I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, February 12, 2007

DI's Casey Luskin still partly wrong about "Monkey Girl"

In another post about the book "Monkey Girl," which is principally about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute is still trying to defend his bad decision to refuse to grant a full interview to the book's author, Edward Humes. Though Discovery Institute was not a party or a legal representative in the case, DI nonetheless figured very prominently in the case: DI was consulted by the defendants and the defense counsel (DI's advice was not taken); at least four of the original 5-6 defense expert witnesses -- Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, and John Angus Campbell -- were DI fellows (though the last three withdrew from the case); DI filed amicus briefs in the case; and DI has been by far the most prominent critic of the Dover decision, with DI's criticisms including a book about the decision, "Traipsing into Evolution" (in contrast, the website of the defense counsel, the Thomas More Law Center, has said nothing about the case since the day after the decision was released). I feel that Luskin was virtually obligated to grant a full interview to Humes and that his refusal to do so was unfair to Humes and greatly reduced Humes' ability to write a balanced book about the case had he been so inclined. Having refused to grant a full interview, Luskin is not in an especially good position to complain about the book lacking balance. I think that Luskin acted very irresponsibly here. As for Humes, I feel that he should not have tried to present himself as unbiased whether he was or not, because I think that a full interview should have been granted whether he was biased or not.

I am nonetheless grateful for DI's excellent criticisms of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision and Judge Jones.

Also, I am wondering if Humes made attempts to interview any of the other DI staffers or fellows and what the results of those attempts were.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott Minnich was a DI fellow also.

Monday, February 12, 2007 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>> Scott Minnich was a DI fellow also. <<<<<<

Interesting. Wikipedia says he's a DI fellow but he is not listed on the DI or Evolution News & Views websites.

I guess that leaves just Steve Fuller as the only defense expert witness who apparently was not affiliated with DI.

Monday, February 12, 2007 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous elbogz said...

In Vegas, they teach you, if you are going to play poker, you have to put your chips on the table and if you want to win, you have to show your cards. Discovery Institute is trying to play poker but when it came time to show their hand, they ran away from the poker table. They could have shown the world that intelligent design was more than a fraud, but, when the time came, they did not. In the end, all that was left was a loosing poker hand, a bluff, a fraud.

I have to admit I read the trial transcripts and found them more exciting than a dime store detective novel. The questions I have for DI, are as follows

1. Why did you bail out from providing expert witnesses to the trial?
2. If intelligent design is so great, why do good Christian men have to lie under oath?
3. What about Of Panda’s and People? Was that just the world’s biggest coincidence when you compare creation with intelligent design?
4 What about all your pre-trial optimism?

Intelligent design was exposed for the fraud it is.

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home