The Darwin Fish scientific method: Draw a fish. Draw legs on it to mock Christians who use it as a symbol. Then furiously hunt for evidence that a fish with feet existed.
Bill Basener and John Sanford recently critiqued Fisher's Theorem, a long-trusted model for neo-Darwinism. Two evolutionary geneticists responded. Here is Part I their counter-response.
When learning about well-designed flyers like bats, is it helpful to speculate about how Darwinian evolution invented the traits by chance? Drink Up, Boys In previous news, we learned how dogs drink using “acceleration-driven open pumping” (15 Dec 2015). There’s a method in that mad slurping: to lift water from the bowl, your dog employs […]
With dispassionate nonchalance, Darwinists continue to describe us as glorified apes, and justify every vice. The consequences are not only disastrous, but illogical.
Sometimes little things make a big difference to a plant or animal. Evolutionists can always make up just-so stories, but creationists see God's wisdom even in small things.
Bombardier beetles made the news again this week. Creation scientists have long used them to challenge evolutionary theory. Can the Darwinians fight back?
We examine numerous articles and papers that talk about evolution to see if neo-Darwinism (or even old Darwinism) actually contributes to the understanding of nature.
Growing evidence supports the hypothesis that certain non-coding 'retrotransposons' may function as computational memory for genes. *[Audio version included]