Listen to this articleI was reading Wm. Dembski’s discussion of nyolase, and why it is not an example of evolution, but of adaptation, or more specifically, "natural genetic engineering." In the comments of that post, there was a discussion of Dembski’s use of 10-150 as a "bound" for chance, i.e. if anything has a probability of less than one in 10150, it is statistically considered impossible to have happened by chance (correct me if I’m wrong). This turns out to be what is called Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound. Neato.
Also, you can check out the very long post at the crevo blog on evolution, discussing what is random and what is not, and why evolution falls short in explaining the complexity of nature.
Clearly the mechanisms of genomic change are long overdue for study, as evolutionary assumptions have plagued them (namely, presuming the lack of predetermined adaptation mechanisms). However, for the short time that studying them has been in vogue, the creationist hypothesis seems to be bearing fruit.
