Casey Luskin: The “Heckler’s Veto”

We learned about this from a post by Klinghoffer at the Discoveroids’ blog: Casey Luskin on Darwinists and the “Heckler’s Veto”. Klinghoffer gushes embarrassingly about something Casey wrote in a college newspaper.

Rather than bother with Klinghoffer’s praise, we’ll go right to Casey’s article. It appears in The College Fix. We can’t figure out if it’s some kind of college counter-culture newspaper or what it is. Anyway, Casey’s piece is Heckler’s Veto: Latest Tool To Suppress Dissent From Darwinism On College Campuses.

Klinghoffer praised Casey’s oh so clever phrase by saying:

I had not come across that formulation before — the “heckler’s veto” — but of course it gets the situation exactly right [quote from Casey’s article].

Okay, let’s forget about Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts from what Casey wrote, with bold font added by us:

Academic freedom is now threatened for credible scientists to teach and publish dissent from neo-Darwinian theory. I’m not talking about Uncle Joe who runs the Bible-science museum out in Montana. And I am not merely complaining about a lack of academic freedom at the high school level. I’m talking about scientists who work at, and hold Ph.D.’s from, the same research establishments as leading evolutionary biologists.

Not a very promising beginning. It looks like the same old complaint — Nobody takes us seriously. Waaaaaaaa! It would be so much easier for the Discoveroids if they’d come up with some evidence that contradicted Darwin’s theory. Then everyone would pay attention to them. But until they do that, nobody cares about their “theory,” so all they can do is complain that everyone is bullying them — or using the “heckler’s veto.” Anyway, let’s continue a bit to see what Klinghoffer is so excited about:

Some of the most prominent examples of discrimination against Darwin-doubting scientists in the past decade have occurred at respected institutions like Iowa State University, the Smithsonian, and Jet Propulsion Lab. Indeed, three recent incidents show this is a growing trend that isn’t going away.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He’s referring to Guillermo Gonzalez, and the Sternberg peer review controversy, and who could forget Coppedge v Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Are those Casey’s “most prominent” examples of “discrimination” against creationists? No, he’s got more:

This past spring, Eric Hedin, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Ball State University, was quietly teaching a course he’d taught since 2007. Titled “The Boundaries of Science,” the interdisciplinary course aimed to “give a scientifically accurate introduction to the origin and development of the physical universe (cosmology) which has led up to the formation of Earth as a uniquely suitable environment to support life.” As part of this investigation, the course would allow students to learn about intelligent design.

Yes, yes. We know all about that one too. This isn’t our latest post on that situation, but it’s got a good summary — Ball State Imbroglio Update — 03 Oct 2013. Casey is presenting a dreary catalog of creationist catastrophes. He continues:

These incidents mark a disturbing trend. Darwin defenders – from elite scientists to rank-and-file activists – are using a heckler’s veto to intimidate academic institutions into shutting down scientific inquiry over life’s origins.

It’s a cruel world when brilliant, path-breaking visionaries like those Casey listed are hooted, jeered, and silenced. Here’s more:

People who are confident the evidence is on their side don’t normally seek to deny academic freedom to those who hold dissenting viewpoints. But students and the public are losing out on important opportunities to investigate the how humans arose.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! All the evidence supports evolution. None — absolutely zero — supports the Discoveroids’ mystical intelligent designer — blessed be he! — or any other version of creationism. They’ve got plenty of martyrs, but no data. It seems that martyrdom is their data. Casey closes with this:

The real loser, however, is free speech and freedom of scientific inquiry. In their eager crusade to shut down scientific debate over evolution, Darwin Lobbyists may be sacrificing the very values that undergird our free and prosperous society.

The astrologers, faith healers, and moon-landing deniers feel the same way. They just can’t get any traction in academia. It’s a dirty rotten shame. We can see why Klinghoffer was so enthusiastic about Casey’s column. Speaking of Klinghoffer, he wrapped up his Discoveroid post by moaning:

The notion that scientists are free to investigate Darwinian theory objectively is a joke.

Really? Is anyone interfering with the Discoveroids’ investigations? Anyone?

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Casey Luskin: The “Heckler’s Veto”

  1. Alex Shuffell

    I thought people like the Discovery Institute would have done their own experiments (so far I’m only aware of them stabbing single celled organisms and watching them die, which shows that single celled organisms die when you spill their guts), given us a more accurate mechanism for life’s evolution, at the very least given us something to test or present a hypothesis themselves.
    The DI only seem to be focused on politics and blogging, sometimes rephrasing a book to sell again, and intimidating schools and colleges with their political/law connections into accepting half-started work of about 12 journalists (some of them even have lab coats and qualifications) as an equal to the 150 years work of thousands of scientists with evidence, mechanisms and experiments, actually something to teach. The DI are very welcome to do some science and give us something to teach, I don’t know why they keep avoiding it. Someone needs to tell them to get on with some work instead of disrupting the class and the rest of us trying to learn.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    So they got shot down for 1. Academics think ID isn’t science, 2. They’re one peer reviewed article got snuck thru, and 3. Activity regarding ID wasn’t appropriate to one’s job. We heckle these for the stupidity to think these were actually legitimate science being shot down.

  3. “using a heckler’s veto to intimidate academic institutions into shutting down scientific inquiry over life’s origins.”
    The iDIots from Seattle have more than enough money to set up all the labs and other stuff to do their own inquiry.

    “The DI only seem to be focused ….”
    Not seem – they are.

    ” I don’t know why they keep avoiding it.”
    Because they are scared that research based on DI will get nowhere. If you ever meat a creacrapper ask him/her. You won’t get any answer.

  4. Alex Shuffell

    I can make predictions for them to test: Humans and other primates can function without limbs (e.g. amputees), therefore we are not “Irreducibly Complex.” If we search the fossil record of primates we will find armless and legless skeletons of our ancestors that we evolved from. By dating the fossils from limbless to limbed primates we should be able to have a rough estimate of the time taken to for the Intelligent-Designer to design and create those designs as the next step in our ancestors evolution to us and other primates. I know it sounds absurd, but so do all scientific theories before they are tested like this. It is no more absurd than Darwin’s prediction of a bird with claws.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    Klinghoffer says that his friend Casey had clued him in to the term “heckler’s veto”: ” I had not come across that formulation before — the “heckler’s veto” — but of course it gets the situation exactly right “

    So Casey put “heckler’s veto” into Klinghoffer’s working vocabulary. Maybe some other kind friend, colleague, or relative will now take Klinghoffer aside and gently try to explain “Tourette syndrome”, and help him find appropriate treatment.

  6. The whole truth

    luskin hypocritically barfed and klinghoffer lapped it up and re-barfed it:

    “People who are confident the evidence is on their side don’t normally seek to deny academic freedom to those who hold dissenting viewpoints.”

    And:

    “The real loser, however, is free speech and freedom of scientific inquiry. In their eager crusade to shut down scientific debate over evolution, Darwin Lobbyists may be sacrificing the very values that undergird our free and prosperous society.”

    Hey discotute IDiotic-lobbyist crybabies, if you’re so concerned about freedom of speech, scientific inquiry, academic freedom, and scientific debate for “those who hold dissenting viewpoints”, WHY don’t YOU allow and strongly ENCOURAGE dissenting comments and debate on your ENV website? Obviously, YOU are NOT confident in the evidence on your side, because there is NONE.