Casey Luskin Loves Lying: Intelligent Design Flails as it Fails

Unless you’re a nerd, you probably didn’t know that PBS recently aired a documentary about the Dover Intelligent Design Trial called “Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial.” Laudably, instead of striving for an artificial journalistic balance, the piece instead went for overall accuracy, which, needless to say, has left the Discovery Institute profoundly pissed. They’ve naturally been bitching up a storm about it, which is always a grand new opportunity for avid fans of falsehoods to get their fix.

Taking the cake with the silliest possible argument, however, is resident DI barrister Casey Luskin, who seems to think that he’s hit upon a truly devious bit of spin: that repeating the program’s claim that “evolution is not inherently anti-religious” would violate the establishment clause if ever mentioned in public schools. “We’re afraid that teachers might get sued,” says Luskin.

Well now. Even if this “fear” weren’t about as sincere as vultures being deeply concerned about the well being of a hiker lost in the desert without a canteen, the logic here is truly daft. I suspect it relies almost exclusively on choosing not to understand what the word “inherently” means. Instead, Luskin seems to be pretending that the sentence reads “there is no possible conflict between evolution and your religious beliefs,” which really would violate the establishment clause if taught in a public school. But it just doesn’t say that, no matter how you look at it. It simply says that a conflict between the two is neither necessary or universal: a simple fact that in no way contradicts anyone’s belief that their religious beliefs are incompatible with evolutionary science.

In effect, the statement is logically equivalent to saying that “evolution does not necessarily have to conflict with ones religious beliefs.” This is basic grammatical logic here folks: diagram the sucker out with neutral terms if you don’t believe me. “X is not inherently B” in no way implies “X is never B” or even “it’s wrong to think that X is B in my case.” It just means that “X isn’t always B, and doesn’t have to be B.”

Luskin’s logically illiterate interpretation is instead just flat-out phony. For a guy who spends the rest of his article whining about alleged straw men and misrepresentations, you’d think he’d take more care in this area.

Besides, how can any statement about the way in which evolutionary science is defined be a “religious” view? Evolutionary biology just isn’t inherently anti-religious: this is simply a matter of understanding what it actually says, not an opinion that depends on anyone’s particular theology. Even if you do think that the conclusions or methodology of evolutionary science violate your religious beliefs, you’d still have to admit that they aren’t in conflict with all possible religious views, or with religion in general. You’d probably even have to admit that evolution does not itself purport to be anti-religious.

After admitting that, you’re then more than welcome to make arguments that evolution is, ultimately, a tool of Satan or destructive to all that is good and pure, or whatever. I still might think you’re wrong, but at least I won’t think you’re the sort of smirkingly dishonest douchebag that Luskin is.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Casey Luskin Loves Lying: Intelligent Design Flails as it Fails

  1. bobcu says:

    “that repeating the program’s claim that ‘evolution is not inherently anti-religious’ would violate the establishment clause if ever mentioned in public schools.”

    I don’t know if a teacher saying anything is not anti-religious violates the 1st amendment, but I don’t think the word religious should ever be used in a public school, so I sort of agree with Luskin about this. However, just for the record, I think everyone who works for the disco institute, including luskin, is a thug and a professional liar and a traitor. They have been causing more harm to this country than the 9/11 terrorists. Their constant lying is getting worse every day. I saw the PBS TV show about the trial. Behe looked the idiot he is. Of course the disco subhumans are complaining about it. Unfortunately the brainless fundies believe every word they say.

  2. Bad says:

    Teaching and talking about religion, as long as it doesn’t involve teaching religion, is perfectly acceptable in public schools imho, as long, of course, as its done in the context of a relevant discipline. Religion is an unavoidable factor in learning about human civilization, art, and so on. And I think, at least in this small way, it’s a relevant point in introducing kids to the scientific method. The fact that science is a “from the ground up” way of acquiring knowledge, rather than a sort of top down declaration of belief, is a key point, and realizing that science is not necessarily incompatible with religious belief in general is a starting point for understanding what it is.

    I kind of have to disagree that Luskin is a traitor, or that the DI is worse than terrorists, and so on though. By and large, these guys are only influential to a very small scale, and it’s only us science blog nerds that really even hear that much about them or worry much about their tactics. Most normal people only vaguely know that there is something called ID out there. The misconceptions around it and about evolution are worth fighting, but come on: let’s keep things in perspective. Killing thousands of American citizens is worse than just being annoying and dishonest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: