Darwin’s attempt to explain how the peacock’s tail evolved is being sharply criticized—by evolutionists.

People often think there is no answer, but there is, and a simple one at that.

How could dinosaurs have eaten grass, if it hadn’t evolved yet?

A tiny marsupial that can hibernate for over a year—should we use this to help ‘explain’ the feasibility of a year-long journey by animals on the Ark?

Have there really been people with functioning tails, and if so, are they vestigial?

Evolutionists often argue that some organs are a throwback to our evolutionary past because they don’t seem to have a function. Is this true of the male nipple?

Brittlestars have one huge compound eye, made of an array of perfect microlenses, with hardly any optical distortion. Researchers didn’t dream that nature had such advanced optical technology.

The study that has overturned the idea of ‘junk DNA’ has also revealed yet more astonishing complexity.

Jumbo jets have certain design features enabling safe take-off and landing at slower airspeeds than in mid-flight. It turns out that one of those design features—previously unknown in birds—eagles use brilliantly.

A major study of human DNA reveals that there is probably no such thing as ‘junk DNA’. This makes the case for creation even more overwhelmingly powerful.

High-speed video cameras have catapulted the bunchberry dogwood plant into the spotlight—and the record books.

Genome sequences of microorganisms create problems for the evolutionary tree but support the biblical ‘kind’ concept.