Luskin contradicts Behe
Casey Luskin, you need to talk to Michael Behe, he didn't get the memo.
Luskin claims that evil Darwinists misrepresent ID thusly:
Dr. Kampis says:
"The Intelligent Design movement holds that living organisms are too complex to have arisen through random mutation and natural selection, and therefore must have been designed by some outside entity."
Question: Where do ID-proponents define ID like that? Answer: Nowhere.
Where would Dr. Kampis get such an outlandish idea?
Probably from the horse's mouth--Michael Behe. Here's Michael Behe interviewed in Godspy magazine, making the same point made by Kampis:
Godspy Magazine: But isn't your main scientific argument, in fact, falsifiable? You claim that random mutation and natural selection—the Neo-Darwinist mechanisms of evolution—could not have produced certain structures in the human cell, such as the flagellum, because these structures are "irreducibly complex"—in other words, if you remove one part the whole system doesn't work. You claim such a system could not have evolved incrementally, and would need to have been designed somehow. Isn't this falsifiable? If Neo-Darwinists can show how these structures could have evolved, then it would prove your point false, right?
Dr. Behe: That's correct.
Godspy: Would it be compatible with ID to say that the design in the universe, or in human life, is, in some way, a reflection of the Logos?
Dr. Behe: Yes, that's perfectly compatible with ID.
As any unbiased onserver can see, Kampis has fairly summarized Behe's position. Maybe Casey Luskin can try again and offer his own definition of ID. I'm pretty sure that any definition he might offer has already been contradicted by Discovery Institute Fellows. It is a simple fact that DI/ID proponents will say anything to the general public to avoid ID's creationism, yet are quite candid about the creationist foundation of ID when speaking to a religious audience.
