In the 2010 book interview for the first edition of my Discovery Institute Press book David Klinghoffer asked me, what do you think will be the turning point in the ID-Darwinism debate? I answered (approximately) “the turning point will be when scientists believe they will be considered intellectuals for doubting Darwin rather than for promoting Darwin, and not before.” Ten years later, Intelligent Design has gained some respect but we have certainly not yet arrived at my turning point. If we get there eventually, it will be thanks to our experts like Michael Behe, W.E.Loennig, Doug Axe, and many others, whose knowledge of biology and biochemistry matches that of any Darwinist expert. But if you just want to know whose experts are right, and don’t care whether you will be considered an intellectual or not, you don’t have to wait for this turning point. Most important scientific controversies do require advanced scientific knowledge to decide, but this one does not; the main issues are really very simple.
Mathematicians are trained to value simplicity: if we have a simple, clear proof of a theorem, and a long counterargument, full of complicated, unproven assertions, we accept the simple proof even before we find the errors—which we know must exist—in the complicated counterargument. Unfortunately, many scientists don’t seem to be impressed by simple arguments, no matter how clear: they prefer arguments which show more detailed scientific knowledge, even if full of complicated, unproven assertions. But, as a mathematician, all I need to decide who is right are the very simple, clear, arguments (particularly points 3-5) in the video below, “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design.” (This video is based on an October 28, 2020 post at Evolution News.)
But if you prefer a bit more detailed, and a lot more professional-looking, presentation of some of these simple arguments, perhaps you will want to also watch: