Science Is Not A Game In Which

Molecular Evolution Is Not Based On Scientific Authority. . . . There Are Assertions That Such Evolution Occurred, But Absolutely None Are Supported By Pertinent Experiments Or Calculations. Since No One Knows Molecular Evolution By Direct Experience, And Since There Is No Authority On Which To Base Claims Of Knowledge, It Can Truly Be Said That . . . The Assertion Of Darwinian Molecular Evolution Is Merely Bluster.

Biology Has Progressed Tremendously Due To The Model That Darwin Put Forth. But The Black Boxes Darwin Accepted Are Now Being Opened, And Our View Of The World Is Again Being Shaken.

The Question Is: Exactly How Did Life Get Here? Was It By Natural Selection And Random Mutation Or Was It By Something Else? Everybody - Even Richard Dawkins - Sees Design In Biology. You See This Design When You See Co-ordinated Parts Coming Together To Perform A Function - Like In A Hand. And So It's The Appearance Of Design That Everybody's Trying To Explain. So That If Darwin's Theory Doesn't Explain It We're Left With No Other Explanation Than Maybe It Really Was Designed. That's Essentially The Design Argument.

Irreducible Complexity Is A Problem For Darwinian Evolution. Whenever We See These Complex Functional Systems We Realise That They Have To Be Designed.

The Conclusion Of Intelligent Design Flows Naturally From The Data Itself - Not From Sacred Books Or Sectarian Beliefs. Inferring That Biochemical Systems Were Designed By An Intelligent Agent Is A Humdrum Process That Requires No New Principles Of Logic Or Science. It Comes Simply From The Hard Work That Biochemistry Has Done Over The Past Forty Years, Combined With Consideration Of The Way In Which We Reach Conclusions Of Design Every Day.