Interview with biochemist Stephen C. Meyer, a philosopher from the Discovery Institute in the USA 00:29 | What is intelligent design theory? 01:33 | Is intelligent design theory empirically testable? 02:38 | Does intelligent design theory lead to scientific predictions? 04:36 | Can intelligent design theory be the basis for new research? 06:58 | Is ID theory religiously motivated? 08:10 Read More ›
The article by physicists David Snoke, Jeffery Cox, and Donald Petcher begins by observing that in order to produce a new system, evolution first needs to try lots of new things. It must generate many, many variations upon which natural selection can act in order to “find” something useful to retain. But that comes with a potentially fatal cost. Read the rest at Evolution News & Views.
The myth of junk DNA continues to unravel. Almost daily (sometimes twice daily) new peer-reviewed articles are appearing in the scientific literature pointing out the functions of previously believed to be “non-functioning” or junk DNA. CSC’s Research Coordinator Casey Luskin says: “When we look for function, we find it, and when we don’t look for function, someone else finds it.” Read his report at Evolution News & Views.
On the Hugh Hewitt show, Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses with the host the story of the doubt Darwin expressed about his own theory, contrasted with consensus among scientists and media that there is no reason to doubt the creative power of Darwin’s mechanism. Meyer details evidence in the fossil record confirming Darwin’s doubt, evaluating scientists’ attempts to explain fossils critically Read More ›
Part I: Francis Collins’ Junk DNA Arguments Pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge Recently I wrote an article explaining that both atheistic and theistic evolutionists have relied heavily on “junk DNA” — specifically pseudogenes — to argue against intelligent design (ID). In his 2006 book The Language of God, leading theistic evolutionist Francis Collins made such an argument, Read More ›
Is most of our genome garbage? A number of leading proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that “junk DNA”—the non-protein-coding DNA that makes up more than 95% of our genome—provides decisive evidence for Darwin’s theory and against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage. In The Myth of Junk DNA, biologist Jonathan Read More ›
Jonathan Wells discusses the implications of DNA and genes on God and evolution, along the way addressing Francis Collins’ claims about junk DNA. He concludes, there are still parts of non-protein-coding DNA for which no specific function is known. Yet new functions are constantly being discovered, so any argument for Darwinian evolution that rest on “junk DNA” must constantly retreat Read More ›
SEATTLE — Forty years ago scientists discovered that more than 95% of our DNA does not encode proteins. Since then the non-protein-coding portion was labeled “junk” and attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution. Now, biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells exposes The Myth of Junk DNA (Discovery Institute Press 2011) and shows that contrary to being Read More ›
http://discovery.org A number of leading proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that “junk DNA”—the non-protein-coding DNA that makes up more than 95% of our genome—provides decisive evidence for Darwin’s theory and against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage. Read More ›