For those who missed it, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute (who aren’t actually discovering anything), is having a “no-we’re-not” moment over being accused of misrepresenting science over at the Scientific American blog, where John Rennie says “Kansas, Undo the Damage.” Rennie calls on Kansas citizens to:
… vote in the primary election and help to defeat the members of the State Board of Education who have inflicted embarrassing creationist nonsense on your home’s science curriculum standards.
Luskin is laughable in his response. To Rennie’s central point on creationist nonsense, Luskin responds that “the material in the KSS are not simply from ‘creationist’ literature.” Well, what is it then? Irreducible complexity is simply Paley-esque, “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” creationism.
He also notes that much of the claims find support in the scientific literature, but leaves out the sly misuses and distortions of said literature.
Rennie goes into much greater depth with his response to the response, of course, and concludes:
Yes, but as I noted above, this doesn’t prove much because the I.D. movement doesn’t have the intellectual honesty or sincerity to posit an actual theory of intelligent design. The I.D. movement counts itself as winning any time it can simply cast doubt on evolutionary arguments, because as I.D. writers have often suggested, the only alternative to evolution must be some kind of design.
I was content simply to ask Kansas voters to turn out for the primaries before. Still, thank you, Casey, for giving me the opportunity to go into more depth about what is wrong with the standards, why they have been denounced by so many scientific authorities, and how devious the I.D. crowd can be in their ongoing retreat from the truth.
But we’re not done yet – Luskin has another response, going way off the deep end with a whole barrel-full of either dishonesty or ignorance:
Mr. Rennie’s response to my question involved multiple conspiracy theories, but the correct answer to my question is that the Kansas Science Standards state that science must include “testable hypotheses” because they do not try to sanction bringing the supernatural into science because claims about the supernatural are not testable. Mr. Rennie’s conspiracy-theory answer is simply not credible.
Conspiracy theory??? No, Casey, it’s plainly obvious to anyone who understands biology and the philosophy of science that Intelligent Design is absolutely vacuous – no testable hypotheses, no mechanistic explanations, no capacity for progress, no peer-reviewed evidence, … oh, you get the point.
And then he has the audacity to go and misrepresent a broad swath of biology (sadly, a common tactic).
Why do people listen to creationist hacks like Luskin anyway?