ID appeals to science to confute certain tenets of Darwinism and Michael Behe and William Dembski, for example, have developed criteria for testing design inferences. Read More ›
The fundamental difficulty for any undirected process of evolution is being able to see into the future and determine what functions that organism will need to survive. Read More ›
The elegant form and protective covering of the coiled nautilus, the interdependent parts of the vertebrate eye, and the interlocking bones, muscles, and feathers of a bird wing “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Read More ›
Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. Read More ›
Theories of origins rely too heavily on ad hoc explanations for data after they have been discovered, rather than making bold universal predictions beforehand that hold up. Read More ›
In discussions of evolution, both evolution skeptics and those who embrace neo-Darwinian evolution are prone to make one of two significant mistakes. Both stem from a failure to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. Read More ›
