Casey Luskin

In 2004, cognitive scientist Keith E. Stanovich took the position that junk DNA “is essentially a parasite,” and that “junk DNA is a puzzle only if we are clinging to the assumption that our genes are there to do something for us.”1 In 2006, Michael Shermer asserted, “Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.”2 The following year, a human physiology textbook stated that “junk DNA” is “considered defective” and comprises “inherited sequences [that] perform no currently known ‘genetically useful’ purpose, yet they remain part of the chromosomes.”3 These sources promoting the classic Read More ›

According to a Science Daily news release, engineers are turning to marine biology for insight into building better turbine blades and wings. The article reports that “[t]he shape of whale flippers with one bumpy edge has inspired the creation of a completely novel design for wind turbine blades. This design has been shown to be more efficient and also quieter, but defies traditional engineering theories.” Apparently small bumps on the leading edge of the flippers create vortices as the whale moves through the water, and this uneven flow “help[s] to generate more lift without the occurrence of stall, as well as enhancing manoeuvrability and agility.” The authors of the article seem cognizant of the unwanted design overtones, and thus lead Read More ›

Late last night I posted my final rebuttals to the NCSE on OpposingViews.com. This makes 12 total rebuttals for the pro-ID side and zero for the anti-ID side (though Americans United did post a sur-rebuttal tellingly titled “You Lost the Case — Get Over It“). Here are my links to my latest rebuttals: (Note: The OpposingViews.com website has had a nasty habit of losing footnotes, so some footnotes may be missing. I’m told they will be fixing this problem soon.) In my second rebuttal to the NCSE, I refute a Darwinist YouTube video that the NCSE cites to attack the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list. I periodically get e-mails from people asking about this video. A closer look easily shows Read More ›

In his book Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter explains that in Darwin’s day, some of the most commonly used arguments for evolution were theological arguments, not scientific. It seems that little has changed in the past ~150 years. Last year we reported that UC Irvine evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala was making religious arguments for evolution. Likewise, in a recent news article, George Coyne, a Catholic priest, reportedly said people should oppose intelligent design (ID) and accept evolution because ID allegedly “belittles God.” While reflecting upon his new crusade, Coyne said, “I am going to, for better or worse, take on the intelligent design movement in this country … I’m not going to apologize Read More ›

“Bastion of ignorance”? “Right-wing political ideology”? “Pseudo-scientific claptrap”? Not exactly the sorts of taunts you expect from a purportedly calm, collected, objective scientific source like the president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). Undoubtedly, such over-the-top rhetoric brings coos of approval from ID’s most vehement critics, such as those at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Gregory A. Petsko, president of the ASBMB, recently published an article in ASBMB Today attacking intelligent design (ID) printing the rhetoric quoted above. But that’s not all he did. His article (which was also published in the journal Genome Biology) goes so far as to insinuate that people believe in religion due to “insecurity and need for certainty” and Read More ›

Earlier this summer we highlighted Susan Mazur’s reporting about the Altenberg 16 conference, in which Mazur wrote that there are “hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non-Creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics, not science, and that we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a Darwinian industry built on an inadequate theory.” Many Darwinists, needless to say, did not like Mazur’s reporting, and they attacked her harshly. They probably are also not going to like Mazur’s latest article, where she interviews University of California, Santa Cruz origin of life researcher David Deamer. When asking Deamer about the “origin of the gene,” he replied, “I think genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance Read More ›

Michael Behe and I have posted our first couple objections to the opening statements posted by critics of intelligent design (ID) on OpposingViews.com. Before I discuss those, I want to provide the insightful comments of a friend who read the debates, and wrote me the following: Just a quick perusal of the discussion page for the “Does Intelligent Design Have Merit” shows how the opponents of ID cannot even address the question from a scientific (methodological) standpoint. Eight of 12 comments on the Yes side deal with the scientific merits of ID and only one of 11 comments on the No side actually deal with scientific critiques of ID. Why can’t the opponents of ID respond in a scientific and Read More ›

The website OpposingViews.com is currently hosting an online debate between intelligent design (ID) proponents and critics on the question “Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?” Michael Behe, Jay Richards, and I (Casey Luskin) head up the pro-ID side. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), The Ayn Rand Institute, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) take the anti-ID side. Last night they posted the opening statements from all parties. Now there are opportunities to make rebuttals, and then there will be final opportunities for surrebuttals, concluding the debate. Some highlights of the first round of posts include: Other opening statements from us can be found at OpposingViews.com. Below I’ve posted the text of my first opening Read More ›

I have thus far refrained from blogging about the new video game Spore that is being widely discussed in the media for one reason: anyone can see that Spore is not really about evolution by the Darwinian mechanism; it’s about evolution by intelligent design (ID). Even in his recent September 2 New York Times article, “Gaming Evolves,” Carl Zimmer reports that “Spore was strongly influenced by science, and in particular by evolutionary biology” but admits that “[t]he step-by-step process by which Spore’s creatures change does not have much to do with real evolution.” One biologist was quoted saying, “The mechanism is severely messed up.” And just what is that “severely messed up” mechanism? The answer is obvious: as an article Read More ›

Last Sunday morning, MSNBC’s “Meet the Press” (hosted by Tom Brokaw) interviewed Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty about whether “creationism vs. evolution … should be taught side by side in public schools.” Pawlenty observed that Brokaw should be talking about intelligent design (ID), not creationism: “In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed. Not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated.” Pawlenty said that the decision should be left to local districts. Discovery Institute, of course, has long-opposed mandating ID in public schools. Continuing to call the issue “creationism vs. evolution” and failing to acknowledge intelligent design, Brokaw then asked political Read More ›