Some favorite rescuers include, perhaps most prominently, neutral theory, along with evolutionary developmental biology, natural genetic engineering, game theory, and the multiverse.
It would simplify things if evolutionists were more willing to engage in face-to-face dialogue with their ID counterparts
Perhaps the evidence for the vast scope of Darwin’s theory really isn’t as strong as biologists over the years have been telling each other.
Lang and Rice cite a number of articles to show that loss-of-function mutations are just a small minority of those found in studies of organisms.
Their review pretty much completely misses the mark. Nonetheless, it is a good illustration of how sincere-yet-perplexed professional evolutionary biologists view the data.