DAVID: An atheist philosopher of science believes there is intelligence behind evolution and gives an excellent summary:-http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/06/12/darwin-v-life-emergence/-As Barham ( an atheist) describes how a cell works, Darwin is thrown out. I cannot look at the current research on cell functions and believe Darwinism is the proper theory for evolution:-http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/07/20/darwin-vii-physical-properties...-I must confess that I find this attack on Darwin extremely confusing. Barham sets up targets (e.g. no deep difference between living and nonliving matter; DNA is more important than the other main chemical components of the cell) and later the machine metaphor. Darwin didn't even know about DNA, so how could he have given it precedence? Since when did Darwin's theory of evolution depend on there being no "deep difference between living and nonliving matter" or on the machine metaphor? However, there is a machine metaphor in Origin, and I'd like to quote it in its context:-"...when we contemplate every structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same way as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing up of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting ... I speak from experience ... will the study of natural history become!
 "A grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions, and so forth." (p. 503: Recapitulation and Conclusion).-Where Darwin comes under fire is not the process of evolution (which, David, you have repeatedly said you accept) but the mechanisms by which it takes place. Random mutations and gradualism are the main problems, and the more we learn about the workings of the "intelligent" cell (which I would compare to Darwin's "workmen"), the more it would seem that these lie at the heart of the process. We now know a great deal more about the then "untrodden fields" like the causes and laws of variation, while epigenetics suggests that the direct action of external conditions may be far more significant than previously thought. This does not mean throwing Darwin out. Common descent and natural selection still stand as the cornerstones of his theory. Later in the same paragraph, David, you may be interested to read this: "Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies; and will then truly give what may be called the plan of creation." This is not a random choice of words. Two pages later, in arguing against separate creation, he talks of "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator". You never hear such quotes from atheist Darwinians or theist anti-Darwinians, but don't blame Darwin.