Casey Luskin: The scientists are wrong

gamesbok Says:

Sep 21, 2011 - @insupportofmyboys The idea that Darwin was winging it I think needs to be challenged. He did his research. He spent lots of time with livestock breeders, he didn't guess at Natural Selection, but he actually went out and measured it. His experimental evidence was as good as it could have been at the time. He spent more than 20 years critically evaluating his theory. He knew he was going to be attacked and he feared controversy, and he did his homework, a very thorough and meticulous guy

gamesbok Says:

Sep 21, 2011 - The idea that Darwin was winging it I think needs to be challenged. He did his research. He spent lots of time with livestock breeders, he didn't guess at Natural Selection, but he actually went out and measured it. His experimental evidence was as good as it could have been at the time. He spent more than 20 years critically evaluating his theory. He knew he was going to be attacked and he feared controversy, and he did his homework, a very thorough and meticulous guy

Awwscrewit Says:

Oct 1, 2011 - Luskins definition of honest discussion? Quote mining, distortion, junk science and flat out lies.

alianchild Says:

Oct 9, 2011 - You are a supreme and total fucking idiot. Study what you are claiming.

scorand Says:

Oct 16, 2011 - if he really holds a degree in science. then its probably from the same place hovin got his from.

KamasutraButterfly Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - Can anyone spell Moron?

ryanwyshynski Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - I don't know the answer to this but I suspect the Discovery institute isn't trying to change curriculum regarding any other scientific theory. (Perhaps astronomy because that disproves with the bible as well) When he says the Discovery institute is secular, he is simply lying.

Kent1859 Says:

Nov 6, 2011 - Luskin states that the DI supports an honest discussion of ALL the evidence relating to Neodarwinian theory. Really! All the evidence? I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who is up to this. Could a HS science teacher really handle this? What about a HS student? Out of necessity, classes need to be selective in what they teach.

copycoonie Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - so who's boyfriend is he Dembski's ...Myers..or Behe's ..or ya think maybe all of em.

winterstellar Says:

Nov 12, 2011 - The lawyer Luskin claiming the scientists are wrong.. Next week: The plumber Joe claiming the particle physicists are wrong..

winterstellar Says:

Nov 12, 2011 - I wonder what the real motives of the ID people, Creation Science people are, is it to protect the income the huge profits from the huge industry of american christianity, mega-churches, faith-healing, evangelizing, book sales and so on? Are they backed by a lobby of such criminals as faith-healers and the like? Cause surely many of them must know that evolution is fact, given that after all some of them(few, but some) have some relevant education and knowledge? Anybody? : )

FreeSilio Says:

Dec 16, 2011 - I think the real motives of ID people is partially a business (and mind control) one, as you noticed. But I think that many of them are also ignorant people believing in a literal interpretation of the bible, so they really think they're right.Some religious leaders are smarter, such as Pope John Paul II who admitted that evolution is not "a mere Hypothesis". This way catholic church can control believers minds without being contraddicted by scientific evidence.

aden302000 Says:

Dec 19, 2011 - We wish that he would evolve into a decent human being!

mrdarkevilme Says:

Dec 25, 2011 - It's amusing in a way that the evolution denialist Discovery institute and intelligent design theory are in fact themselves a dead end in the evolution of the creationist cause.

sabin97 Says:

Dec 31, 2011 - i'm curious about somethingdo they do the whole "strenghts vs weaknesses" thing with any other scientific theory?not trolling, just a genuine question.

RawSwedishMeatball Says:

Jan 3, 2012 - Probably not, these people are just religious apologists by attack evolution, whilst the notion of going "strenghts vs weaknesses" in religion is blaspheme and imoral. I think his whole arguement is wrong since he is not objective, he certainly is on the religious side of the debate.

RawSwedishMeatball Says:

Jan 3, 2012 - Ive never heard a arguement against evolution that would diminish it, only arguements that would change small understandings of evolution. These arguements are extremely rare, and im certainly not talking about creationist arguements, neither intelligen design. Science needs to be objective, if its not, it is not science.

sabin97 Says:

Jan 3, 2012 - it's sad that biologists have to put up with so much bullshit, other scientists have it easy....

RawSwedishMeatball Says:

Jan 4, 2012 - yes, simply because through biology we can actually determine that religious people are less effective when it comes to fittness and other terms, but I totaly agree. Its just because of evolution and how it fucks up the bible and all other scriptures.

dpowens Says:

Feb 1, 2012 - "It is likely he is unaware that he is gay."Just blurted a laugh out at work. Had to pretend I was coughing.

Rubten Says:

Apr 25, 2012 - Shut up Casey. You lie.

Helge129 Says:

Apr 25, 2012 - "He guys. I'm Casey Luskin. I have no Science education at all, exept for these phony titles and I absolutely know more about Science than Scientists!"^Resume of this dishonest little cretin's speech.

bboyCrazyLegs Says:

Apr 26, 2012 - Wow. Quote mining the article in the New Scientists on 'Darwin Was Wrong'? Really DI, really?! Even though the article told an ENTIRELY different story than Casey wishes it to be. Thank god nobody takes these guys seriously anymore

rjinx73 Says:

May 3, 2012 - Is the old board member in the forefront of the video listening to anything this guy says?

makulass Says:

May 4, 2012 - Classic