Casey Luskin Scientist and Public Defender of ID

Critique and Response

Critics produce an inordinate amount of misinformation against intelligent design, and one must be judicious in deciding what merits a response and could be a waste of time. Sometimes critics make thoughtful criticisms worthy of a rebuttal, but typically responses fail to address ID arguments. Nonetheless, rebuttals can be important simply to clarify one’s own position, and to show the quality of opposition arguments. Many ID theorists regularly write responses to critics, but for some reason the task of responding to critics has frequently fallen to me. Below is a nonexhaustive list of selected responses to critics of ID that I have written. (Responses are generally organized according to the person / group being answered.)

General — Good Places to Start

National Academy of Sciences

Kenneth Miller

Carl Zimmer

Massimo Pigliucci:

Sean B. Carroll:

P.Z. Myers:

Judge Jones and the Dover Ruling:

Barbara Forrest:

Chris Mooney:

Richard Dawkins:

Edward Humes:

BioLogos:

Francis Collins:

John Walton:

Karl Giberson:

Dennis Venema:

Alister McGrath:

James Kidder:

Denis Lamoureaux:

Joshua Swamidass:

Nathan Lents:

TalkOrigins:

Donald Prothero:

ACLU

National Center for Science Education (NCSE)

Joshua Rosenau:

Nicholas Matzke:

Wesley Elsberry:

John Wise (Southern Methodist University):

Paul McBride:

Peter Irons:

  • David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin, “Rebuttal to Irons,” Montana Law Review, 68: 89-94 (Winter, 2007).
Discovery Institute