Karl Giberson

IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
audio button

Classic Darwinist Tactics: When the Evidence Fails, Strategize!

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin finishes up his review of Karl Giberson and Francis Collins’ The Language of Science and Faith. In this sixth and final part of Luskin’s review, he delves into a discussion about the contradictions, irony, and appeals to authority that permeate the book. Read More ›

IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
audio button

Micro to Macro: Neo-Darwinists Give Small Evidence for Big Claims

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin exposes how evidence given for macroevolution in The Language of Science and Faith is too weak to hold any weight. In their book, Francis Collins and Karl Giberson make the all-too-common claim that macroevolution is merely microevolution over a prolonged period of time. Read More ›

IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
audio button

Do Humans Share A Common Ancestry With Neanderthals?

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin tackles another neo-Darwinian assertion made by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins in The Language of Science and Faith. In their book, Giberson and Collins capitalize on the popular notion of Neanderthals as brutish, non-human, cavemen like beasts in order to bolster their claims about common ancestry. Read More ›

IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
audio button

Taking the Darwinian Explanation of the Eye on Faith

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin tackles another neo-Darwinian assertion made by Giberson and Collins in The Language of Science and Faith. In their book, Giberson and Collins make an offhand statement that a series of mutations can lead to such a novel structure as the eye. Read More ›

IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
audio button

Birds of a Feather: Darwinian Evolution Stumped by Novel Features

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin continues his review of Giberson and Collins’ The Language of Science and Faith, citing recent advancements in developmental biology that overturn their assertion that feathers evolved from elongated scales. Although Giberson and Collins have claimed the evolution of the feather as a prime example of novel features arising by random mutation, more recent findings show how evolutionary biology is failing to provide an explanation for how this could occur. Does the pursuit of scientific evidence really lead to the idea that the unique and complex structure of the feather is merely an accidental byproduct of evolution?