Thursday, June 28, 2012


Casey's Slip Is Showing

Embarrassed is the word for the Undiscovery Institute.

Just days after [cough] trumpeting biotech startups in The Big Easy as "proof" that Louisiana's oxymoronic Science Education Act hasn't hurt the state's economy, Casey is having to field calls from halfway around the world about Louisiana diverting taxpayer money into schools that are teaching that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is one of the "evidences" against evolution.

Casey responds with the usual bafflegab about how ID is scientific and not creationism (you know, just a "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions").

But then he says:
Apparently some private Christian schools are using wacky textbooks that claim not only that the Loch Ness monster exists, but that its existence is somehow evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, ergo evolution is false. The argument, according to the article, is a young Earth creationist one. I've never paid much attention to such stuff -- my sense is that even if Nessie's existence were someday to be confirmed (something I'm not expecting to happen), then Darwinian evolutionists would find some way to accommodate the data. There's no way that materialists would let their worldview be overturned by a living plesiosaur -- or whatever Nessie is supposed to be.
Say what? Casey, as a world renowned "Intelligent Design theorist" is surely up to date on evolutionary theory. If a small population of plesiosaur descendants had managed to survive to the present, how would that upset evolutionary science ... much less a materialist worldview? After all, a very large population of dinosaur descendants have survived to fly around and poop on our heads without upsetting that scientific "worldview."

Could it be that Casey really believes that a modern day plesiosaur would show that there wasn't enough time for evolution to occur, just as those wacky textbooks say?

Or is it more parsimonious to say that Casey is a moron who will say anything in service of his theocratic and political agenda?

Does the fact that I want to see more of that picture make me a misogynist?
I rather judiciously cropped that picture. You can see the rest here.

I think the rule is that you can look (except through peepholes, etc.) but not touch ... without permission.
If only I had not emptied my archives so long ago - I could easily point to a paper written by Luskin and John Bracht in which they openly and joyfully talked about young earth creationism. Bracht later denied taking part in it - when I provided him the link, he said that Luskin wrote most of it.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education