The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts.
Exactly.
And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality.
Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life.
Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"??
Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong.
So in other words, it wasn't peer reviewed and was unable to pass any level of scrutiny.
Thanks you!!!
If Meyer's what to make scientific claims, it might help if he actually did some science, and followed the scientific method.
You continue to embarrass yourself. Apparently you can't read either. Meyer's book was favorably peer reviewed and Sternberg lost his job over it because the unwritten rule is that anything scientific tending to favor ID must not be permitted a hearing EVER! This allows "science" to keep dissent from being peer reviewed then arguing "see, I told you its worthless. It hasn't been peer reviewed!" In other words, "heads I win, tails you lose". What is "science:" afraid of? Phillip Johnson once remarked that it was the way Neo-Darwinists defended their position that convinced him their enterprise was essentially intellectually and empirically bankrupt. It took about a year and half for any Neo-Darwinists to respond to "Darwin on Trial" and when Stephen J. Gould finally deigned to write a review it was little more than a thinly disguised hit-and-run ad hominem attack. Johnson was elated because it was then he knew for certain he was onto something: if the Darwinists had a real response to his arguments, they would have made it (instead of a hit-and-run ad hominem attack). Likewise, if they were secure in their theory they would permit criticism of it instead of conspiring to violate the norms of scientific inquiry to protect their theory from criticism.
