Dr. Stephen Meyer

When the non-coding – so a little background.

You have a long stretch of DNA, about 2% to 3% of it –

plus or minus codes for building proteins.

But the rest of it was, for a long time, terra incognita.

We didn't know what it was doing.

They called it junk.

They called it junk.

And the neo-Darwinists...

sort of jumped to the conclusion that the non-coding regions were non-functional and that they were the holdovers from the random trial and error process of mutation and selection.

It was an accumulation of mutations over time.

Exactly.

Exactly.

It was a great way to think if you're working in a neo-Darwinian framework.

This is what we'd expect.

We'd expect to see a lot of – one scientist called it flopsam and jepsam, the genetic garbage accumulating over the millions and millions of years.

And we looked at that and said – the ID people starting in the 1990s, Dean Kenyon, Forrest Mims, William Dembski, any number of ID proponents said, well, you know, that is a logical prediction of neo-Darwinism.

But our model is different.

We think that the information in life was designed –

And we would expect – we think mutations are a real process.

We'd expect to see some mutational accumulation, but we wouldn't expect the signal to be dwarfed by the noise.