Pharyngula vs the DI: Round 2^64

Christopher Hitchens was impressed by the existence of blind cave organisms, and wrote that they argue against a linear progression in evolution. He's quite right; creationism doesn't explain why their god tossed in to salamanders and fish a collection of complex developmental mechanisms that the animals simply throw away and do not use. Evolution does — descent from a sighted ancestor explains how blind cave animals can still possess the machinery for a lost organ.

Do you think the Discovery Institute would let this challenge pass by? Of course not. They put their top man on the job, so Casey Luskin wrote a rebuttal.

[TedHOhio]

Casey Luskin, Lawyer for the DI, needs to stop trying to act like a scientist. He's prolific, yet not very successful. He does spout the party line pretty well. Apparently he was at the Dover trial as well, handing out literature to the people waiting to get in to watch the trial. Hmm lawsuit, trial, and Casey at the door handing out literature. Sounds like he as successful a lawyer as he is a biologist.

Oh his literature chronically duties were mentioned in the Devil in Dover book. Just in case he thinks I am libeling him.

[TheGavin]

TedHOhio wrote:

Casey Luskin, Lawyer for the DI, needs to stop trying to act like a scientist. He's prolific, yet not very successful. He does spout the party line pretty well. Apparently he was at the Dover trial as well, handing out literature to the people waiting to get in to watch the trial. Hmm lawsuit, trial, and Casey at the door handing out literature. Sounds like he as successful a lawyer as he is a biologist.
Oh his literature chronically duties were mentioned in the Devil in Dover book. Just in case he thinks I am libeling him.

Does he hold any ANY scientific degree? I'm just wondering...because you'd think, in order to speak with a sense of authority (in this case), supposedly representing the research and validity of the lab and it's efforts (to catch the ear of the scientific community)...that you wouldn't rely on your lawyer to do so.

Yes? No?

A general statement or public address I can understand...but not something such as a scientific rebuttal. While it may warm the hearts of those that support the DI...I can't see where it helps the legitimacy of their postion.

Unless you're just trying to appeal to the public in general and the DI's followers and benefactors.

Ohhhhhhhhhh, wait a minute. I get it now!

*wink, wink*

[Darwins Stepchild]

TedHOhio wrote:

Casey Luskin, Lawyer for the DI, needs to stop trying to act like a scientist. He's prolific, yet not very successful. He does spout the party line pretty well. Apparently he was at the Dover trial as well, handing out literature to the people waiting to get in to watch the trial. Hmm lawsuit, trial, and Casey at the door handing out literature. Sounds like he as successful a lawyer as he is a biologist.
Oh his literature chronically duties were mentioned in the Devil in Dover book. Just in case he thinks I am libeling him.

I agree. To say that Luskin is a scientific light weight is to overstate his qualifications.

BTW, I found this in Pharyingula yesterday to be rather humorous...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/th...

Quote

It is another mark of the incompetence of the ID movement that they actually hand out an award named after Casey Luskin. Pick the most ineffectual, uninformed, pathetic loser on the creationist side, and use his name to inspire the next generation of IDiots. It's actually amusingly appropriate.

I note that the latest awardee is keeping his name anonymous. That's hopeful — at least some of them can still retain a sense of shame and embarrassment.

End quote

[TedHOhio]

TheGavin wrote:

<quoted text>
Does he hold any ANY scientific degree? I'm just wondering...because you'd think, in order to speak with a sense of authority (in this case), supposedly representing the research and validity of the lab and it's efforts (to catch the ear of the scientific community)...that you wouldn't rely on your lawyer to do so.
Yes? No?
A general statement or public address I can understand...but not something such as a scientific rebuttal. While it may warm the hearts of those that support the DI...I can't see where it helps the legitimacy of their postion.
Unless you're just trying to appeal to the public in general and the DI's followers and benefactors.
Ohhhhhhhhhh, wait a minute. I get it now!
*wink, wink*

I know he has a BS in Earth Sciences, and someone told me he had an MS. But he got his law degree since then. He seems to prefer to blog rather than actually do any science work. No proof, just rhetoric -- a lawyer's stock in trade.

[TheGavin]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
I know he has a BS in Earth Sciences, and someone told me he had an MS. But he got his law degree since then. He seems to prefer to blog rather than actually do any science work. No proof, just rhetoric -- a lawyer's stock in trade.

Oi. Well, at least their getting their PR's Moneys worth.

[atheist crusader UK]

if someone holds a degree in earth sciences that is like me attempting to explain the syntesis of biofuels. the thing is earth sciences only looks at the straitigraphy of rocks,and stuff like plate techtonics, volcanism and the like. It does not in any way shape or form touch on evolution or the mechenism thereof. the closest this will get is explaing (possibly) fossilisation in terms of oil,gas and coal deposits and nothing more. If he does not have a related BIOLOGICAL degree then he has no cause to comment. yes he may have done a bit of evoluitonary study as one of his semester studies, but that dont make him a biologist. So for him to critisise Hitchens in evolutionary research would be like me arguring the facts of black hole creation with Prof Hawkins. which would be total stupidity!!!

[TedHOhio]

atheist crusader UK wrote:

if someone holds a degree in earth sciences that is like me attempting to explain the syntesis of biofuels. the thing is earth sciences only looks at the straitigraphy of rocks,and stuff like plate techtonics, volcanism and the like. It does not in any way shape or form touch on evolution or the mechenism thereof. the closest this will get is explaing (possibly) fossilisation in terms of oil,gas and coal deposits and nothing more. If he does not have a related BIOLOGICAL degree then he has no cause to comment. yes he may have done a bit of evoluitonary study as one of his semester studies, but that dont make him a biologist. So for him to critisise Hitchens in evolutionary research would be like me arguring the facts of black hole creation with Prof Hawkins. which would be total stupidity!!!

Since when does the lack of a scientific degree cause a problem for the DI. I mean Phillip Johnson, the daddy rabbit of ID, is a lawyer.

[atheist crusader UK]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when does the lack of a scientific degree cause a problem for the DI. I mean Phillip Johnson, the daddy rabbit of ID, is a lawyer.

well thats the thing is'nt it, its all about quoting scripture before logic