Why Evolutionary Solutions to Adam and Eve Fail

From the discovery institute. Without explaining much now, seems pretty confused.

At the same time, @CaseyLuskin, thanks for getting the word out! :wink:

1 Like

I think what might be most notable about this is Casey’s misunderstanding of Ann Gauger’s scientific position in this, which is in fact indistinguishable from Bill Craig.

There is a lot of catching up to do…


I do note that he doesn’t seem to distinguish between fiat creation and a population bottleneck.

1 Like

Yup but it’s not only that.

I don’t think he got any one’s position correctly. It’s a theological article at the DI by a lawyer-scientist…why would anyone care? I thought DI wasn’t theology, but just science…

The response from a OEC theologian:

The article is incoherent. Plus it’s easy to be critical when one never presents a possible model—-something Discovery has been promising for years but never follows through.

This is the sort of article prone to cause some damage in eyes of their own base. I’m pretty surprised they published it.

1 Like

He may be a lawyer, techinically, but he’s no scientist, nor to my knowledge has he ever been, even when getting his geology degree.

Does it differ significantly from the usual article? I don’t think so.

I’m pretty sure he has his degree.

1 Like

Of course he has his degree, but a degree doesn’t make a scientist.

I looked him up once and discovered he is licensed as a lawyer in California. But I don’t think he lives in California and I can find no evidence that he’s actually ever practiced law. So whether he’s even a “lawyer” depends upon one’s definition. If it’s just a matter of licensing, sure. But if it’s a matter of knowing how to do anything, probably he’s just as much a “lawyer” as he is a “scientist.”

LOL, just like me.

Are there a lot of people who have law degrees but never practice law? It seems to me there a number in business and politics who seem to have treated the degree as something to help further those careers. Mitt Romney, as a prominent example. In Luskin’s case, I see an easy parallel between his science and law degrees, which seem to have mainly been undertaken for the purpose of lending a veneer of credibility to his yammering on both subjects.

I can think of only one person from my law school graduating class of about 200 who didn’t practice law at all, except in the very limited sense of providing legal advice to his family to manage their legal representation in connection with investments. From a good law school I’d guess it’s pretty rare; the usual cause is unemployability. I would count someone as “practicing law” who engages in a business activity which involves considerable legal dealings; Romney might fall in that category. Some of my classmates went straight into “in-house counsel” work and that sort of thing, but that’s straight-up provision of legal advice to people who need it on an ongoing basis, and I would certainly regard that as “practicing law.”

I was a litigator, and there’s very little mistake about whether you’re practicing law when you’re standing up in front of judges making arguments and presenting evidence. But I do recall talking to one very successful mergers and acquisitions lawyer who was a classmate of mine, and discovering that he hadn’t been in a courtroom since admission to the bar. Some practice is transactional, some practice is advisory, and some is beating people up for money.

I find that making some distinction between fields here is helpful just in dealing with questions about expertise. So, for example, in an early thread (well, early in relation to my involvement) here it was suggested, when I pointed out the DI’s dishonest statements about the use in the Kitzmiller decision of the proposed findings of fact, that perhaps there ought to be a kind of public debate here between me and Luskin about that. But as I thought about that, I realized: why the hell would anyone ask ANYTHING about how litigation is ordinarily done of Casey Luskin? There is no reason to believe he knows anything about it at all apart from what one learns in law school, and that, frankly, isn’t much.

But, you know, meanwhile it’s possible for a person to have a distinguished practice and to know his limits. A friend asked for business merger and acquisition advice the other day and the first words out of my mouth – though I did have some helpful points to offer – were that I’m not particularly sophisticated on those topics. And my mergers-and-acquisitions classmate, whom I would trust above anyone else in his field if I had to trust someone in such matters, would not presume to know what a judge does with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, despite his nearly 40 years of experience. People with expertise know their limits. People without it don’t, which is why you’ve got Casey Luskin suddenly doing part-time work as the DI’s resident paleoanthropologist.

What law school can teach you is how to argue a bad case well, and that’s an important skillset for a DI spokesperson. But not all law schools teach this equally well, as one can easily see.

1 Like

A little sympathy for Casey: his case allows only for the third legal option, pounding the table.


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.