When it comes to science reporting, there are some headlines that are so frequently repeated, so intuitively plausible, so closely aligned to our cultural beliefs, that they can seem like incontrovertible truths. The general public, and indeed many scientists, may fervently believe that these claims reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus. However, sometimes when you dig a little beyond the surface, the evidence underpinning even the most ubiquitous headlines can seem surprisingly shaky. — James Wong, New Scientist 05/10/2019
Creation Evolution Headlines is my favorite website on intelligent design and Darwinism. This is both due to your being always on the cutting edge of all the latest research relevant to the debate over evolution, as well as due to your soberness coupled with your uncompromising stand against Darwinism. Your work is invaluable. Please keep it up all costs. — founder of the Danish Society for Intelligent Design
To a physicist like me, life looks to be a little short of magic: all those dumb molecules conspiring to achieve such clever things! How do they do it? There is no orchestrator, no choreographer directing the performance, no esprit de corps, no collective will, no life force – just mindless atoms pushing and pulling on each other, kicked about by random thermal fluctuations. Yet the end product is an exquisite and highly distinctive form of order. Even chemists, who are familiar with the amazing transformative powers of molecules, find it breathtaking. — Paul Davies, The Eerie Silence, Astrobiology Magazine, April 15, 2010
A. E. Wilder-Smith was one of few scientists in the world to have three earned doctorates. He was an influential apologist for intelligent design before that term became a movement. As a highly qualified organic chemist, A. E. Wilder-Smith was uniquely positioned to critique so-called “chemical evolution.” This kindly gentleman was merciless in his attacks on Miller, Oparin, Fox and other evolutionists who claimed to be making progress explaining life’s origin by chance and necessity. His effectiveness stemmed not from vituperative ability or rhetoric, but rather – because of his intimate acquaintance with the facts of chemistry – from calm, rational dismantling of the philosophical and scientific assumptions underlying his opponents’ errors: i.e., from scientific arguments that could not be denied by any knowledgeable chemist.
Complex Eyes of ‘Simple’ Clams Confound Darwin May 13, 2019 The eyes of the lowly scallop have eyes of exquisite…
Unusual Fossils Call for Unusual Explanations May 15, 2019 Some recent fossil finds require creative storytelling, but the science…
More Evidence Our Moon Is Young May 14, 2019 Moonquakes are still occurring. Why didn't geological activity cease billions…
Some Meditation Practices Can Be Scary May 12, 2019 A non-judgmental survey of reactions to meditation found a surprising…
Super Designs in Amazing Animals, Part I May 16, 2019 Animals of all kinds, sizes and shapes have mastered physical…
February 1, 2019The adoration that the world’s leading atheist gives to Charles Darwin goes over the top, says a scientist Dawkins refused to debate.
March 18, 2019Read and become one of the tiny elite who know something about Darwinism’s influence on the “greatest death camp in the history of the world.”
December 20, 2017One would think a scientist would be embarrassed to put forward such ideas. Why do Darwinists get away with it?
He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. (Solomon, Ecclesiastes 3:11)
