Casey Luskin and Hypocrisy

Casey Luskin is quick off the mark to assert a charge of hypocrisy against Barbara Forrest.

When asked about her own anti-religious ideological views, a news article reported that “Forrest said her religious beliefs shouldn’t be an issue.”22 This is a blatant double-standard given Forrest’s attacks on other people for their religion. But she happens to be correct: She has every right to hold her anti-religious ideology, and her personal beliefs should be considered irrelevant to her public arguments about science and law. However, she refuses to extend the same courtesy to her opponents in the debate over evolution, constantly harping on her opponents’ supposed religious affiliations, while hypocritically claiming that her own anti-religious agenda is irrelevant.

Golly, how dare Forrest hold some people to account over their religiously motivated campaigns to alter public school science curricula to provide theistic science. What might be missing in the case made by Luskin for hypocrisy on Forrest’s part? That would merely be showing that Forrest is engaged in stealth campaigns to have her own particular religious views taught in public school science classes. Luskin, of course, slurs vaguely, having nothing to demonstrate that a comparable state of affairs obtains for Forrest as it does for, say, himself.

As for the rest of Luskin’s article, what Luskin fails to point out is that whenever pressed on what things they hope would be taught by teachers making use of “academic freedom” aka “academic irresponsibility” bills, it comes down to the very same old, tired, bogus, long-rebutted religious antievolution as they have always been peddling. Like “irreducible complexity”, famous in pre-“intelligent design” creationism as expressed in the query, “What good is half a wing?” The Discovery Institute’s own entry in the textbook stakes, “Explore Evolution”, offered as just the thing for “academic freedom”-loving science teachers, delivers a plethora of arguments easily recognized as recycled from earlier creationist materials. Yes, this is creationism in content, with no quibbling about it.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

5 thoughts on “Casey Luskin and Hypocrisy

  • 2008/05/26 at 4:20 am
    Permalink

    The Bill says…

    “teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, critically analyze, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.”

    Perhaps this sort of critical analyzing of science in particular the hypothesis of evolution, is deemed as creationism to you, but it’s hardly the case in reality nor is blind faith a good practice for scientific evaluation either. Scientists can make mistakes, they are not infallible regardless on how smart they are.

    So where is the religion in the bill? I believe the religious argument is just being used to stop critical thinking of evolution.

  • 2008/05/26 at 7:11 am
    Permalink

    The bills follow the trend, begun after the Epperson v. Arkansas decision, of using deception to introduce religious antievolution into public school science classes. Anyone without a precommitment to that program can see it clearly…

    Creationism per se
    Scientific creationism
    Creation science (which invoked academic freedom)
    Intelligent design
    Academic freedom (misappropriated, and even a recycled misappropriation from “creation science” days)

    The SCOTUS recognized the essential deceptive character of this program in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, calling “creation science” a “sham”. The label is dead, but the sham goes on.

    The religion isn’t in the bill, but as I already noted here, it is in the materials that the DI hopes some teachers will use under the pretext the bills could create, in the form of the same old, tired, bogus, long-rebutted religious antievolution arguments recycled yet again.

    And I did go over in more detail why the “academic freedom” misappropriation is a conduit for religious antievolution.

    I don’t expect to convince Michael, but I think there are others who can see what’s going on when the history is laid out before them.

  • 2008/05/26 at 9:19 am
    Permalink

    Luskin, of course, slurs vaguely, having nothing to demonstrate that a comparable state of affairs obtains for Forrest as it does for, say, himself.

    But … but … science itself is atheistic, don’t you know?

  • 2008/05/27 at 9:13 am
    Permalink

    Michael – teachers are already supposed to “help students understand, critically analyze, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” So why is this bill necessary? Because the non-scientific studies called Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT being taught as replacements for the so-called scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories. With this bill in hand, any teacher can claim to be teaching about the weaknesses of the scientific theory of evolution while trying to spread the nonsense of Creationism or ID in a classroom.

    Sadly, a recent poll indicates that 16% of biology teachers teach the nonsense anyway.

  • 2008/07/21 at 6:00 pm
    Permalink

    same old banana, who are they trying to call hypocrites?. the yecs are more decent, they don’t deny their religious motives. as for the idists, on one occassion they say it is jesus, then on one occassion they say it is science. maybe it is the science of jesus. you call yourself christians!

Comments are closed.