On this ID the Future, Michael Behe responds to the attacks on … his mousetrap. Behe used the common mousetrap to illustrate the idea of irreducible complexity, showing how various mechanical contrivances need all of their main parts to function, and to show how irreducible complexity poses a major challenge to Darwinism’s idea of gradual, step-by-step evolution of some biological machines. Most of the attacks on Behe’s argument have focused on the irreducibly complex biological systems he spotlighted, such as the outboard motor known as the bacterial flagellum. But some of his critics fixated on the mousetrap itself, and argued that the mousetrap wasn’t actually irreducibly complex. Behe rebuts these counterarguments and explains why he’s convinced they fail. The discussion is just a brief sampling of the deeper dive Behe takes in his newest book, A Mousetrap for Darwin.
On this episode of ID The Future podcast, Casey Luskin interviews CSC senior fellow Jonathan Wells, who explains that Lysenkoism, where the core element...
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with bioethicist Wesley J. Smith about a recent article he wrote at First Things....
On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin discusses a paper by Northern Arizona University philosopher Peter Kosso that challenges the typical definition...
