Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

Darwinism’s icy grip on modern intellectual life is based on shoddy philosophy, not science.

As Darwin often used it, the term natural selection really meant natural selection acting on random variation

As valuable as they might be in describing necessary conditions for the success of some evolutionary strategies, economic theories are nowhere near sufficient to explain how complex molecular machinery arose.

Although they’re necessary, general laws are woefully insufficient to account for very specific, purposeful arrangements of parts.

A surprising but compelling conclusion is that Darwin’s mechanism has been wildly overrated—it is incapable of producing much biological change at all.

we recognize design in the purposeful arrangement of parts.

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.

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

the number of organisms you’d have to observe to get statistically significant evolutionary results is so enormous that no university animal facility or agricultural station could hold them all.