18Dec 2025 by Post

Ten Myths About Dover: No. 3, “Intelligent Design Has No Peer-Reviewed Publications”

amicus brief, Annalen der Physik, BioLogos, Cambridge University Press, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., De Revolutionibus, Discovery Institute, Dover trial, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Francis Collins, Hans Krebs, Harmut Michel, Intelligent Design, Iowa State University, John Angus Campbell, Juan Miguel Campanario, Judge John E. Jones, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Legal Science (jurisprudence), Michael Behe, Michael J. Berridge, mutations, Nobel Prize, Of Pandas and People, Origin of Species, peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed publications, peer-reviewed research, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, protein science, Robert H. Michell, scientific reasoning, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Supreme Court, Ten Myths About Dover, The Design Inference, type III secretion system
Unfortunately, Judge Jones got this simple question exactly wrong, giving life to a myth. This alone speaks volumes about his ruling. Source
Read More
02Jun 2020 by Post

Darwin’s Desperation?

"survival of the fittest", appendix, beards, BioEssays, Brois Yeltsin, California Science Center, cell's, censorship, chimpanzees, choking, Christians, Communist Party, conferences, Current Biology, Darwin Devolves, Darwinian theory, Dave Speijer, Dover trial, dysteleology, epiglottis, Evolution, Glenn-Peter Sætre, Heretic, Intelligent Design, J.B.S. Haldane, Judge John E. Jones, Kremlin, lip-smacking, Matti Leisola, methodological naturalism, Michael Behe, Norway, peasants, Richard Dawkins, Richard Sternberg, Social media, speech, Stephen Jay Gould, Summers Seminars, Uncommon Descent, University of Oslo
They used to just ignore us. That worked for many years. Rare appearances of the loathsome words “intelligent design” in scientific journals were quickly squashed, as Richard Sternberg can attest. Occasional payouts to avoid lawsuits, like at the California Science Center, could be dismissed as inconvenient hush money, quickly settled and ignored by the press.  Meanwhile, Darwinism marched on, confident and triumphant. Largely unimpeded by any need for debate, evolutionary biologists and psychologists, safe in the accepted custom of methodological naturalism, could spin their just-so stories without fear of contradiction. The media were willing accomplices, keeping the public submissive and quiet, satisfied with the daily illusions pouring forth from the ministry of truth. See how wonderful, elegant, and powerful Darwin’s theory is at explaining everything — from human speech evolving…
Read More