Discovery Institute — Casey Luskin News

There’s great news from the Discovery Institute, revealed by this article in their creationist blog: In Court Rulings on Teaching Origins Science, Law Review Article Finds a Double Standard. It’s by Sarah Chaffee, whom we call “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us.

In a newly published law review article, Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools, attorney and former Discovery Institute research coordinator Casey Luskin examines the way courts have struck down the teaching of alternatives to evolution because of their historical associations with religion. At the same time, he notes that courts typically ignore anti-religious historical associations with Darwinism.

Wowie — Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, is still active. We clicked on Savvy Sarah’s link. Casey’s article appears in the Trinity Law Review, published by Trinity Law School. According to Wikipedia, that’s a private, non-profit law school located in Santa Ana, California. It was founded in 1980 and was originally located at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, in Santa Ana, California, where it commenced operations by offering evening classes that led to the Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree. In 1997, the law school became a part of Trinity International University (TIU), an evangelical Christian institution of higher education headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, and operated by the Evangelical Free Church of America. At present, Trinity Law School is not approved by the American Bar Association (ABA), but it has a long-term goal of obtaining ABA approval. In January 2014, Trinity Law School ranked second on The National Jurist’s list of “Most Devout Christian Law Schools,” among Liberty University, Regent University, Pepperdine University, and Baylor University. Oh, get this: In July 2012, the pass rate for first-time test takers of the California Bar Examination is 26%.

In an effort to be fair, we looked at the latest statistics provided by the State Bar of California. They say that Trinity’s pass rate is up to 42.10% — the third worst of the 15 California schools listed. Twelve of those 15 schools were 50% or better.

Okay, that’s where Casey’s article was published — a very devout church-run law school that isn’t yet approved by the American Bar Association. Let’s find out what it says. Egad — it’s 105 pages long, so we’re not going to read it. Instead, we’ll rely on Savvy Sarah. She tells us:

As Luskin documents, these associations are prevalent and well known. The result is a double standard, as courts hold alternatives to evolution unconstitutional to teach, but evolution constitutional.

A double standard! We’re shocked — shocked! Savvy Sarah continues:

Luskin notes that the solution to this problem is not removing evolution from schools. He vigorously opposes having evolution declared unconstitutional.

Very open-minded. Casey probably also opposes efforts to have spherical Earth declared unconstitutional. Let’s read on:

Instead, he argues that religious associations of scientific views on origins science should not be constitutionally fatal, but rather should be considered an “incidental effect.” This interpretation would have implications for the constitutionality of teaching of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the religious — ahem! — associations of the Discoveroids’ “theory” are merely incidental. The creationist origins of that “theory” disclosed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District should be ignored entirely. Skipping over an arkload, Savvy Sarah tells us:

[W]hile courts have found religious historical associations of opposition to evolution to be grounds for declaring teaching these views unconstitutional, they have not considered evolution’s anti-religious historical associations germane to the discussion.

Gasp — evolution has anti-religious historical associations. Hey — so does the solar system, yet that blasphemous science is being taught too. This is an outrage! Here’s the end of Savvy Sarah’s report:

Are courts evaluating neo-Darwinism objectively? In a future post, I will discuss the history of anti-religious activism associated with evolution advocacy.

We can’t wait for that future post. It looks like Casey has a truly powerful legal argument. We congratulate him on his scholarship, and for getting his work published by such a prestigious law review. It’s good to know that although he’s gone from the Discoveroids, Casey is still fighting the good fight.

Copyright © 2016. 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

12 responses to “Discovery Institute — Casey Luskin News

  1. Casey seems to miss one major point, not all churches oppose evolution. The Catholic Church and many main stream Protestant churches do not oppose evolution. So how can he make his argument to a court given that religion is not monolithic in it opposition to evolution or the belief that evolution has anti-religious overtones. It’s all about biblical interpretation and I don’t think that will ever fly with the federal court system.

  2. docbill1351

    What is Attack Gerbil, Esq, doing at Trinity? He already has a law degree and passed the bar, bless his little wood chips. Credential packing? Looking to become Attack Gerbil, JD, Esq, BFD?

    How about Attack Gerbil, STFU GTFO, Esq? Really, who puts Esq on their name? The kind of guy you’d want to stuff into a locker, that’s who!

    Sadly, the Gerb’s thesis has already been dealt with in the courts, including the Supreme Court. Science is not a religion nor is it atheistic; it’s neutral. The Gerb’s little claws scratched out 200 pages whose only worth is to be shredded and stuffed into his cage.

  3. Perhaps the one modern aspect of science with the longest history of association with atheism is atomism. Atomism was the way that Epicureans denied divine action, and Epicureanism was (literally) synonymous with Atheism for many theists.

  4. Lessee, reality vs mythology. Yeah, I can see there’s a double standard. How dare the schools side with reality!

  5. michaelfugate

    It is interesting that the paper lists Casey as still being employed by DI – no updates on the super-secret bunker in which he now resides?

    If Casey can’t tell us who the designer is and what the designer did or does, then he has no case.

  6. Instead of “Savvy Sarah”, I recommend you call her “Septa Sarah” after the nuns in Game of Thrones. Evolution! Shame! Shame! RING RING!

  7. michaelfugate; Maybe The Gerb is still being paid by the discotute but not officially employed. Since they can’t get anything published in a peer reviewed science journal, they’re going for law review articles. This way when they try more “academic freedumb bills” they can show that they have published material.

  8. waldteufel

    The only person who could be lower on the intellectual food chain than our benighted Casey would be someone who cites him.

  9. Eric Lipps

    Luskin notes that the solution to this problem is not removing evolution from schools. He vigorously opposes having evolution declared unconstitutional.
    Instead, he argues that religious associations of scientific views on origins science should not be constitutionally fatal, but rather should be considered an “incidental effect.” This interpretation would have implications for the constitutionality of teaching of intelligent design.

    It sure would, if courts were stupid enough to buy it. ID isn’t a scientific theory; rather, it’s a legal maneuver to get around previous unfavorable court decisions regarding the teaching of Genesis as science in public schools. What Luskin wants is for courts to agree that it’s OK to do that because the “religious associations” of ID are merely “incidental.” But ID adherents are fairly open about the fact that those “associations” are not incidental but rather are absolutely essential to their support for it. They don’t have a leg to stand on.

  10. Careful! According to the relevant Church’s Statement of Faith, at, “God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment”. No matter how virtuously you write your column. You have been warned.

  11. And of course the Statement of Faith includes the *verbal* inerrancy of the Bible. None of which has anything to do with ID, of course. But it’s interesting that the ID crowd, at one time (in the US) entirely Old Earth creationists, are getting so promiscuous

  12. The post is closely related to the complaint that the Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) filed in federal court, back in 2013. I’d already suspected that Phillip Johnson and/or Casey Luskin wrote most of the complaint. A parsimonious guess is that Luskin did the review in preparation for the court case, and then started submitting it for publication. He probably got some rejections from higher-tier schools before landing at Trinity.

    Why is Chaffee telling us about a fall 2015 publication only now? COPE recently lost in federal appeals court.