Point out in Luskin's letter where he call for criticism of ID to "be balanced by traditional religion".Buck and the Discovery Institute maintain that Intelligent Design is secular science. Yesterday, Casey Luskin, spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, wrote an opinion piece in which he says criticism of ID in school classrooms must be balanced with "traditional religion".
biologist Jerry Coyne makes a good point...
Whats especially telling about Luskins letter is his tacit admission that ID, if its to be criticized in any class, must be balanced with traditional religion. If ID isnt religious, and is, as the Discovery Institute claims, purely science, and if its scientific conclusions point to the existence of a designer with intelligence, why on Earth would that have anything to do with traditional religion? I believe Michael Behe said that the designer could have been a space alien. Worship of aliens is not traditional religion.
--Why Evolution is True Blog
Yes, why would criticism of a secular scientific theory have to be balanced by traditional religion? Would criticism of the theory of the luminiferous ether have to be balanced by religion? Would the phlogiston theory of fire?
The fact that Luskin thinks dissing ID must be balanced by religion...well...says it all. Luskin really thinks ID is religion. He just isn't honest enough to say so in public.
You can read Dr. Coyne's post, along with Luskin's entire opinion piece, here...
You're lying again. Luskin didn't say that. Nowhere.
What Luskin complained about was a text that was referred to as "religion friendly", when it has no semblance of being friendly to "traditional religion".
He's right. It says As scientists, we must toil and labor and toil again to silence God.
Luskin says that is not friendly to "traditional religion".
He does not call for criticism of ID to be balanced by religion.
The author of your cited article is a liar, and you are a liar.
Again, prove me wrong from Luskin's letter.