response to criticism

Beyond the Edge of Evolution: The New York Times Story

Dear Readers, As I wrote in The Edge of Evolution, Darwinism is a multifaceted theory, and to properly evaluate the theory one has to be very careful not to confuse its different aspects. Common descent, natural selection, and random mutation are separate concepts; the first two are well supported, but the power of random mutation is not. I argued that evolution Read More ›

financial-accounting-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Financial accounting

What’s Up with Ronald Numbers? An Analysis of the Darwinist Metanarrative in the Journal of Clinical Investigation

Ronald Numbers is a widely respected historian of science. He is an exceptional scholar who has garnered the respect of people on all sides of this debate. However, a recent article gives one pause to wonder if Numbers is shifting his role from commentator, to partisan. Read More ›
mouse traps surrounding mouse.jpg
multiple mouse traps with cheese on a dark background
Photo by fergregory on Adobe Stock

Introduction and Responses to Criticism of Irreducible Complexity

Modern biology has discovered that cells are like miniaturized factories that function using micromolecular machines. In Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe proposed that many of these molecular machines exhibit irreducible complexity and therefore could not have been produced by an undirected Darwinian process. Instead, they appear to be the product of intelligent design. Behe’s book initiated a firestorm of controversy both inside and outside of the scientific community, and the debate continues to rage. As the responses below demonstrate, Behe’s arguments have not been refuted. Indeed, the case for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines has continued to grow.

Read More ›
word-fake-changing-in-to-fact-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpeg
Word Fake changing in to Fact

The Truth About Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture

Misinformation and mischaracterization are rampant in the media coverage of the debate over evolution. Because Discovery Institute’s views and positions recently have been inaccurately reported, and because Discovery Fellows have been maligned in the media in the past, over the past few years we have published a number of Truth Sheets to set the record straight. Read More ›

Behe’s letter in the WSJ responding to Feb. 13 article by Sharon Begley

“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in “The Way of the Cell” (Oxford Read More ›

Amazing bird Kingfisher.jpg
Amazing bird Kingfisher. Diving bird. Colorful nature background. Bird: Common Kingfisher. Alcedo atthis
Photo by SerkanMutan on Adobe Stock

Teleological Evolution

It is difficult to see what empirical content Lamoureux's teleological evolution has or how it differs in substance from standard Neo-Darwinism with its denial of any evidence of actual, as opposed to merely apparent, design. Read More ›
Abstract 3d rendering futuristic dots and lines. computer geometric digital connection structure. Visual information complexity. Intricate data threads plot. Intelligence artificial

Refuted Yet Again!

This article is written in response to Matt Young’s “How to Evolve Specified Complexity by Natural Means” which appeared in Metanexus. The mathematician George Polya used to quip that if you can’t solve a problem, find an easier problem and solve it. Matt Young seems to have taken Polya’s advice to heart. Young has taken Shannon’s tried-and-true theory of information Read More ›

dark-grey-black-slate-background-or-texture-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Dark grey black slate background or texture.
Photo by peekeedee on Unsplash

The “”New”” Creationism

Public tirades by dogmatic Darwinists about intelligent design theory are always useful. Such acts expose any remaining pretenses of their objectivity. Science writer Robert Wright’’s response to the New York Times story (April 8, 2001) on design theory is particularly delightful. In sum, Wright argues that ID is just a marketing strategy, its advocates are simpletons who don’t understand the Read More ›

alpha-galactosidase-3d-structure-administered-as-enzyme-repla-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpeg
Alpha-galactosidase (3d structure), administered as enzyme repla
Alpha-galactosidase (3d structure), administered as enzyme repla

Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays

Kenneth Miller, Brown University Professor of Biology and author of Finding Darwin's God, has posted a response to my essays. I think it should be plain to most open-minded readers that he is struggling to fend off examples that weigh heavily against Darwinism. I do, however, want to make a few additional comments, in just two areas, to keep the issues in focus. Read More ›
Photo by 贝莉儿 DANIST

Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems

Some biochemical systems require multiple, well-matched parts in order to function, and the removal of any of the parts eliminates the function. I have previously labeled such systems "irreducibly complex," and argued that they are stumbling blocks for Darwinian theory. Instead I proposed that they are best explained as the result of deliberate intelligent design. In a recent article Shanks and Joplin analyze and find wanting the use of irreducible complexity as a marker for intelligent design. Their primary counter-example is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, a self-organizing system in which competing reaction pathways result in a chemical oscillator. In place of irreducible complexity they offer the idea of "redundant complexity," meaning that biochemical pathways overlap so that a loss of one or even several components can be accommodated without complete loss of function. Here I note that complexity is a quantitative property, so that conclusions we draw will be affected by how well-matched the components of a system are. I also show that not all biochemical systems are redundant. The origin of non-redundant systems requires a different explanation than redundant ones. Read More ›