Whilst I think I am on the same side with this group socially, politically, philosophically and culturally to a large extent, and I like much of their writings and critiques and Gauger has written some very insightful observations on the limitations of evolutionism, this seems like agenda driven science.
In doing science to argue against weak or pseudoscience, one may not in turn do pseudoscience, but the science very well be limited and of little import.
Peer reviewed in a “journal” whose stated purpose is “set to accelerate the pace and heighten the tone of the debate over intelligent design”. This isn’t science, it’s apologetics.
Proponents of the Theory of Evolution steadfastly reject the most fundamental problem with that framework: how did something that by its very nature must be very complex in a systematic way spring up spontaneously from something inherently insufficient? How did life come from non-life?
But, they loudly protest. Evolution is not about “origins”. That is a different department, down the hall, to the right by the janitor’s closet. I see. Put the problem in a different compartment and that solves the problem. Not.
Evolutionists are about as foolish as liberals denying that jihad has nothing to do with Islam.