 On May 15, 2009, ThunderFoot launched a video challenge to the Discovery Institute that included my original challenge to all proponents of intelligent design. Find a gene that is designed. It has gained a great deal of popularity, reaching the number two top rated video of all time in science and technology. Although to be fair, all of the top five are ThunderFoot videos. P. Z. Myers posted the video on his popular science blog, Feringula. It's now also available on RichardDawkins.net and numerous reposting sites all over the internet. This has garnered responses from various intelligent design blogs, Uncommon Descent and Darwin's God, most along the lines of, homology does not imply relatedness. This is a ridiculous statement, and I'm embarrassed for them for making it. Then along came Casey Luskin. I'd like to address this video to Mr. Luskin. Not everyone knows you, Mr. Luskin, and your work on alternative viewpoints about biological origins as taught in public schools. They may not know that you are a lawyer with degrees in earth sciences. They may not know you as the co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Centers, a now largely defunct Christian activist group promoting intelligent design rhetoric on high school and college campuses. The Idea Centers were founded with the principle that only Christians could be club leaders, a principle which was later dropped. Their mission statement includes the following. Idea Center leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible. This idea seems to be at odds with the Discovery Institute's statement of agnosticism about the identity of the designer. It also seems to be at odds with the position of intelligent design as not being religious in nature. I want to start by congratulating you on so many quote minds. When you quote Francis Collins, the language of God. After all, to reiterate what Francis Collins admits, genetic similarity alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor because a designer could have used successful design principles over and over again. You failed to mention the very next line in which he states, as we shall see, however, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable. Not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves. This is from page 134 of the language of God. Even your assertion that 60% is a minimal homology for relatedness is deceptive. The paper you use as support was looking at chromosomal clustering of genes for subunits of a protein complex and states, furthermore, none of the pairs in question, essential or not, had greater than 60% identity to each other, so they cannot be considered recent duplicates, neo-homodimers, because they have diverged too far in sequence to be equivalent. There is a difference between two proteins being so similar that they are considered recent duplicates and two proteins being simply related. The nearest analogy is insisting that for two people to be related, they must be identical twins. Your best defense, however, is changing definitions and mid-argument. What is irreducible complexity, Casey? Once we cut through all your examples of non-living things that we know for a fact are designed and that lack the heredity of living things, we are left with your greatest blunder. You've developed a definition of irreducible complexity that does not necessitate an intelligent designer. I'm using here B's definition. By irreducible complexity, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Where in that definition is the designer needed? Your definition only requires fragility. Any mechanism can bring two independently functioning parts together into a slightly different function. I can jam peanut butter and chocolate together and get a new dessert treat. That is not the same if I remove either part. Are peanut butter chocolate cups irreducibly complex? Is an intelligent designer required for every new combination of two parts that has a new function? What is needed is evidence of at least one example of a gene that did not arrive by known evolutionary mechanisms. If a designer is active in designing structures, where is the evidence of his handiwork? It's such a simple test that I don't understand why you refuse to look. Orphans are an excellent starting point. Please propose an orphan gene and let's see if we can identify the unambiguous handiwork of the designer. You understand that this is how theories are developed, do you not? A phenomenon currently unexplained must be parsimoniously explained by a new model of causality. Where is your unexplained phenomenon? You already have a proposed model of causality, but it lacks explanatory power and parsimony. Because it fails to explain so many biological phenomenon, and it invokes a being that has never been observed and for which no evidence exists. Now back to your article. I am embarrassed for you that you drag out the old strawman canard of astronomical probabilities from your article. The reported figure, probability of an active enzyme forming, is less than one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. That would certainly be true, Casey, if we were shaking up solutions of amino acids. Rather than performing a few trillion, trillion, trillion experiments per second for the last trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion seconds. And if every amino acid of your protein had to match a specific criteria. My advice to you in the future, if you want to come up with probabilities, ask a real biologist or mathematician first. From your website. I also tried to treat people nicely and with respect, even when they disagree with me. My views combined with my respectful approach tends to incur the wrath of a small cadre of internet Darwinists, whose primary tactic of opposing intelligent design is to call names and engage in character assassination. I have not called you any names, Mr. Luskin, but you should know that if you insist on referring to modern biologists as Darwinists, I shall have to henceforth call you a biblical creationist per the statement of the organizations you founded. I would suggest you mention this label the next time you testify before the Texas State Board of Education that intelligent design is agnostic about the identity of the designer and is religious in no way. There's a difference between having beliefs and mandating that your beliefs be taught in public schools. I hope that you can recognize that difference.