Bad Arguments Convince Me
Bad arguments in support of macroevolutionary theory have contributed to my skepticism. Of course, it is not the bad arguments themselves that convince me, but the lack of good arguments. However, the constant reliance on bad arguments by proponents of macroevolutionary theory indicates to me that there are no better arguments to be made.
Here is an example relating to judging intelligent design on the basis of articles in peer reviewed scientific publications:
To sum up, science journals that are wedded to Darwinian evolution refuse to publish authors who explicitly advocate intelligent design. Then Darwinists attack intelligent design as unscientific because it isn't published in peer-reviewed journals. As Borat might say, "very nice."
Are we living a Borat movie? Or perhaps in a Joseph Heller novel? This kind of logic may seem comical, but it is actually used in some form by many mainstream scientists.
By the way, there actually have been peer reviewed books and articles published that support ID.
The quote above is from a post that discusses a series of posts on the peer review system in science. I have not read the entire series, so I cannot comment further on that.
I discuss whether ID is science in my previous post "Is It Science? Does It Matter?"