In Charles Marshall's review of Darwin's Doubt, the requirements of evolutionary doctrine trump observations about how organisms actually behave.
Read More ›
While Stephen Meyer pointed out this paper's most fundamental flaw, there are many other deficiencies. I focus on nine total in this article.
Read More ›
Terry Scambray puts his finger on the problem that seems to bother many Darwinian evolutionists about Stephen Meyer's conclusion in the book.
Read More ›
The authors of a paper in Current Biology present the problem of the Cambrian explosion — the rapid emergence of new forms of animal life — as it own solution.
Read More ›
In my previous replies to Marshall's review in Science of Darwin's Doubt, I've responded to his critiques of the main argument of the book.
Read More ›
It would be very welcome to hear some smart Darwinist call up the show and try to tell Steve Meyer why the case his book makes doesn't hold water. Step right up, guys.
Read More ›
According to Charles Marshall, I argue "that paleontologists are unable to explain the Cambrian explosion, thus opening the door to the possibility of a designer's intervention."
Read More ›
To rebut the central argument of Darwin's Doubt, Marshall must deny (or push from view) what we know about what new forms of animal life require as a condition of their existence.
Read More ›