Ian O’Neill discusses origin-of-life research, and bizarrely restricts the explanations to “fluke” or “physics.”
Here’s how to join us for the second annual Intelligent Design Action Network Meeting, here in Seattle, October 6-7.
England’s research is focused on the wrong question. Origin-of-life theories are not helped by identifying processes that efficiently dissipate energy.
There’s no substitute for interacting with experts directly, or networking with and learning from fellow activists.
Carroll, a cosmologist and physicist specializing in general relativity and cosmology at Caltech, is highly regarded by the New Atheist community.
This is a subject on which materialists are largely silent, and with good reason.
A fundamental hurdle facing all origin-of-life theories is the fact that the first cell must have had a free energy far greater than its chemical precursors.
Popular articles on origin-of-life research often portray the field as constantly advancing and quickly converging on a purely materialistic explanation for the first cell.
The nearly 400 enthusiastic attendees included many students, teachers, and a number of college faculty.
On a trip to Northeast campuses, I had the privilege of speaking to students about the evidence for design in nature.