The Human Eye Is so Poorly Designed That Engineers Mimic It

How many times have we heard the old Darwinist canard that the human eye is “poorly designed”? As the argument goes, the vertebrate eye is poorly designed because our photoreceptor cells face away from the incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them, allegedly blocking some light. William Dembski and Sean McDowell’s new book Understanding Intelligent Design has an easily accessible and forceful rebuttal to this poorly designed Darwinist objection to ID, explaining that the design of the human eye is actually quite optimal: The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and Read More ›

The Implications of the Hypothetical Discovery of Martian Life for Intelligent Design

I recently received an e-mail asking about the most recent Mars lander (Phoenix) and the implications for intelligent design (ID) if amino acids, proteins, or life were found on Mars. The person asked, “would this not mean that Neo darwinism is correct and that life occurs if you ‘just add water’?” I’ve posted a modified version of my reply to this person’s question below: These are complex questions you ask, but a scientific “conclusion” is only as good as the starting assumptions that underlie the scientific reasoning involved in making that conclusion. Now I am all for searching out the universe to determine whether life exists outside of Earth. But at present, the research that searches for extra-terrestrial life — Read More ›

Alfred Russel Wallace: Celebrating the Early Days of Natural Selection or Intelligent Design?

There’s a longstanding debate among scholars about whether it was Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, or someone else who first conceived of the idea of natural selection. Many credit Alfred Russel Wallace, who with Darwin co-presented their theory of natural selection to the Linnean Society of London, exactly 150 years ago today. (For a nice news piece on this topic, see here.) Some people celebrated this event by proclaiming, as Johnjoe McFadden did yesterday in the London Guardian, that “Darwin and Wallace destroyed the strongest evidence left in the 19th century for the existence of a deity.” Darwin might have agreed, since he once wrote that “[t]here seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and Read More ›

More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines

In 1998, Darwinian biologist David J. DeRosier stated in the journal Cell, “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” Firstly, it functions like a human-designed rotary engine that propels a bacterium through a liquid medium in the same way a propeller powers submarine through the ocean. A website devoted to rotary engine enthusiasts has observed that when it comes to the Rotary engine, “Nature always does it first.” The flagellum is basically a rotary engine, with a motor, a rotor, a stator, a bearing, a u-joint, and a propeller. Now it turns out that the flagellum has a clutch. According to recent Research Highlights from Nature: “A protein that allows the soil bacterium Read More ›

Salvo Magazine: Are Neo-Darwinists “Barking up the Wrong Tree”?

In the recent Intelligent Design issue of Salvo Magazine, Logan Gage and I co-authored a piece titled, “Barking up the Wrong Tree,” which assesses popular arguments for universal common ancestry. From the outset, it should be stated that neither Logan Gage nor I feel that universal common ancestry is necessarily incompatible with theism. In a twist of poor logic, however, that fact is apparently sufficient for some theists to think that they should therefore accept common ancestry. Logan Gage and I observe that “when discussing science and faith, it is vital to ask the right questions. Queries beginning with the words ‘Could God have…?’ tend to be unenlightening. The much more revealing question is ‘What does the evidence say?’” Thus Read More ›