Computer engineer Michel-Yves Bolloré, a lifelong Catholic, and Olivier Bonnassies, who came late to faith, argue that the universe must have had a creator.
This is a fantastic field trip opportunity for middle and high school students in homeschool and private school settings to interact directly with scientists.
Attorneys are skilled in evaluating evidence for claims and making complex ideas easier to understand, two skills that come in handy when assessing scientific theories as well. Today, Dr. Casey Luskin begins a conversation with attorney and former Colorado House of Representatives member Barry Arrington to discuss the evidence for intelligent design and his new book Unforgetting God. In Part 1 of the conversation, Arrington lays out several key arguments for intelligent design and assesses their evidential strength. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation.
On this classic episode of ID the Future, host Eric Metaxas continues his conversation with biologist and professor Dr. Douglas Axe. The subject is Axe’s book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed and his account of how he lost his position at a Cambridge research lab because of the implications of his research findings. Axe discusses the polarized atmosphere in science today, driven by an unreasonable commitment to materialism. Axe also talks about the reliability of our built-in design intuition and the implications of living in a designed universe. This is Part 2 of a two-episode interview.
Is it possible to produce mathematicians today of the same caliber as greats like Sir Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell? How can we help young people develop a genuine interest in mathematics, including its history, applications, and philosophy? Today on ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid concludes his conversation with mathematics educator, curriculum designer, and medical physicist Amos Tarfa. In Part 1, Amos profiled 19th century Scottish mathematician and physicist James Clerk Maxwell to help us better understand the great scientist’s contributions and how they relate to today’s debate over evolution and intelligent design. Here in Part 2, Amos tells us more about his vision for math education and how we can train up the next generation of James Clerk Maxwells.
Life can’t exist without a working cell membrane, but no origin of life theory explains how one could form by chance. With thousands of lipids, proteins, and ion channels, the cell membrane remains one of science’s biggest unsolved mysteries. …
The human eye is called an engineering marvel, but did evolution really create it? From Darwin’s doubt to Dawkins’ “Mount Improbable,” we explore why the eye remains one of the biggest challenges in the evolution vs. design debate. …
Without enough oxygen, your body will die. In Episode 1 of Secrets of the Human Body, learn about the astonishing engineering of the body that allows it to harness oxygen’s power and keep us alive. …
Biologist Ray Bohlin explores the incredible intelligent design of the common woodpecker. Dr. Bohlin is a Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. This talk was presented at the 2025 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. …
"There is the mystery of life itself. If scientists thought that its origin and nature would yield to scientific reductionism, they have been disappointed."
I’m going to describe some of my personal encounters with Walter that are not in his biography. These I hope will bring to light the man in a fresh way.
Fossils can be handled in the present, but how they are used by evolutionists in stories of history resembles the practices of overeager medieval churchmen.
Computer engineer Michel-Yves Bolloré, a lifelong Catholic, and Olivier Bonnassies, who came late to faith, argue that the universe must have had a creator.
Do you recognize the number 1/137.035999206? It might seem arbitrary, but if the fine structure constant were any higher or lower, you might not exist!
He challenges Stephen Jay Gould’s idea that the difference between humans and chimps is merely one of degree but not kind, calling this “utterly ridiculous.”
The Darwinian account of the human race would be much easier to believe in good faith if scientists could point to a clearly inferior and clearly human being.
Whether we like it or not, Erasmus Darwin’s simple and predictable world is no more, and we now find ourselves subject to a profoundly mysterious cosmos.
Neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín raises — in the very venue that hosts, say, Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder — the validity of telepathy research.
Do you recognize the number 1/137.035999206? It might seem arbitrary, but if the fine structure constant were any higher or lower, you might not exist!
If you weren’t able to drop by our booth in Florida, why don’t you consider joining our “Meet the Teachers” Zoom event on Thursday, May 29 at 5:00 pm (PDT).
“In this vast range, there’s only one…infinitesimally small band which has the right energy for photosynthesis,” a prerequisite for human life. Coincidence?
Scientists are still discovering how many systems, controls, and other aspects of planetary fine-tuning are in place to ensure that we have abundant life.
One thing that is likely to get some pushback is the study’s claim that modern-style plate tectonics on Earth did not commence until the Neoproterozoic.
Today we would of course brand both Faust and the Alchemist fantasists or “mad scientists” of the first order. Was Darwin prone to such wishful thinking?
Computer engineer Michel-Yves Bolloré, a lifelong Catholic, and Olivier Bonnassies, who came late to faith, argue that the universe must have had a creator.
This is a fantastic field trip opportunity for middle and high school students in homeschool and private school settings to interact directly with scientists.
If you weren’t able to drop by our booth in Florida, why don’t you consider joining our “Meet the Teachers” Zoom event on Thursday, May 29 at 5:00 pm (PDT).
First, the conversation delves into the site’s launch in December 2004, when the modern intelligent design movement and the Internet were both relatively new.
There seems to be little relationship between many science writers’ current concerns and the reasons that public trust in science has been steadily declining.