Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough are celebrating this new development as a victory over the “creationists.”
What is wrong with “dancing in the DMZ” between intelligent design and neo-Darwinism? Are these two positions the only alternatives?
An anonymous professor at the University of Minnesota tries to knock down not an actual argument for intelligent design but the most simplistic parody.
Cosmologist John Gribbin cleverly inoculates himself against any suspicion — which would naturally come up given his thesis — of harboring thoughts of intelligent design.
Laura Vandenberg, lead author on the paper, says in the video that “the finding suggests that what we thought about how cells know what to make is incomplete.”