was:

"The evolution/creation controversy is really a struggle between alternative religious worldviews and has precious little to do with science. But, because of the way it has been cast for all these years, science education has suffered significantly."
I can only agree with him because, as I have repeatedly said, anti-evolutionists make many scientific-ish claims, but have yet to actually provide any supporting evidence. Their anti-evolution comments always seem to trace back to a religious viewpoint.

Well little casey responds to the article and then makes a typically bold claim:
"What if it’s science that challenges neo-Darwinism?"
While it is phrased as a question, it makes you think that Michael Zimmerman is wrong because there are scientific challenges to evolution? I mean normally once you make a statement such as this -- you then support it. Is that such a hard thing to do? You make statements and then you SUPPORT them. That seems to be the part of any communication that little casey doesn't get. Because after making that statement, he doesn't address any science challenges to evolutionary theory. he would rather mislead than than lead in the purely political debate about evolution.

Actually I wrote part of the last paragraph a little tongue-in-cheek because casey has to be misleading. There is no scientific challenge to the Theory of Evolution, so he really couldn't go any other direction. I just wish he would at least make more of an effort. Because then I can quote the Dover articles and transcripts of their school board meetings and see the religious viewpoint. You can look at the Wedge Document, the strategy document governing casey's own Discovery Institute and see it's religious underpinnings. Hell, just read anything by Phillip E. Johnson, the daddy rabbit of said DI and also hear all about the need to return science to a more theocratic-friendly attitude. Here in Ohio you can also read about Deborah Owens Fink who went from pushing Creationism into schools to supporting Intelligent Design. Go to South Carolina and read about the now defunct Kristin Maguire and read about her religious support for anything anti-evolution. Let's shift to Texas and Don McLeroy -- who made no bones about his religious opposition to science. The list goes on!

Seems like there is plenty of support for Zimmerman's position and nothing supporting little casey's . . .as usual.


  1. Great post. I completely agree with you but thought it worth noting that I've also responded to Luskin on The Huffington Post:

    The good news is, that essay has become one of the most commented-upon blogs in Huffington Post history (according to their statistics).

  2. Wow, Michael Zimmerman read my blog :-)

    Thanks for the comment and the link. I really like your response to Luskin! Especially: "What about his contention that I've ignored "the science that challenges evolution?" I'm sorry to be so blunt, but there's simply no way to be polite about this: his claim is utter garbage. And he must know it because he doesn't direct his readers to a single piece of scientific evidence supporting his charge."

    While I am not sure Casey ever reads anything for comprehension, but he might read your response as a lesson in how to respond effectively. It's pretty simple, provide an actual example proving a counter to the statements you are responding to. You did it perfectly, while casey, as usual, misses the point.

    I also liked your point how casey, and his cronies over at the DI, do seem to think everyone accepts their words as gospel and don't even permit comments. Glad to hear people have been commenting on Huffington. I'll head over there shortly and peruse.

    thanks again!