In “When Science Is a Matter of Political Faith” (Townhall , September 8, 2011), commentator Robert Knight observes, The modern day faith in Science makes the most fanatical fundamentalist look indifferent by comparison. Ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of macro evolution, for which even he admitted had scant evidence to support it, the intelligentsia have pushed science as the Final Decider of All Things. If you think this is harmless, see how Alfred C. Kinsey’s cooked surveys on sex in the 1940s helped launch and justify the still-disastrous sexual revolution. And look at how junk science is littering Supreme Court opinions. The thing is, science does not stay still. Theories come and go as evidence pours in to Read More ›

In “What does original sin mean in the light of modern science?” (Science Blogs, September 7, 2011), Jasen Rosenhouse comments, One of the many problems modern science poses for Christianity is the question of how to understand original sin. The traditional teaching, which holds that Adam and Eve were the only humans on the planet when they were created on day six of Creation Week, that the ground was cursed and they were expelled from Eden as a result of a specific sin they committed, and that this corrupted state was in some way passed down to all future human beings, is no longer tenable. A variety of lines of evidence make it clear that the human population has always Read More ›

New research is showing that P transposable elements have some interesting insertion site hotspots. Specifically, in the fly genome these transposons often show up in the promoter region of a few hundred seemingly unrelated genes. One common theme, however, is that many of the P element target sites serve as starting points for the DNA replication process that creates a duplicate copy of the genome prior to cell division. So there is a correlation, in this case, between the transposon insertion site preference and DNA replication. This finding has implications for how the P elements spread through a population. And it is yet another indication of, in contrast to evolution’s it’s-all-just-a-random-fluke view, how much really goes on under the hood. Read More ›

From electron microscopes to earth-orbiting observatories, scientists use a variety of instruments to study nature by measuring, observing and yes, rendering. Measurements are graphed and fitted with mathematical models. Renderings, on the other hand, are not so easily quantified. This can make them less useful for the business of building quantitative models and making predictions. But renderings can, in an instant, convey a powerful message. A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words.  Read more

Dennis Venema, the “heavy hitter” of Biologos when it comes to evolutionary theory — hands up, professors of evolutionary biology at Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc., if you have heard of Dennis Venema — has recently issued some remarks about ID in an interview.  The remarks can be found on the website of Rachel Held Evans, a pleasant and personally engaging writer and former student of English who has in the past served as a sort of lay cheerleader for the Biologos project. In the interview, Venema says: ‘The ID Movement is a “Big Tent” approach for all and sundry who reject at least some part of evolutionary biology. As such, there are Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, and Read More ›