In a previous article I described how scientific training can condition some scientists’ minds to resist the evidence in nature for intelligent design.
After following the discussion about evolution versus design for the past few decades, I have noticed a common trend.
A recent series of critiques, published by the online journal Sapientia, was aimed at Doug Axe’s book, Undeniable.
Today I will identify the fundamentally different approaches by ID advocates and critics toward assessing evidence.
All simulations that purport to be breakthroughs in origins problems follow the same pattern.