The claim has been made that ID proponents are just “creationists in cheap tuxedos.” Of course, the term “creationist” is used as a pejorative, meant to imply that all ID theorists are young-earth Biblical literalists who have lost their minds and want to destroy science. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore, I’ll make the claim that Darwinists are atheists in expensive tuxedos. By Darwinism I specifically refer to the hypothesis that random errors filtered by differential mortality can explain everything in biological reality. This means that accidents presumably transformed a “primitive” microbe (which was already an astronomically complex information-processing system) into Mozart and his piano concerti. This is a transparently preposterous proposition, considering what is Read More ›

The Guardian features an interesting opinion column by the renowned British pharmacologist David Colquhoun. The article bears the intriguing headline, “Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science.” The author laments that “Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.” Click here to continue reading>>>

In “The Believing Brain: Why Science Is the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism” Scientific American (July 5, 2011), Michael Shermer informs us, dependency on belief and its host of psychological biases is why, in science, we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the conditions during data collection. Collaboration with colleagues is vital. Results are vetted at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research is replicated in other laboratories. Disconfirming evidence and contradictory interpretations of data are included in the analysis. If you don’t seek data and arguments against your theory, someone else will, usually with great glee and in a public forum. This is why skepticism is a Read More ›

According to evolutionists scientific problems don’t count for much. They believe evolution is a fact that science will confirm. Scientific problems with evolution, therefore, are more indicative of gaps in our knowledge rather than any fault of their convictions. Hence they view scientific critiques as based on gaps or ignorance, rather than any direct evidence against evolution. This is a good example of how the religion that drives evolutionary thought harms science. In this case evolutionists make science vulnerable to just-so stories. If scientific problems don’t matter then anything goes. In fact, there are substantial empirical problems with evolution. Not only have most of evolution’s fundamental predictions failed, the science shows the idea to be highly unlikely. Consider, for example, Read More ›