Casey Luskin accuses us of the censorship that Behe recommended for evolution

Casey Luskin accuses us of the censorship that Behe recommended for evolution

I have quoted this previously, but it is a wondrous gem, and is worth repeating:

 If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Michael J. Behe, DBB p.186

But of course he is not recommending there the banishment of the worthless apologetics called “Intelligent Design,” it’s the productive evolutionary theory both highlighting problems and guiding to solutions that he wishes to ban.  The longer quote goes like this:

If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished.  Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.  In effect, the theory of Darwinian  molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish.  Michael J. Behe, DBB p.186

It would be too tedious to list everything that is wrong with that statement, which includes the flat-out falsehood that evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.  The primary implicit falsehood is that ID has answered anything at all, on any level, while of course evolution has provided a number of clues and near-certainties about how a number of complex biological systems arose.

Mainly, it shows that IDists like Behe would be more than happy to censor evolution simply because it leads to answers, while ID cannot compete scientifically.  Nevertheless, the Discovery Institute, of which Behe is a fellow, continues to churn out monotonous and ludicrous charges of censorship on the side of science, simply because it treats ID like the mindless twaddle that it is.  Casey Luskin recently wrote a three-part essay accusing us of doing what Behe recommends should be done with real science, which is silencing it.  Here’s a little of his dreary, dishonest nonsense:

As we discussed last week with the American Library Association’s Banned Books Week, we’re recounting efforts by and support of Darwinists to ban pro-intelligent design (ID) books or ideas from schools. Part 1 recounted attempts to censor pro-ID books from public school libraries, and Part 2 discussed attempts to ban pro-ID viewpoints from high school science classrooms. But for some Darwinists, it isn’t enough to merely ban ID from public high school science classrooms or public high school libraries. In this third installment, we’ll discuss how some Darwinists will not be satisfied until ID is censored within the university setting as well.  Luskin (part 3)

My point is not to tackle the details of any of Luskin’s accusations, since I can neither trust Luskin, nor do I care to study out the specifics.  All three parts are linked above, so anyone interested can evaluate his claims for himself.  What does matter first and foremost is the hypocrisy of Behe calling for “banishment” of evolutionary theory even though it is highly successful, while his fellow Luskin whinges about ID being treated as Behe recommends that evolution should be, no matter that ID has nothing at all to commend it scientifically.

Even were Luskin’s charges fully true–which clearly most are not–what he complains about is no different than the recommendations of Behe with respect to a completely vacuous theory, like ID in fact is.  ID seems to do little now except to complain about “censorship,” and yet one of the earliest, and certainly one of the most influential, pro-ID books stated that if a theory does “not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished.”  Indeed, with ID doing essentially nothing to present even the appearance of any attempts at science, let alone explanation, it should, by Behe’s standards, be banished.

About these ads
Explore posts in the same categories: News

Tags: , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: