Whoa! I’m trying to remember the last time a Darwinist agreed that I “may have a point.” It’s a good day.
Previously, I questioned a theistic evolutionist’s claim that we can’t rule out chance as an explanation for something unless the probability of chance working can be calculated accurately.
Researchers may not call it ID, but what else do you call admiration for natural engineering that inspires attempts to imitate it?
This is a big deal, and a reminder of a key dynamic in the debate about intelligent design.
We instantly spot the fruits of fertile imaginations by spotting their characteristic functional coherence. Dragonflies. Smartphones. Nuclear power plants.