editors Type post Author Casey Luskin Date October 8, 2020 CategoriesBiologyFine-tuningIntelligent DesignScientific Freedom Tagged , academic freedom, Biological Information: New Perspectives, censorship, defining terms, Del Ratzsch, dependency graph, Elsevier, explanatory filter, intelligent design, Irreducible Complexity, John West, Journal of Theoretical Biology, macroevolution, Michael Behe, National Center for Science Education (NCSE), peer-reviewed, publishers, search engines, specified complexity, William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert Really? Editors Claim They Were “Unaware” of Article’s Intelligent Design Connections Casey Luskin October 8, 2020 Biology, Fine-tuning, Intelligent Design, Scientific Freedom 6 The implication is that the editors — Denise Kirschner, Mark Chaplain, and Akira Sasaki — did not realize the article was about intelligent design. Read More ›
hallucination 3 Type post Date February 5, 2020 CategoriesIntelligent Design Tagged , __edited, Adam Marcus, Applied Mathematics Letters, autism, bioRxiv, coronavirus, Dilbert, Elsevier, entropy, evolution, Evolution News, Granville Sewell, India, intelligent design, junk science, Nautilus, peer review, Physics Essays, Retraction Watch, Scott Adams, Second Law of Thermodynamics, Why Evolution Is Different Retraction Watch Guys Hallucinate “Intelligent Design” Yet Again Science & Culture February 5, 2020 Intelligent Design 6 A helpful formulation comes from podcaster Scott Adams, of “Dilbert” fame, who comments entertainingly on the political scene. Read More ›
E-Meter Type post Author Granville Sewell Date August 23, 2018 CategoriesEvolutionScientific Freedom Tagged , __k-review, “consensus science”, Adam Marcus, Applied Mathematics Letters, carbon, earth, Elsevier, entropy, Granville Sewell, intelligent design, natural selection, open system, order, Physics Essays, pseudoscience, Retraction Watch, Second Law of Thermodynamics So, Who Is Doing “Pseudoscience”? Granville Sewell August 23, 2018 Evolution, Scientific Freedom 8 You will be astonished by how corrupt science can become when reviewers are “very, very vigilant” to protect consensus science. Read More ›
