Casey Luskin, Disco. Inst's attack caterpillar, posts an Epilogue on Dr. Meyer’s Texas Testimony: Stephen Meyer Demolishes Darwinist Personal Attacks:
The first question the Texas Darwinists asked was whether Dr. Meyer has a Ph.D. in biology. No, Dr. Meyer answered, he merely holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy and History of Science from Cambridge University that focused on the history of evolution. As usual, the Darwinists are not being self-reflective, because one of their own experts--Gerald Skoog--doesn't even have a Ph.D.--he has an Ed.D. in Secondary Education. Thankfully, one board member exposed the Darwinist hypocrisy to the crowd, much to the Darwinists’ dismay.
Huh. Meyer was testifying about science education standards, not philosophy standards or history standards, and his speech was filled with blatantly false scientific claims (dude, the Cambrian slow fuse lasted more that 5 million years!). His degrees have no relevance to the testimony he offered or the topic he was testifying about.
However, a doctoral degree in secondary education is kinda relevant to a discussion of secondary education.
The other hypocritical and unreflective question the Texas Darwinists scripted implied that Dr. Meyer had a conflict of interest because he's co-authored a textbook that could be impacted by this debate. We dealt with this red-herring question here: Somehow Texas Darwinists managed to forget that, again, one of their own experts, Darwinist biologist David Hillis co-authored the 2008 edition of Life: The Science of Biology, a textbook whose previous editions have been approved for use in Texas high schools.
A textbook, as I've pointed out repeatedly to Casey, and which he has consistently ignored, approved only for AP classes, and therefore not subject to the science standards under debate here. Meyer's shitty Explore Evolution, in Casey's words, "would be very well-suited to be used in this kind of a standard," that Meyer testified in support of. Meyer has a financial conflict of interest. Hillis doesn't.
My ability to keep from calling Casey a big liar is rapidly expiring.
Casey Luskin is the Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf of the Discovery Institute. I just can't be kind about this when he lies blatantly on the record, repeatedly.
Sigh... am I the only one who has noticed that "strength" and "weakness" only apply to a hypothesis relative to an alternative?