International Scientific Discoveries Since Kitzmiller Which Support ID (Part III)

Part I of this series discussed two exciting papers which support the claims of intelligent design (ID), and in Part II, I discussed how the molecular data is failing to support Neo-Darwinian common descent with modification. This final post of a 3-part series recounting some interesting scientific discoveries reported since the Kitzmiller ruling will discuss how Darwinists have tried to oversell evolution to the public while ID-proponents have continued to do some exciting research. In 2006, Darwinists were so eager to promote evolution to the public that they called a fish with fins a “missing link.” Strikingly, it was only after promoting this fossil that they admitted that there exists “a large morphological gap between” the fins of fish and Read More ›

International Scientific Discoveries Since Kitzmiller Which Support ID (Part II)

Part I of this series discussed two exciting papers which support the claims of intelligent design (ID). While ID is certainly compatible with common ancestry, molecular evidence against the Neo-Darwinian icon, “Darwin’s Tree of Life,” continues to mount. This paper will discuss how molecular data is posing great challenges to the Darwinist assumption that life forms a nested hierarchy. Perhaps with time, common design will be considered as a serious option. Leading biologist Lynn Margulis (who rejects ID) explained in the article “The Phylogenetic Tree Topples” that “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree Read More ›

International Scientific Discoveries Since Kitzmiller Which Support ID (Part I)

It’s been just over a year since the Kitzmiller ruling, and over a series of 3 posts, I’d like to briefly highlight some scientific discoveries reported since that time: In November, 2006, a Nature article entitled, “It’s the junk that makes us human” reported that much non-coding (“junk”)-DNA may control gene expression, and be responsible for many phenotypic differences between species. A subsequent Nature article highlighted the work of Simon Shepherd at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom, explaining that there are layers of meaning in the genetic code which go beyond the three-nucleotide codon language: [R]esearchers now know that there are numerous other layers of biological information in DNA, interspersed between, or superimposed on, the passages written Read More ›

University of Virginia Magazine Prints Abbreviated Pro-ID Letters

Last summer, 49 scientists (mostly biologists) from the University of Virginia co-authored a letter to University of Virginia (UVa) Magazine arguing that “[n]ot only does evolution clash with religious dogma, but it undermines the significance that some would like to give to the place of humans in the universe.” Both Salvador Cordova and I wrote letters responding to their anti-religious mischaracterizations of intelligent design. UVa Magazine has now kindly printed abbreviated versions of our letters. Salvador Cordova has discussed these at UncommonDescent, and we also reprint our original letters below in full: I was mentioned in the article ‘Ultimate Questions’ which sparked the recent flurry of letters to the editor over intelligent design (ID). I hope to set the record Read More ›

Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in New Scientist

An article in the latest issue of New Scientist highlights the exciting work of scientists at the Biologic Institute, a new research lab conducting biological research and experiments from an intelligent design perspective. While writer Celeste Biever can’t suppress her visceral pro-Darwin bias from the story (which carries the dismissive title “Intelligent design: The God Lab”), Biever’s article is going to make it very difficult for Darwinists to continue to assert that scientists who support intelligent design aren’t conducting scientific research. As Biever’s article grudgingly makes clear, “researchers [at the Biologic Institute lab] work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes—a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub.” The article also reports on some of the research projects Read More ›