Greetings and thanks for visiting You can read my personal bio / CV by clicking here, but here are a few quick facts about me:

Again, for my personal bio / CV, please click here.

Why this Website?

The purpose of this website is most definitely NOT to create a narcissistic URL with my name. Frankly it's not at all important to me whether there is a "" out there. Rather, the purpose is to have some small measure of quality control over the first hit people see on search engines if for some reason they desire to search for my name. I wanted to provide a website with accurate information about who I am, to counter some of the inaccurate and false information put out there by some ID-critics.

As noted above (and as elaborated on the intelligent design page of this website), I have written quite a bit on the scientific theory of intelligent design. In that regard, I advocate ID as a science, not as a religious concept, and do so using empirical evidence, logical arguments, and the methods of science.

However, some vocal critics do not respond to ID with reasoned argument and evidence, but instead use emotion, namecalling, character assassination, and other uncivil tactics. Hence the need for this website to correct some of that misinformation.

A Brief Commentary on Academic Freedom

Unfortunately, the uncivil tactics of certain ID-critics aim to suppress the free speech and academic freedom of ID proponents to express their views. The good news is that most scientists don't share this intolerance, but the methods of this vocal and influential minority serves to hinder the ability of the scientific community, and our culture at large, to explore the truth about origins. One of my core values, therefore, is to cultivate informed and civil dialogue over ID and neo-Darwinian evolution, and to support intellectual freedom to openly discuss these topics among students, educators, scientists, scholars, and pretty much anyone else.

In these endeavors, I have found that the famous historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, has often been proved correct when he said:

"No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others."

(Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd Ed, University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 24.)

In a similar vein, New York University philosopher, legal scholar, and noted atheist Thomas Nagel more recently wrote:

"It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. ... My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. This is especially true with regard to the origin of life... I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science. ... In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair."

(Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 6-7, 10.)

Finally, Rutgers University cognitive scientist and philosopher Jerry Fodor, and University of Arizona cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini wrote:

"We've been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn't say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute. ... [N]eo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic; it goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem. Entire departments, journals and research centres now work on this principle."

(Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), pp. xx, xvi.)

These astute comments by entirely mainstream academics reveal some distressing facts about the current state of intellectual freedom in the scientific community.

I love science and have a lifelong passion for using the methods of science to study origins -- the origin of the universe, the origin of life and its diversity, and the origin of humans. Virtually everyone in science has freedom to agree with the consensus view on these questions, and rightly so. Indeed, in many cases I think the consensus has it right. But science can only progress when scientists also have academic freedom to ask questions that might challenge reigning paradigms. Today, many scientists and intellectuals do not have that freedom with respect to the topic of origins.

If the scientific community is to fullfill its goal of exploring and discovering truth about origins, then it is vital that credible scientific dissent from the neo-Darwinian paradigm and other materialistic models be taken seriously, and that scientists enjoy full academic freedom to explore alternative scientific viewpoints that dissent from the Darwinian "consensus."

In closing, if you want to explore other parts of my website, please be forewarned: this is a low-budget site, and I don't update it very often. Some of the material may be badly outdated, poorly written, and uninteresting. Don't say I didn't warn you. Nonetheless, thanks for visiting my website and I hope you enjoy looking around!



Copyright © Casey Luskin 2016. All Rights Reserved.