What did you all do yesterday?
If you are like most people, you work and/or go to school during the week. Maybe you are studying for your CDL test, maybe you are teaching some fourth graders fractions, maybe you helped deliver a baby after you had been on shift for 18 hours, maybe you folded 928,656 sweaters at Old Navy and youre going to fold 928,656 again tomorrow, maybe you retired a few years ago but you still had shit to do around the house. You worked. You did things.
Normal people like you and me work.
But what does a DI Fellow do every day?
I dont know about you all, but Ive always really wondered what Casey Luskin does all day. I mean, Dembski and Behe are employed by outside organizations, but Luskin works for the Discovery Institute.
Hes a lawyer, but he doesnt stop DI fellows from stepping in legal shit.
Hes got degrees in geology, but he doesnt do any science.
So what does he do all day?
Well, like Dembski, evidently he just plays on the internet. Except instead of cruising for... ummm... Luskin is trolling for anyone talking about intelligent design in a negative way so he can spring into action as DIs attack dog.
Sometimes its just irritating, like a toy poodle attacking a pit bull, like when he went after Carl Zimmer or Chris Mooney.
I also wasnt particularly amused at his 'defense' of Behe.
But then sometimes Caseys internet hit jobs are not funny at all. Normal people, minding their own business, wake up to find out they are the current DI target.
His attack on KU astronomy student 'Angry Astronomer' was completely out of the blue-- Jon only knew about it because of Technorati.
And now Casey is attacking retired professors.
Les Lane is a retired virology professor at the University of Nebraska. He also just so happens to be one of the gentlemen in Nebraska Citizens for Science who mentored me into the pro-science-chick I am today. Les maintains a Geocities webpage-- its nothing exotic, but its a great collection of links and information for pro-science people. Heres what he found in his inbox yesterday:
Dear Mr. Lane,
Greetings. At http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/luskin.html you have a copyrighted photo of me to which I own the copyright. I do not give you permission to post it on your website. Please remove the picture from your website.
Also, you write that I have “dubious credentials.” At present, I leave it up to your conscience to decide whether the sources you cite on your website are informed or accurate, or whether the claims you make are accurate, but for your information, I am an attorney in good standing in the State of California (see http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=238124 ) and I hold a B.S. and M.S. in earth sciences from UC San Diego, having done about 4 year’s worth of scientific research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography and published a scientific paper out of some of that research. (You seem aware of that paper because you seem to cite it elsewhere on your site.) I continue to do scientific research and am currently preparing some research I have recently done for submission for publication. In any case, at present, I’ll let your conscience dictate how you proceed from here regarding whether you now continue to retain on your website the false claim that I have “dubious credentials.”
Yes, you read that right. After the DI wailed about Dembskis theft being a 'witch hunt' and 'petty', Casey Luskin is demanding photos of himself are taken down from random websites because 'he owns the copyright'. I mean there is nothing 'offensive' on Less page. He even links to Caseys webpage!!!
Im really, really getting sick of this joke, but:
I have removed the picture. I consider scientists' attitude toward science an important aspect of their credentials.
Casey used that as an opportunity to talk about himself-- Note the lack of question marks in Les's reply above:
Thanks for that reply. Since you inquired about my attitudes towards science, I suppose it might be helpful for you to know that I believe that all science should be based upon the scientific method, that evolution is science, that evolution should be taught in schools, and that evolution should be taught as a science that is open to critical scrutiny and not as a dogma that cannot be questioned.
I likewise believe that evolution shouldn't be taught dogmatically. However I also believe that to promote to science students what hasn't survived scientific peer review, to suggest to them that "incompleteness" discredits science, or to encourage them to substitute rationalizing for science, risks intellectual dishonesty.
LOL!! SLAM! LOL!! Poor DI attack dog, cant win against puppies, cant win against the retired pit dogs, sure as hell cant win against the dogs in their prime. Poor poor Casey!
**Please note, Les uses apostrophes appropriately. That did not rub off on me. :P