The Discoveroids Remember Casey Luskin

This is a rare and wonderful experience. There’s a new post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog that cites Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite Discoveroid. It’s titled Adam and the Genome and Hominid Fossils, and it has no author’s byline. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In his book Adam and the Genome, which we’ve been considering here, biologist Dennis Venema attempts to show that a traditional Adam and Eve did not exist. Instead, humans evolved, like any other species … .

They’re talking about Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Amazon link). The Discoveroids have posted a few times about it, but we’ve paid no attention. Amazon says:

Leading evangelical geneticist Dennis Venema and popular New Testament scholar Scot McKnight combine their expertise to offer informed guidance and answers to questions pertaining to evolution, genomic science, and the historical Adam. … The authors address up-to-date genomics data with expert commentary from both genetic and theological perspectives, showing that genome research and Scripture are not irreconcilable.

That’s not good enough for the Discoveroids. They quote from the book:

The evidence thus suggests that our lineage over the past 4 million years passed through an Ardipithecine-like species, on to an Australopithecine-like species, and then through various shades of Homo until our species is first preserved in the fossil record 200,000 years ago.

That’s outrageous! The Discoveroids counter with an expert of their own:

But in Science and Human Origins, Casey Luskin reviewed the fossil evidence … .

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids posted a lot about Casey’s book, way back in 2012. We ignored most of it, but we finally caved in and wrote: Casey Luskin Pretzels Himself.

The Discoveroids quote Casey extensively — as they should, because he’s a giant in the field of creation science. At the end they link to post by Casey touting his book — which was published by the prestigious Discovery Institute Press:

So, despite Dennis Venema’s statements to the contrary, there is no clear-cut lineage of fossils leading from ape-like hominids to modern humans. Want to learn more? A good place to start is here: Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say?

The message is clear — the Discoveroids ain’t no kin to no monkey. And it seems that they miss Casey too. Things haven’t been the same without him.

Copyright © 2018. 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

24 responses to “The Discoveroids Remember Casey Luskin

  1. Like I said, the Tooters are on fumes. Citing their “press secretary” as a scientific reference is so laughable that it gives a bad name to laughable. Oh, wait, maybe they’re preparing us for announcing Klankerwanker as “Chief Scientist of Creation Research.” We could only hope.

  2. Stephen Kennedy

    The discoveroids are sounding moree like YECs all the time. It is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between what they believe and what Hambo believes with each new thing they puglish.

  3. Right, doc — totally laughable.

    About ”Casey Luskin Pretzels Himself.” Isn’t that what “The Mooch” said about Bannon?

  4. What happened to Michael Behe? He accepted common ancestry. After all he was the main spokesperson for ID in the 2005 Kitzmiller case.
    As Stephen Kennedy remarks, they are getting more hardcore with time.

  5. Doctor Stochastic

    Dennis V. Enema?

  6. Michael Fugate

    What year did Casey say God poofed humans into existence?

  7. @StephenK is a bit worried: “The discoveroids are sounding more like YECs all the time.”
    They always have. There are only two substantial differences. IDiots accept that the Unverse is 13,7 billion years old; plus they don’t use Holy Scripture as “evidence”. They can easily share all other non-arguments. In the end it all boils down to “ain’t no kin to no monkey” or, more generally, “evilution is wrong and everything that seems to confirm that evilution is wrong is acceptable”.

    @Hans is curious: “What happened to Michael Behe?”
    Once again I repeat that the well known American apologists WL Craig (who is even a Discotute Fellow) and Plantinga are very sympathetic of creacrap and accept huge chunks of it. Still technically they aren’t IDiots themselves. There simply is no sharp line, so it’s easy for someone like Behe to become softcore.

  8. I looked up your Casey link. He says “My thesis can be summarized as follows:”Hominin fossils generally fall into one of two groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the hype promoted by many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors.”

    He’s right! English-like documents generally fall into one of two groups: Anglo-Saxon-like documents and English-like documents, with a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the hype promoted by many evolutionary philologists, the fragmented English-like literary record does not document the evolution of English from Anglo-Saxon-like precursors.

