Science

Jason Padgett was exactly as one would expect someone who has no interest in school to be. He was only interested in parties and bars and was a magnet for both fun and trouble. That’s how he ended up being expelled, which didn’t affect him too much. However, getting beaten savagely changed his life forever, in the most unimaginable way possible.

At first glance, the idea that life could have emerged spontaneously seems to imply insurmountable probabilities. Indeed, simple yet accurate mathematical modelling reveals infinitesimal probabilities, regardless of the length of time available. So, how is the theory of evolution compatible with these mathematical arguments? Is the spontaneous emergence of life the only improbable aspect of the theory?

Even those least familiar with evolutionary theory know that it involves a powerful driving force: natural selection. However, as we delve deeper into the theory, we find that things haven't been that simple for a long time. This is because we no longer consider natural selection the sole engine of evolution, and from a certain point of view, not even the most powerful...

Humans have only a fifth of the genetic material of an onion, and slightly more DNA than a mouse. Why would the Creator of life use five times more genetic information for an onion than for a human? And why would He create humans to be only slightly more genetically complex than mice? Aren't long and aimless evolutionary processes a better explanation for...

The eye's intricate structure has long been a focal point in the creationism vs evolutionism debate, serving as a key example in the argument of irreducible complexity. More recently, methods of simulating the evolution of the eye have emerged, which claim to provide significant support for Darwinism. Who is right?

It is commonly assumed that at least 96% of the genome of a multicellular organism has no functional role. A junk-dominated genome is the ideal place for evolution to randomly explore new functions and characteristics of the species. After all, who would ever think that a wise and all-knowing Creator would use 96% informational junk to define a human being or a mollusc?

Marquis Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a mathematician and astronomer and one of history’s most influential scientists, once had a meeting with Napoleon Bonaparte. Laplace came to offer the first consul of the republic a copy of his book, “Traité de mécanique celeste” (Treatise on Celestial Mechanics)—an analysis of the solar system that expanded on Isaac Newton’s conclusions.

Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics; some butterflies and fish are developing new colours for better camouflage; and a series of laboratory experiments have revealed small but significant changes in various microorganisms. Are these phenomena conclusive evidence of evolution unfolding before our eyes?

Scientific progress in understanding the DNA molecule and in deciphering the molecular mechanisms by which cells function can only be described as revolutionary. In the first of our "Genetics and Evolution" series of articles we examine the implications of these discoveries for evolutionary and creationist perspectives on the origin of life.

During the COVID-19 lockdown last year, I lived with some messy people. I’d moved into a house that I shared with a wonderful couple of brothers. They were almost everything you could ask for in a set of housemates. Friendly, funny, respectful of your privacy . . . genuinely great people in almost every respect.

The Jewish people walked on dry land in the middle of the water, not in the Red Sea, but somewhere in the Nile Delta. This conclusion by researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado (USA) made headlines on Reuters and the BBC in September 2010.

Is the chimpanzee the human’s closest relative in the animal world? According to the theory of evolution, the answer is a categorical YES. Specialised literature abounds in generous estimates of human-chimpanzee genetic similarity, ranging from 96% to 99%. But how are these percentages obtained, what assumptions do they hide, and what do they mean beyond the evolutionary interpretation?

I got acquainted with Ariel Roth as a writer, but I also got to meet him as a human being. I discovered neither fanaticism nor nervousness, neither doubt nor ideological speech in Roth, an octogenarian who still looks in detail at each new subject appearing on the agenda of the debate between evolution and creation. He maintains an unflagging desire for honesty and...

For Carl Sagan, renowned astronomer and militant atheist, God's place in the universe was certain: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." For Richard Dawkins, exponent of the "new wave" of atheism, true science is necessarily atheistic and materialistic. This paradigm dominates the scientific world today.

Our planet may be fittingly compared to the 1994 film, Speed: A bomb is planted on a bus and rigged to explode when the bus slows to less than 80 kilometres per hour. The bus barrels through Los Angeles, hitting obstacles and endangering the lives of passengers and pedestrians until a solution is found.