Peer review potential and peril

Almost without fail, any critic of creation science will utter the phrase peer review to suggest creation science has no merit. The premise: only by peer review can any scientist be sure he is reading something truly important, and not insubstantial junk. True enough, some men claiming to be scientists, do not follow the scientific method as closely as they should. But sometimes “peer review” can become a means to exclude new ideas, whether they have merit or not. So lack of “peer review” does not necessarily deny merit to a new idea. Continue reading

Evolution: shouldn’t Eskimos grow fur?

As a Creationist I tend to watch and read more secular material than most might expect. There is a good reason for this. Usually the secular material provides me with the best arguments against Evolution imaginable – and on many occasions, sick the material provides me with a good laugh as well. While watching a few minutes of the History Channel’s program entitled The Big History of Everything, viagra 60mg a few interesting questions shot through my mind along with a few chuckles. Continue reading

Methane and mass extinction: not so fast

Yesterday (March 31, 2014), an article offering to explain a purported mass extinction event appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors sought to solve a riddle that has annoyed geologists and paleontologists for decades. But they forgot to look at other ways to explain what they saw. And they never once considered that all their colleagues might be misinterpreting, as a mass extinction event, something far simpler. Continue reading