Jones, Luskin, and Text

Wesley R. Elsberry posted Entry 2870 on January 31, 2007 12:55 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2860

A literary genre, “stream of unconsciousness”, flows from the pen of Casey Luskin. A recent instance of this concerned responses to me, Ed Brayton, and Tim Sandefur concerning Luskin’s claims that legal principles would cause higher courts to “disapprove of” the Kitzmiller decision because of the amount of text Jones copied from the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of fact. I take a look at Luskin’s response and point out some problems in Luskin’s accuracy of recount, structure of argument, premises, and show that Luskin’s asserted “errors” on Jones’s part are either nothing of the sort or don’t signify anything that a higher court would find to be reversible error.

Check it out on the Austringer.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #158914

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 31, 2007 1:59 PM (e)

Well you know, goalposts.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #158927

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on January 31, 2007 2:55 PM (e)

A literary genre, “stream of unconsciousness”, flows from the pen of Casey Luskin.

Is that anything like automatic writing?

Comment #158929

Posted by DP on January 31, 2007 3:28 PM (e)

The DI people argue for the intuitive obviousness of design by analogy using the often repeated examples of SETI, archaeology, Easter Island and now it seems cloud writing.

Overall it’s as if they want to have it both ways twice.

First, they want to convince others by analogy based upon designers with significant limitations that
are nonetheless ‘observable in principle. Then they describe a designer that has created all living things intact. A designer such as this would obviously not have significant limitations and would have to be supernatural. Therefore this designer is intrinsically unobservable and outside of science.

Secondly, they say that ID doesn’t identify a designer but then the legitimacy their analogies depends upon the identity a specific kind of designer.