Giberson and Collins appeal to authority but admit the evidence is all that matters, claim that anti-Darwin literature uses “outdated” arguments when their own book uses outdated arguments for evolution, and Giberson lacks the same qualifications of those Darwin-doubting scientists whose qualifications he attacks. Why are they making these weak, non-scientific, and self-contradictory arguments?
The alleged “ignorance” of the medieval Church whose cherished dogmas included the belief in a flat earth, geocentric theory of the universe, and a hidebound biblical literalism is all challenged with insight and skill by this Oxford/Cambridge graduate and PhD in the history of science.
In the absence of a feasible naturalistic mechanism to account for how evolution from a common ancestor could have occurred, how can we be so sure that it did occur?
Fifteen Ph.D. scientists wrote a letter to the Louisiana State Legislature defending the Louisiana Science Education Act and challenging critics for misrepresenting it.
The Louisiana State Senate Education Committee decisively rejected a proposed repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which encourages academic freedom for teachers to cover divergent scientific views on issues such as Darwinian evolution.
CSC Fellow Cornelius Hunter has another great piece explaining the problems science writer John Farrell has when reviewing Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA.
In my previous article, I discussed the background of one of the most commonly made arguments for primate common ancestry. In this article, I want to examine the first of the three layers of evidence offered by a popular-level article written about this subject.
CSC Fellow Cornelius Hunter gives us the big picture view of the recent dustup with John Farrell at Forbes as “an interesting example of how evolutionary thinking is handed down and disseminated.”
One common argument for common descent which one hears very frequently in the evolutionary literature concerns the placement of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in orthologous loci in primate genomes.
Farrell thinks the myth of junk DNA is itself a myth — that “scientists never dismissed junk DNA in the literature.” In other words, Wells has set up a straw man. Of course, not having looked at the book, Farrell can’t have consulted Dr. Wells’s fifty pages of notes documenting his argument.