When creationist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson attempted to provide genetic evidence for a young earth, he was forced to come up with a mutation rate 35x greater than what has been measured and published! We look at how he came up with this number and analyse the series of flawed assumptions he makes about the data obtained from those studies.
A creationist claim DNA supports the Noah story, but it only does so because he uses the wrong figures and data to support his conclusions.
Creationists made some predictions about how many mutations could have happened in the last 6,000 years. They don’t match up with the actual number of mutations. This disconnect is explained away with miracles.
Lots of religious people accept evolution, but they typically only do so because they’re following religious dogma, not because they understand the subject
Intelligent design survey shows evolution erodes morals; but the results are statistically insignificant
Intelligent design-ists conducted a survey showing how evolution had a “corrosive” impact on morals; yet the relationship was actually insignificant.
Diagrams of evolution often do more harm than good. Researchers have identified a few simple changes that can clear up these misunderstandings
Accepting and understanding evolution made undergraduate students better at understanding and applying biology to the real world.
The ICR claims a recent paper which refers to the “Creator” proves creationism, despite the fact that both the paper and authors disagree with them.
PLoS recently published research that claimed the human hand was so well adapted it was “the proper design by the Creator“. This conclusion was criticised, leading to the retraction of this paper. Despite this retraction, and the fact that the paper doesn’t provide good evidence for a Creator, and the fact the authors admitted Read more…