Ah, the positing of irreducibly complexity as an argument for ID and against evolution.
I note with interest that no peer-reviewed scientific study accompanies the positing of irreducible complexity.
Why do you think that is?
Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
==Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
That Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent is a demonstrable fact:
http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies
I note with interest that no peer-reviewed scientific study accompanies the positing of irreducible complexity.
Why do you think that is?
Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
I haven’t seen any serious recent peer review of evolution that’s not attacked as anti-science and/or religion, yet I don’t see anything particularly anti-science or religious when I click on the ‘scientists’ link in here.