A funny shout-out from DI mouthpiece

The PR flack for the Discovery Institute, Casey Luskin, took notice of the sincere but very intentionally ironic and profane post I wrote about creationist arrogance last month. He has now invoked this and posts by a number of other ScienceBloggers (including PZ, Mark Chu-Carroll, and RPM) in an effort to defend ID Rookie of the Year front-runner Michael Egnor, claiming — in a manner Bronze Dog would appreciate — that our collective rudeness and apparent exasperation stems solely from an inability to answer Egnor’s (inane) question about information gain. It’s the “looks like someone struck a nerve” tactic all over again.
Here’s the problem with that. Luskin, of course, doesn’t mention the many comments by PZ, Mark and others in those same linked posts that deal directly with the issue(s) Egnor raises — inasmuch as they relate to evolution at all — preferring instead to report as if all we do here is rant and rave about what a bunch of deluded and mendacious f**************************** those arrogant meta-religious ID demagogues are. PZ and a number of his commenters explained succinctly why Egnor’s question was nothing but a smokescreen, little different in substance and orientation from “So when did you stop cheating on your wife?” A certain amount of uproar was predictable, and it’s Luskin’s job to package this and serve it up as evidence that we Darwinists simply lack answers to the tough questions and can thus only respond with emotional outbursts.
As far as what he wrote about my “gasbag” post, I never knew I typed so many asterisks. That aside, you can see for yourself how he’s mangled the contexts in which I actually wrote (not that I care, as moderation is not my aim in these exercises) and also gotten at least one thing completely wrong.


He presents my use of “thoroughly debunked shitslinger” as if it applies to my hypothetical timid Bible-bopping brainwashing victim, when in fact I used the term in reference to active purveyors of woo such as this guy. He claims that I praised PZ for knowledgeably taking apart creationist nonsense when in fact I merely lamented people smearing him as arrogant for doing the same. (PZ probably wouldn’t deny rightfully being arrogant in his approach, but that’s beside the point.)
He also writes: “…he himself calls those who believe in the Bible, believers in ‘horsesh** that has no inherent meaning.’ But if you look at the original entry, you see that I plainly used that phrase to characterize concepts such as “soulless” and “having no greater purpose,” not the Bible (though that, come to think of it, would have fit too…come on, Casey, what are you telling us about your true colors here?). His pointing out that I harshly criticized religious belief is trivially accurate.
Luskin’s entry is therefore nothing more than an amusing exercise in quote mining and oopsies, sheathed in a red herring of a post. His half-hearted back-up of Egnor’s ludicrous explaining away of antibiotic selection of resistant bacteria is a nice touch. He was pleased, I think that I did not shred him personally, sticking instead to the label of “affably inane.” He evidently continues to be both.

2 thoughts on “A funny shout-out from DI mouthpiece”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: