Stem cells continue to show promise for dramatic healings, but reporters don't always clarify what lived or died to produce the cells. Adult stem cells inhabit all living humans; embryonic or fetal stem cells require a human death.
Whenever you hear "all scientists agree" or "we now know," it's no guarantee a finding won't be disputed years later. In the following examples, CEH focuses not so much on the content of the disputed subjects as the implications for philosophy of science.
If you thought work on human cloning and embryonic stem cell research went out of style with the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells, watch out. The pro-cloning people, who never lost their lust for toying with human embryos, are back.
Complaints about a new diagnostic manual show that psychiatry has a long way to go before being considered a legitimate science. That hope might never be fulfilled.
The fact that you can ponder how to use your brain implies it is a physical tool your soul uses. New findings support the idea that we can improve our brain function through effort, like we can learn to become better computer users.
One might think that 154 years after Darwin's book about it, natural selection would be empirically obvious. The journal Nature went on a search for it in DNA.
Here are examples of recent claims in science that seem to contradict what some would consider intuitively obvious. They should be kept in mind when evaluating other scientific truisms, like evolution.