Don't accept something simply because Francis Collins, BioLogos, or for that matter Michael Behe or Discovery Institute -- or anybody else -- tells you to.
Read More ›
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and Collins appeal to authority but admit the evidence is all that matters, claim that anti-Darwin literature uses "outdated" arguments when their own book uses outdated arguments for evolution, and Giberson lacks the same qualifications of those Darwin-doubting scientists whose qualifications he attacks.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?
Read More ›
Presto chango--evolution sounds so easy! But according to Darwin, evolution requires more than just "enough generations." Darwin acknowledged that evolution also requires a continuous evolutionary pathway.
Read More ›
When most people hear "Neanderthal," they think of a primitive caveman-like prehuman brute. What many don't realize is that this popular view is very much a Darwinian interpretation, and it is betrayed by much evidence.
Read More ›
Without evidence to back up their argument, it seems that Giberson and Collins simply want us to take their evolutionary claims about the power of mutation on faith.
Read More ›
Karl Giberson and Francis Collins have relied upon some dangerous and historically weak arguments for evolution in their new book, The Language of Science and Faith.
Read More ›
Francis Collins and Karl Giberson rely heavily on pseudogenes -- what they call "broken DNA" -- to argue for evolution, but increased discovery of function for pseudogenes means their argument is being pushed into increasingly smaller gaps.
Read More ›
