Hallucinator claims others are misrepresenting reality

Alleged attorney Casey Luskin, spokesman for the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, once again displays his utter disregard for accuracy, this time in an opinion piece in the York Dispatch (see also two previous posts here). He makes the ridiculous claim that the York Dispatch and other news media, as well as the ACLU, not only misrepresent his Institute, but they misunderstand it as well. Seems nobody takes seriously the Disco Institute's rant against Federal Judge John E. Jones III, who one year ago decided in favor of the plaintiffs (and against Intelligent Design) in Kitzmiller v. Dover. To celebrate the anniversary, the Discovery Institute is attempting to smear Judge Jones, claiming he simply copied all of the ACLU's statements in his judgment. The media, after being sent the Disco Institute's ravings, determined they were exaggerated and that the plaintiff's preliminary findings of fact, or more correctly, portions of them, are commonly incorporated into that part of the Judge's opinion dealing with findings of fact; if the judge determines that those facts are correct, they are often incorporated as presented. The numerous failings of the Disco Institute's whining are discussed very well by Timothy Sandefur at The Panda's Thumb.

Tut, tut, poor boy--the media have caught on to the Discovery Institute's tricks and understand the blatherskite you guys have been trying to spread all these years. They realize that you guys have not been telling, you know, the truth, all that time. They have learned that you obfuscate, quote mine, and now you invest enormous energy, not in scientific research, but in character assassination. The media no longer simply take your word on some issue--they check with some real experts to get the real story.

It's too late, bub; others have reviewed your charges and found them baseless. You've taken up the strategy seen in politics in recent years: First, tell a lie. Second, spread the lie around. Third, keep repeating the lie. Then tell another, and another. You say, as an example, that seven to ten peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design have been published, citing Scott Minnich's testimony, highlighting an article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Did you forget to mention that that particular article was published in an esoteric journal that usually covers matters of taxonomy, not evolution? And did you forget that the article was shepherded through in a covert manner by a creationist editor who did not consult with his fellows about publishing an article that was so unusual for the journal? And did it slip your mind that, when the rest of the editorial board found out about it, they retracted the paper? Apparently, Judge Jones did consider those facts in his determination that Intelligent Design is Creationism, not science.