The layman tends to think of “science” as some kind of uniform knowledge-producing machine: pour ingredients into the scientific method, and out come objective, scientific facts.
“As a scientific discipline, many people have casually dismissed Intelligent Design without carefully defining what they mean by intelligence or what they mean by design.”
It’s called a deadline because there’s a moment beyond which there is no going back and trying to get that generous deal you were offered earlier.
It’s the science that really matters but it’s good to have my own evaluation confirmed that Darwin’s Doubt is also a piece of very effective science writing.
It’s funny. I was just about to post the fantastic comments that bestselling author Dean Koontz has contributed for the dust jacket of Stephen Meyer’s forthcoming book.
Have you ever wondered how the eukaryotic cell knows when to transition from one phase of its cycle to the next?
As we approach the publication date of Darwin’s Doubt, I note that today happens to be the 100th anniversary of the premiere of Stravinsky’s revolutionary Rite of Spring.
"Science is a self-correcting process," Giberson assures us. Where have we heard that before?
Reactions from dust-jacket commenters reflect some very impressive agreement among some very impressive people. What are Darwinists going to say now?
Slowly it is dawning on people that the borders of “science” are not hard; they bleed into other fields and cannot be construed as fixed.