In this excerpt from “Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism,” CSC senior fellow and mathmatician William Dembski explains how Darwinists use complex living systems like the mammalian eye to support Darwinian evolution without supplying adequate sequential evidence. In response, Dembski says, ID proponents focus on molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum to understand their complexity and directly address Darwinist claims. This DVD is available from Access Research Network.

A professor at London’s Institute of Education, Michael Reiss, suggests that teachers respond vigorously to the apparently growing “creationist” tendencies of their students. He attributes some of the alarming trend to the influence of Muslim students in the UK. The mistake here is in thinking that you can defend Darwinian theory by attacking “creationism” and by broad-brush associating intelligent design with the image of creationism. That approach will merely create a wall between teachers and students, however, and most teachers won’t want to take part in that.

I’m grateful to Dr. Alan Packer, Senior Editor of Nature Genetics, for his thoughtful comments on my recent post Spit-Brain Research, in which I addressed claims made by Perry et al. about their paper “Diet and the Evolution of Human Amylase Gene Copy Number Variation.” Dr. Packer makes some good points with which I agree, and some points with which I disagree.