  9. Holding The Line In Florida

    Ah yes. The Attack Gerbil. Sorta brings a tear to your eye.

  10. “Casey Luskin reviewed the fossil evidence … .”

    It would be fun to send Mr. Luskin a box of “fossil evidence” for him to review and identify.

  11. @mnb0
    ID from the beginning did not take a stand on the age of things. This was for two reasons, a matter of laws of the USA, not to appear religious, and not to divide their political base between Young Earth and Old Earth.
    It may have been also that most of the founders couldn’t bring themselves to support much of the baggage of YEC: Arkeology, etc And it is just easier to go negative.

  12. In general I think IDiots don’t use Holy Scripture as “evidence” because of their false pretense that they are doing science, as explained in the introduction of the Wedge Document.

  13. To be fair, the theocentric viewpoint of the Wedge Document, while incurably obscurantist, is not necessarily Bibliolatrous and does not require YECkery

  14. Michael Fugate

    The DI really seems to be making a final stand over human exceptionalism – Casey and the fossil record, Gauger and Adam and Eve, Wesley Smith and abortion, euthanasia and animal rights. Do you think they are doing focus groups at churches to see what sells – and this is it?

  15. Michael F, focus groups at churches, somehow those words don’t seem to go together.

  16. To all of the above, I think, yes, the Wedge Document is history. The Tooters are no longer following that script. They’ve given up on infiltrating universities, given up on “equal time” and “academic freedom” bills (so far as I can tell), certainly given up on even the pretense of doing research, however tenuous, given up on writing popular books on ID and, basically, given up. If you ever heard the Gerb speak in front of a school board he sounded like a gerbil who washed down a pawful of reds with cocaine-laced espresso, like a hyped-up centipede doing the Gish Gallop. What a performance. Made the FedEx fast talker sound like Andy Devine. Sort of miss the old Gerb. Nah, the Tooters have an audience of one – donors – and aren’t really into the message any more. They’re really the bottom of even the creationist barrel, and that’s saying something.

  17. docbill1351 says: “The Tooters are no longer following that script. They’ve given up …”

    Yes, but they’ll always have Louisiana.

  18. Michael Fugate

    If they believe that humans and chimps are too dissimilar to share common descent (aka separately created kinds), then the Ark must have been really big.

  19. They do provide academic cover. Blatant religious creationists endlessly cite Darwin’s Dilemma, Darwin’s Black Box, and the information argument in support of thier cliam that theirs is the *real* science. Though looking at creationists on line I think maybe even their role in generating persusive-sounding pseudoscience is being taken over by ICR and assorted other networks

    One of those networks’ resources I recently discovered: creationwiki. Check out their article on the geological column,, which shows a dimetrodon as a “primitive reptile”.

    Are there any other creationist encyclopedias I can use as sources for creationist arguments? The creatioiwiki article led me to a rebuttal on talkorigins which led me to one of The Genesis Flood’s more blatant lies, so such lins are actually useful in my work

  20. [Paul Braterman:] “Are there any other creationist encyclopedias I can use as sources for creationist arguments?”

    Conservapedia? (You must have heard of the correspondence between Schaffly and Lenski.)

  21. When evolution denial becomes as dead as denial of atoms …
    Will there be people who don’t realize that once ID was taken seriously?

  22. As I recall, Conservapedia has been stuffed full of Poe by people taking the well-deserved piss. Surely this, under “evolutionists”, is not for real: “Evolutionists think of themselves as well-read and learned, but know virtually nothing about the Bible (unless they learned it in their childhoods). Evolutionists almost never read the Bible or are even willing to discuss it.”

  23. That does not strike me as Poe.
    On the one hand, it is typical “projection”.
    And it seems to be often true that an “evolutionist” is not familiar enough with the Bible. The creationist can get away with making a spurious Biblical claim.

  24. If not Poe, a deluded individualistic obsessional. read the entry on what’s wrong with relativity and you’ll see what I mean.

    I suspect that ICR and CMI might be my best ports of call. AiG is beneath discussion