On the Origin of Speciesism, Part 1
February 2, 2023
Policies against "speciesism" would effectively end civilization as we know it. Citizens must be informed about this new "ism" from secular science.
VIEW HEADLINES ONLY
Green Darwinism Wilts Under Questioning
June 24, 2022
When plants first came ashore, they say, the world turned green with trees and flowers. But how? They evolved. They just evolved.
What Is This Babbler Trying to Say?
July 21, 2021
Some Darwinians think the Sulawesi Babbler is saying "I evolved!" How do they know they are not mistranslating its babblings?
Welcome to the Anthropocene
September 5, 2016
Geologists are adding a new era to the geologic column: the Anthropocene, when humans began man-handling the planet.
Dinosaur Variety was Extreme
November 8, 2014
Here are news stories about dinosaurs, from dwarfs to giants that lived in all kinds of habitats.
Scientists' Letter Challenges PZ Myers' Revisionism
September 4, 2013
In a letter to Nature, three scientists set the record straight about theology and science, after atheist P.Z. Myers got off with only a mild rebuke in a previous book review.
Venus Flytrap De-Darwinized
September 12, 2011
Darwin had a fascination for the Venus flytrap, but is it appropriate to conjure up his ghost when talking about it? The carnivorous plant still defies evolutionary explanations, especially now, when a recent paper drew attention to more amazing design features from macro to micro. For some reason, writers still feel a compulsion to mention Darwin’s name when talking about a plant that defies his evolutionary ideas.
8.7 Million Species Is Not a Scientific Fact
August 24, 2011
Human beings love to classify things. We pigeonhole items into bins of our own making, for whatever the reason, to give us a feeling of having things organized and understood. Do our pigeonholes reflect categories that are “out there” in nature, or are they constructs of our own minds? Science reporters are announcing in bold print that there are “8.7 million species on Earth,” but a look at the fine print shows the error bars to be so enormous, there is more error than data. What does this imply about the scientific validity of human classification schemes?