Casey Luskin

Writing about Michael Behe’s cross-examination, the Philadelphia Inquirer has alleged that “Backer of theory contradicted self, lawyer suggests.” (Nevermind that the news media didn’t write such headlines about Dr. Kenneth Miller when he testified on direct that his textbooks contained NO religious discussions [see Day 1 AM transcript, page 104], but then the next day admitted under cross-examination that some versions of his textbook had religious descriptions of evolution [see Day 2 AM transcript, page 4-5]). The question remains, did Behe contradict himself on the stand while under intense cross examination? A factual examination reveals the answer is no! Let’s dig in! Does the scientific theory of intelligent design identify the designer? Firstly, the article claims that Behe contradicted his Read More ›

I’ll make one unnecessarily obvious point: Michael Behe, I, and everybody else at Discovery believe that geocentrism and astrology are 100% wrong. Michael Behe today concluded his testimony at the Dover Trial. Behe did a great job of making his views excruciatingly clear to the Court and fending off attacks during cross-examination. Unfortunately, one article misleads readers by wrongly insinuating that Behe somehow endorsed astrology as a scientific theory. Since these false allegations are in print, we will respond to them here. (I’ll make one unnecessarily obvious point: Michael Behe, I, and everybody else at Discovery believe that geocentrism and astrology are 100% wrong.) The tilted article is titled “Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told” and it alleges the following Read More ›

Yesterday, Michael Behe completed his second day of testimony in the Dover trial. Below are more highlights based upon informal notes submitted by Discovery Institute’s Logan Gage, who is currently observing the trial. Direct Examination Behe responded to many claims made by plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kenneth Miller, including: Behe on other topics… Behe also critiqued the Lenski study. He said that computer studies are fine; but they must model real biological processes. He said Lenski “stacked the deck,” creating a model that assumes the disputed point. Behe points to his paper he coauthored with physicist David W. Snoke (M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 Read More ›

Today an ACLU attorney, T. Jeremy Gunn, authored an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled, “It’s a belief, and wrong for science courses,” which was placed side-by-side with an op-ed by Discovery Institute fellow David K. Dewolf and attorney Randall Wenger entitled “Anti-ID stance is good old intolerance again.” The arguments used by Mr. Gunn mimic those being made by the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, and are self-refuting and do not hold up to scrutiny. Firstly, Mr. Gun claims that: “ID is simply the latest incarnation of what first was promoted as ‘creationism.’” This is one of the oldest and most tiresome lines of criticism against intelligent design. It’s also one of the most simply factually incorrect criticisms of Read More ›

Today biochemist Michael Behe testified as an expert witness for the defendants in the current trial, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board. According to Discovery Institute’s Logan Gage, who observed all of Michael Behe’s testimony today at the Dover trial in Harrisburg, Pa, Behe covered a wide variety of topics. Below is an informal report on some topics covered by Behe’s testimony, based upon Mr. Gage’s report. Links are provided after some of the bullet points to articles where Dr. Behe has discussed these topics outside of today’s testimony. Points Behe made today during his testimony:

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Avian (i.e. Bird) Flu, and how it’s a new virus which has sadly killed a few dozen people and millions of birds. This post will briefly assess whether the Avian Flu is an example of evolution, and also assess the implications for the origin of new genes and biological structures. Our immune systems are engaged in an eternal arm’s race, or perhaps better put, a cat-and-mouse game, against pathogens like viruses. Viruses are trying to hijack our cells’ machinery to make more copies of themselves. When they succeed, our cells can become damaged or destroyed. Our bodies respond by generating antibodies which can attack these viruses and stop them. But Read More ›

A lawsuit has been filed by parent and attorney Larry Caldwell against the usage of government funds to promote some of the material on the “Understanding Evolution Website” website. Caldwell alleges that the federal funds are being used to maintain an evolution website in which the government endorses certain religious beliefs and denominational statements. Before you assume that Caldwell is somehow arguing that evolution itself is a religious viewpoint, read what Caldwell actually is saying. This is not at all what Caldwell is alleging. Caldwell’s lawsuit is not trying to stop the teaching of evolution. Caldwell’s actual arguments are explained pretty well in this Daily Cal article: “According to the complaint, the site violates the clause through its assertion that Read More ›

For the latest updated version of this article, see the mirror version at the IDEA Center at: And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller’s Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated) http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

As I noted in a previous post, this week philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock testified at the Dover trial that scientists must assume that there are no influences other than those which exist in the material world then they practice science. Pennock called this methodological naturalism (MN), and emphatically told the Court that this is the way science has worked, does work, and ever will work, at least since we became enlightened during the enlightenment. The reality is that the consensus among philosophers of science is that there is no consensus among philosophers of science on the definition of science. The one exception seems to be Darwinist philosophers of science recommending MN as a definition for science when they Read More ›