random mutation and natural selection can’t accomplish anything remotely like what has been ascribed to them.

What amount of change in biological classification might have resulted from such searing selection? Some of the descendants might have differed from the ancestor in its domain of life or formed a new kingdom, or perhaps a novel phylum, class, or order. Yet none of those appeared.

A computer model of a process is, of course, a mathematical abstraction, not the thing itself, so a perennial danger is that the model doesn’t correctly represent the process—that critical but unappreciated details are left out of consideration—yielding misleading results.

much of modern evolutionary biology is also cloaked by a thick pretense of knowledge.

not only is the flagellum itself irreducible, but so is its assembly system. The assembly process and the flagellum together constitute irreducible complexity piled on irreducible complexity.

the very cofounder of the theory of evolution was an intelligent-design proponent.

The claim that Darwin’s theory explains life is like the claim that an illiterate who doesn’t know that u follows q authored Romeo and Juliet.

the data recounted in this book show, random mutation and natural selection are powerless to build anything remotely as complex as a brain,

the severe problem for Darwin’s theory of evolution in accounting for biological features that require multiple interacting components was one of the first major scientific arguments advanced against it