Dr. Dennis Venema, lead geneticist over at BioLogos, whose evasiveness regarding divine action in evolution we thoroughly documented here, here, here, and here, appears to have noticed our efforts. In his latest column over at BioLogos, he writes to Bilbo (70458): “I’ve appreciated your work to hold the feet of certain ID folks to the fire over at UD.” I guess I must be “certain ID folks,” because Bilbo’s recent extensive argument was directed at me. But let’s be clear: Bilbo’s argument was focused wholly on my claim that there was tension between neo-Darwinian evolution and the traditional Christian understanding of divine providence, governance, and sovereignty over nature. He disagreed with me over that. But he did not at all Read More ›

You’ve seen evolutionists falsify the science and you’ve seen their religious mandates, but as the contradictions mount now they are simply referencing their unpublished data. In a study dealing with genetic regulation, the evolutionists discovered even more incredible complexity at the messenger RNA level. Here is how one writersummarized the results:  Read more

My 2010 Discovery Institute Press book “In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design” includes the Epilogue below, entitled “Is God Really Good?” It is certainly not a scientific essay, so it was included as an “Epilogue” to clearly distinguish it from the scientific chapters, and avoid encouraging those who claim that Intelligent Design advocates do not know the difference between science and religion. Most of us do understand the difference, we are just interested in both; and so are our critics. In fact, the reason such an essay may belong in a book on ID is because it attempts to deal with an unscientific, but powerful, argument against design. The reason this argument against design is unscientific is, Read More ›

The title of this PhysOrg news summary really tells us all we need to know about the neo-Darwin/ID debate. Tacitly included is the assumption that only via known physical and mathematical laws can biologists attain an understanding of this particular ‘adaptation.’ This then would require that NS, via the ‘environment and climate change’ is able to produce innovations consistent with laws that were only discovered millions of years later. How is this possible? This can only become possible if the ‘environment’ is interacting with something that is capable of encoding and producing some form of mathematical/physical knowledge or information. This in turn begs the question: where did this ‘knowledge’ or mathematico/physico ‘information’ come from? Can we, in an intellectually honest Read More ›

In his book Inside the Human Genome Evolution professor John Avise makes the usual evolutionary truth claims that biological designs make “no (theo)logical sense” and “defy notions of a supreme intelligence.” The biological designs, in this case, are those involved in the mitochondria’s cellular energy production. Avise writes:  Read more