Part II of this paper briefly describes the federal rule in order to appreciate the context of the North Carolina approach to expert testimony. Part III traces the development of North Carolina's expert testimony law from the common law to codification in the rules of evidence through the decision in Howerton and reveals that the North Carolina test for reliability is, essentially, an evaluation of the credibility of the testifying expert. Part IV argues that Howerton's adoption of a less stringent and credibility-based substantive test for reliability but retention of the Daubert procedural "gatekeeping" role of the judge in determining admissibility of expert testimony only partially addresses the Daubert problems the Howerton court sought to avoid.