One of the most remarkable aspects of our universe is the discovery that just four fundamental forces of nature govern interactions among all particles.
Chances are you’re already familiar with specified complexity, one of the mathematical pillars of the theory of intelligent design. There’s another pillar that is much less well known but equally vital: the law of conservation of information. On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid begins a four-part conversation with mathematician and philosopher Dr. William Dembski. The conversation unpacks Dembski’s work on the law of conservation of information and its implications for scientific theories like Darwinian evolution. In Part 1, Dr. Dembski begins by defining information fundamentally as the narrowing of possibilities, where specifying one outcome excludes others. Using his a simple analogy of location, he explains that identifying a specific place, like the town of …
Sexual reproduction depends on an irreducibly complex core of components for its success. But can we really credit a gradual evolutionary process for this remarkable system? On this classic ID The Future from the archive, host Andrew McDiarmid continues his discussion with Dr. Jonathan McLatchie on why sex is the queen of problems for evolutionary theory and why instead it bears the hallmarks of a system governed by forethought and engineering. Dr. McLatchie covers two more components and explains why they are beyond the reach of a Darwinian process. This is Part 2 of a three-part conversation.
On today’s ID the Future, host Casey Luskin continues a deep dive into the mounting hurdles facing origin of life (OOL) research with prebiotic synthesis expert Dr. Edward Peltzer. Peltzer, a seasoned ocean chemist and researcher, breaks down the critical flaws in the RNA world hypothesis, revealing that many successful lab experiments actually rely on investigator interference—intelligently designed interventions that researchers must make in experiments in order to yield results. But that’s not how the prebiotic atmosphere would have worked, notes Peltzer: “Unless you’ve got graduate students and post-docs working on the early Earth to set up these conditions that were used in the experiments, it’s not gonna happen.”
Peltzer also discusses how the goalposts of origin-of-life theory keep moving as our understanding of cellular complexity expands. And he shares a personal story of censorship as the discussion ends by exploring the risks faced by scientists who question the standard evolutionary paradigm.
This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation. Look for Part 1 in a separate episode.
Does common sense point to… God?!!! A short animated video inspired by the graphic novel The God Proofs: How Science Points to YOUR Creator by Doug Ell for young teens and above. For more information, check out https://thegodproofs.com/. …
Does your smartphone point to… God?!!! A short animated video inspired by the graphic novel The God Proofs: How Science Points to YOUR Creator by Doug Ell for young teens and above. For more information, check out https://thegodproofs.com/. …
All life runs code… but what does the code point to? A short animated video inspired by the graphic novel The God Proofs: How Science Points to YOUR Creator by Doug Ell for young teens and above. For more information, check out https://thegodproofs.com/. …
Dr. Stephen Meyer explores how the science of archaeology has helped corroborate the biblical account of King Hezekiah and the Assyrian invasion of Judah. Dr. Meyer is Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. This talk was presented at the 2025 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. …
His tips for trolling include, “Misstate then criticize,” “Context doesn’t matter,” and “You understand science” (but nobody who disagrees with you does).
In 1984, three scientists dared to probe the mystery of life’s origin by putting the prevailing theories of prebiotic and chemical evolution to the test.
You will hear one word, over and over in this remarkable talk, that has stolen the place, or taken the credit, for what is undeniable evidence of design.
The technical paper acknowledges that this level of oxygenation, if sustained, would indeed “challenge the view” that oxygen was a trigger for animal evolution.
It’s the season of the unexpected convert, isn’t it? Musk has more than enough smarts to evaluate that evidence for himself, once he has got it in front of him.
Many have called this fossil a human ancestor that lived at about 7 million years ago, around the time of our supposed most recent common ancestor with chimps.
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.
in a world where pundits regularly accuse us all of being too anthropocentric, the naming of a new geological epoch would enshrine that view forever in science.
The evidence that is most often presented in support of evolution (i.e., the fossil record and homology) fails to meet the criteria for providing confidence.
I was impressed by a lecture by philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, who presented versions of the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument.
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.
The standpoint of poet John Keats is certainly gaining resonance in our doubt-ridden 21st century. I for one welcome its openness to questioning and wonder.
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?
If evolution is defined as an unguided process, then inserting “God used” it into the sentence doesn’t affect the argument of this little video at all.
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.