Dr. Stephen Meyer

So the bones are in the right place, and the nerves are in the right place, and the muscles are in the right place, etc.,

So you gotta have these developmental gene regulatory networks.

So you got developmental gene regulatory network A makes animal form A. Now you wanna change animal form A into animal form B. But you know you gotta have a developmental gene regulatory network, right?

But what do we know about developmental gene regulatory networks?

You can't change them very much at all without destroying the animal form.

So you've got to get from here to here, from one animal form to another, but the underlying thing that makes animal form animal form can't be changed without destroying the process that would produce the animal form in the first place, which would terminate the evolutionary process.

And so mutations here are – if the mutations are big enough to make a change that would produce a body plan, they're big enough to destroy the animal – the developmental gene regulatory network.

And you're not going to get from A to B in the underlying architecture that's necessary to make animal form.

The scientists who discovered this are no friends of creationism or the theory of intelligent design, but they say that neo-Darwinism is a catastrophic mistake because it cannot explain this fundamental need to transform things at a body plan level in the underlying architecture of these developmental gene regulatory networks.

So it's just one of a legion of problems that scientists are coming to recognizing that the mutation natural selection mechanism has very limited creative power.

It does a nice job of explaining small-scale variations, the finch beaks getting bigger and smaller, all the stuff we learned about the tech.

Yeah, the antibiotic resistance, the peppered moths changing their coloration.

Superficial stuff.

This is a fine explanation.

But to extend it beyond that, to explain fundamental changes in architecture of animals, it does not have that creative power.

And any number of leading evolutionary biologists have pointed this out.

I attended a conference in London in 2016 convened by evolutionary biologists who were calling for a new theory of evolution because they know that the neo-Darwinian theory that we all learn about in our textbooks does not work.

It lacks a mechanism, a creative mechanism

with the creative power to generate fundamentally new forms of life.

So we're in need of a major overhaul of what we're being taught at the high school and college level because the people at the highest levels of the field know this, and it's not percolating yet.