Damage Control for Evolutionist Storytelling

Creationist and Intelligent Design folks often take the ejecta from Darwinists that is paraded as actual science, showing flaws in their reasoning, and more. It is necessary to remind people that the flaunted peer review process has many problems; just because a paper passes does not guarantee truth. One may wonder if peer review is a tool used to advance a materialistic agenda and deny the Creator rather than promote scientific research. Peer review or not, much research boils down to Just-So Stories to advance evolutionism.

Storyteller by Anker Grossvater, 1884

A couple of writers wrote a paper in an effort to elevate evolution to the level of hard sciences. It passed peer review — which supports speculations that the process is horribly flawed and probably agenda-driven. There are numerous logical fallacies (a good reviewer would have spotted those and pulled back on the reins) and other things that should make taxpayers demand their money back.

For that matter, Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ put the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" charge on evolution deniers, but hypocritically do not apply it to themselves. David Coppedge discusses the exercise in evolutionary nonsense that passed peer review but not the sniff test.

It’s listed under “Biophysics and Computational Biology.” Both those categories appear scientifically solid, rational, and descriptive of studies involving phenomena that can be understood by laws of nature. Since the scientific revolution, much of the natural world has yielded to explanation by laws, whether they be tornadoes, volcanoes, planetary motions, auroras, lightning, and a thousand other events that arouse wonder. With natural laws incorporated into principles and equations by great scientists, we can explain and predict numerous things that older generations ascribed to mystery.

Read the rest by clicking on "Darwinists Try to Overcome Just-So Story Reputation."