Tuesday, January 6, 2009

The DI's Dover Historical Revisionism, and What it Means

Revisionist history is the stock in trade of cranks, and the Discovery Institute is no exception, as Casey Luskin's recent series on dover illustrates. In it, Luskin attempts to misrepresent the refutations of Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument offered by Ken Miller, who offers his own counter point here. For a detailed summary, Nick Matzke provides Essentially, Luskin claims that Behe's IC argument with regard to the blood clotting cascade only referred to a subset of it, when, as the facts presented by Miller and Matzke plainly show, it applied to the entire thing, as well as each subset.

As always with ID, which is politics, not science, the real question here is motivation. Why would the DI be dredging up this highlight from a colossal loss and waving it in their fans faces? Simple. They need those about to be taken in by the scam to not see going to court with them as a sure loser. All the school districts in states like Louisiana who have versions of the phony "academic freedom" bills should take note. The next million dollar legal bill a la Dover is coming to a school near you.

No comments: