Until today we’ve been ignoring the dozens of posts about Casey’s New Book that have appeared at the blog of the neo-Luddite, neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
All those Discoveroid posts have either been praise from Casey himself or from other Discoveroids, or else they’ve been frantic efforts to defend the book against those in the real world who bothered to criticize it. But today’s post by Casey is worth mentioning because it’s really funny. The title is McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins. He begins with this, and we’ve left out his links:
I will now conclude my response to Paul McBride’s rebuttal to my chapter “Human Origins and the Fossil Record,” in Science and Human Origins. We’ll see how McBride misrepresents my thesis.
Because we’ve ignored Casey’s book (despite the impressive fact that it’s published by the Discovery Institute Press), we’ve paid no attention to either McBride’s criticism or to Casey’s previous rebuttals thereof. The posts in our humble blog, going back more than four years, provide ample evidence of our opinion of Casey’s work, so we automatically assume that McBride’s criticisms are infinitely more valid than Casey’s attempts to evade them.
We’re going to skip over McBride’s first two points and instead we’ll jump right to third. Casey labels that one “Misrepresenting My Conclusion,” about which Casey says:
McBride closes his review by stating:
[Casey quotes McBride:] Luskin’s case to reject common descent is thoroughly unconvincing, and he gives little cause to make an exception for humans. In addition, if the hominin fossil record is so definitively problematic there should be a testable alternative framework by which we can interpret what we do find. And what is this alternative? Luskin does not propose one. I can only imagine we are meant to tacitly know. The graceful hand of the Intelligent Designer was involved in our Special Creation, and the rest is mere detail.
Nicely put. Here’s Casey’s response, with bold font added by us:
McBride is correct that I did not propose an alternative explanation, but that was not the purpose of my article. He goes on to misstate my thesis. In his telling, my argument in the book is this: “The graceful hand of the Intelligent Designer was involved in our Special Creation, and the rest is mere detail.”
That wasn’t Casey’s argument? Then what, pray tell, could it have been? Let’s read on:
Of course my chapter says nothing of the kind. It’s simply a scientific critique of the mainstream scientific viewpoint on human evolution. There’s nothing about “special creation” or even like a scientific alternative view like intelligent design.
Are we supposed to believe that Casey wrote a book with other Discoveroids, which was published by the Discoveroids and praised by the Discoveroids, and which has virtually dominated the Discoveroid blog for months — but it wasn’t about intelligent design? Somehow, we are skeptical. Casey continues:
If McBride is so quick to emphasize the possibility that “The graceful hand of the Intelligent Designer was involved in our Special Creation,” then perhaps he thinks the evidence I raised in my chapter suggests that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s more:
McBride is welcome to draw any such inferences that he likes, but that’s not the argument I made in this book.
All right, Casey. This is your chance to clear things up. You’ve told us what your argument wasn’t. Now tell us: What was your argument?
Internet evolutionists who are excited about McBride review of our book will, I hope, take a second and more critical look at his critique. McBride didn’t deal with the vast majority of my arguments, and on those points where he did respond he fell short of engaging my position. In one case, he cites a paper that supports my thesis, not his. And he overstates or misstates my argument in multiple places.
Come on, Casey — we’re waiting. Tell us what you were trying to say!
Okay, here it comes, right at the conclusion:
At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo.
Oh — abrupt appearance. But of course, the book isn’t about creationism.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.