jonathan wells

Johnson spotted the slick tactics in evolutionary arguments, “the same rhetorical tricks that clever lawyers use when they have to defend a flawed case in court.”

During my early years of graduate school, I was wrestling with the question of whether I was an unintended accident of nature or the product of a Creator.

To mark Halloween, we are highlighting some appropriate videos from our library and elsewhere this week.

Amidst all this chest thumping over neo-Darwinian certainties, doubts are unmistakably on the rise.

The scientists call heat shock proteins “nature’s ‘first responders’ to cellular stress.” 

It is, I believe, a revelation about our scientific culture and particularly about the trust we should place in a “science consensus” that should shake us to our bones.

Darwinians never had a rightful claim to them in the first place.

Has Darwinism furthered healthcare? What about our understanding of antibiotic resistance? And might learning about evolution become a requirement for medical students?

The perpetuation of Darwinian ideology comes at the cost of truly grappling with the profound nature of the question of biological origins.

After Oparin’s coacervate theory was presented in the 1920s, it was dismissed as unworkable. Now, coacervates are back in style.

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are common in cells. Can a disordered protein regulate a molecular motor?

As others have said before me, one of the first things you notice about ID critics is the low level of most of their critiques.