Science and Culture Today | Page 1420 | Discovering Design in Nature

(Part II, Version 1.0)By Casey LuskinCopyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. The entire article can be read here …Yesterday, I posted Part I of this response. To reiterate, there are three primary problems with Judge Jones’s ruling that Ken Miller refuted Michael Behe’s arguments that the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex: Yesterday I posted sections addressing parts (A) and (B). Today I will continue with the response, expanding on Part (C): (C) Miller’s Incorrect Characterization of Irreducible Complexity To repeat Miller’s assertion, he testified that irreducible complexity is refuted if one sub-system can perform some other function in the cell: “Dr. Behe’s prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, Read More ›

(Part I, Version 1.0) By Casey Luskin Copyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. The entire article can be read here AbstractIn Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones ruled harshly against the scientific validity of intelligent design. Judge Jones ruled that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, as argued by intelligent design proponents during the trial, was refuted by the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert biology witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller misconstrued design theorist Michael Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity by presenting and subsequently refuting only a straw-characterization of the argument. Accordingly, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for any sub-system of an irreducibly complex system, outside of Read More ›

Recently I highlighted how the coverage of Tiktaalik revealed the fascinating phenomenon that only after discovering a new “missing link” will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution. This behavior is again witnessed in coverage of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports “human evolution.” The latest “missing link” is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of “intermediacy” are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of “intermediate” size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a “missing Read More ›

I love it when new “missing links” are discovered, because it’s then–and only then–that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question. When reports came out this week of an alleged example of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetrapods — Tiktaalik roseae — evolutionists finally came clean about the previous lack of fossil evidence for such a transition: “The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.” (Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian tetrapod-like Read More ›

A great opinion article in Friday’s Tulsa Today reiterates a point I made in an ENV post last week: Darwinists oppose academic freedom legislation because they want to censor scientific evidence which some scientists think challenges biological evolution. In the article, Jonathan Bartlett critiques Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), who opposed the Academic Freedom Bill in Oklahoma: “First, the bill only covers scientific views and scientific information. Therefore, Intelligent Design can only be included if it is scientific. If Intelligent Design isn’t scientific, Leshner has nothing to worry about. If Intelligent Design is scientific, then Leshner is playing politics with science by trying to limit scientific views by law.” Bartlett is absolutely Read More ›

Last week reports stated that a Canadian evolutionist education expert, Brian Alters, was denied funding of a project entitled “Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution’s intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.” While I am skeptical that design proponents have a desire or capability to stifle evolution-based scholarship, I make my primary point: no one should have his or her funding denied simply because it would support an unpopular position among those holding the funding purse-strings. For this reason, pro-evolution and pro-ID research should both be absolutely supported. Individuals at the SSHRC had no right to deny funding to Dr. Alters’ research if their reason was that they disagreed with his strong pro-evolution viewpoints. But perhaps they Read More ›

We have made it well known that we wish the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania had taken our advice. This has been reiterated countless times — before, during and after the litigation and decision. (WE even recently published an entire book about the Dover decision, Traipsing Into Evolution.) Our long-standing policy has been to urge a more robust treatment of evolution in public schools, so that students might learn both the scientific weaknesses and strength’s of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and chemical origin-of-life scenarios. But this is NOT the path that was taken in Dover. This too has been communicated all throughout the Kitzmiller saga. But an article from two weeks ago in the York Daily Record shows that some folks. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

In the most recent news about the controversy about intelligent design in Kentucky, the Lexington Herald-Ledger‘s Political Notebook reports on the nomination of Kentucky’s State Board of Education candidates.

Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher took heat for speaking favorably about teaching intelligent design just before Judge Jones’ Kitzmiller decision was issued. The Governor had mentioned intelligent design in his State of the Commonwealth address in January, 2006 and then in February sent a letter about teaching intelligent design to the Kentucky Academy of Sciences. (The letter was in response to the Academy’s December vote to reject any teaching about intelligent design.)
After the Kitzmiller decision struck down the Dover Area School Board’s intelligent design policy, some states, such as Ohio, began retreating from teaching any skepticism of Darwin, out of false fears that critiquing evolution was the equivalent of teaching intelligent design. (See here and here.) The Kentucky Governor, however, has pressed forward, evidently realizing that Kitzmiller does not spell the end to intelligent design. Apparently some of the oft-repeated misconceptions about intelligent design have failed in the Bluegrass State.

Last September, a blogger with The Scientist used the old Darwinist line that Michael Behe and David W. Snoke’s 2004 article in Protein Science neither supports irreducible complexity nor ID. The blogger did this to challenge my claim that Michael Behe has authored a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal which supports ID. Yet supporting my original claim is an article in the current issue of Science which implies that Behe and Snoke’s arguments are precisely about irreducible complexity, and also ID. In the current issue of Science, Christoph Adami has an article where he concedes that enzyme-substrate interactions can be irreducibly complex (they think they refuted irreducible complexity for one enzyme-substrate system), and that design theorists use this precise Read More ›

There were three kinds of stories that could have developed from the news that Science magazine released a paper by professors at the University of Oregon’s Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that supposedly falsifies Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity (as an indication of intelligent design). That Science accompanied the paper with an interpretive piece by Christoph Adami of Claremont, underscores the coup Science hoped it had accomplished. What, studying the paper and commentary, should be done with this news?

The first possible story was the one that Science hoped: that finally someone in the science world had done actual research to refute Behe’s theory. Hence, intelligent design could be dismissed conclusively as bad science.

Trouble was, in preparing this first story line, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal science writers contacted us and asked for our scientists’ reaction. Mike Behe did answer and conclusively. So did Steve Meyer. There was no way thereafter to say that Thornton et al had made a conclusive case.