Compare two countries: in one, when their hegemony is threatened, evolutionists plead for academic freedom. In another, they deny it to those who want a chance to debate evolution.
News sites are celebrating a "spectacular" new record for fossil DNA, claiming horse genes found in permafrost are 700,000 years old, placing the common ancestor two million years earlier than thought.
If evolution were a matter of obvious biological facts, why would it be necessary to list strategies to teach it without exposing it to critical thinking?
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.
There are professors and leaders of special interest groups whose sole purpose is to draw students away from belief in a Designer and tempt them to embrace the aimless, purposeless, materialist processes of Darwinism. How can students prepare for the challenge?
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.
How can all the science media outlets launch simultaneous reports about evolutionary claims within minutes? It's how science reporting is done these days.