From the hard men at Uncommon Descent:
Mathematician Jason Rosenhouse has written an extraordinary post in which he pronounces the Intelligent Design movement officially dead: “Truly, ID is dead,” he declares. In this post, I’d like to put forward three good mathematical arguments illustrating why the Intelligent Design movement remains very much alive. All of these arguments come from scientists who are highly qualified in the fields they are writing about. Two of the scientists are committed evolutionists (one is a Darwinian, the other an adherent of the “nearly-neutral” theory of evolution), and the other scientist is the holder of a Caltech Ph.D. who has written two articles for the Journal of Molecular Biology (see here and here for abstracts), as well as co-authoring an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, an article in Biochemistry and an article published in PLoS ONE, and his work has been reviewed in Nature. As far as I am aware, none of the three arguments listed below has been refuted – indeed, I have yet to see a satisfactory response to any of them. If Professor Rosenhouse wishes to respond, he is welcome to do so.
The mathematical arguments listed below relate to three topics: the origin of protein folds, the origin of life, and the time available for evolution.
Intellectual warfare, at its’ finest.