It’s surprising to reflect that no scientist up till now had fully shared his own experience in rethinking Darwinism.
Here is a sneak preview: Very shortly we will be opening up nominations for Censor of the Year.
Sometimes scientists do not, in fact, follow the evidence. The consensus, then, could be wrong.
Because it’s really a march for something that undermines good science.
I usually ignore ScienceBlogs because unfortunately it’s a home for many ad hominem attacks and not serious response-worthy posts. However, given that Jay Richards’ second criteria on When To Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ is “When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate,” it’s worth noting that over at ScienceBlogs, Orac has replied to me and Jay Richards with, you guessed it, ad hominem attacks. He argues that if you show “hostility” towards the consensus, then you are a “crank.” Orac further writes: If Casey had two neurons to rub together, he could answer the question in two sentences and echo how scientists would answer the question: When you have an actual scientifically valid reason, based on science, evidence, experimentation, and observational Read More ›