To summarize, the authors use a terrible design hypothesis, and make ever-escalating claims of certainty from two weak observations.
Within clearly designed objects, malicious intents can lurk. Intelligent design theory handles those, too, and should.
The article survived peer-review and was accepted for publication despite the open hostility of the journal’s top editors!
Are there rumblings of discontent? Is it getting safer to question the claims of conventional neo-Darwinism?
Look here: A physicist who seems to understand the demarcation problem proceeds to demarcate “pseudoscience” on his own authority. Alex Wellerstein reviewed a book on pseudoscience that explicitly warns about the challenge of differentiating between science and pseudoscience. Wellerstein, of the Center for the History of Physics, American Institute of Physics in Maryland, wrote in the Oct. 12 issue of Science this summary of what Michael D. Gordin said about the “demarcation problem” in his new book, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. Velikovsky’s cosmic catastrophism is, for Gordin, also a case study on the famously intractable demarcation problem, the difficulty of coming up with firm criteria for what separates science from nonscience, or Read More ›