Catchy headlines for online dating sites
Right in the abstract of the paper in PLo S One, the authors called intelligent design a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence, as opposed to evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence. It presented belief in ID as a psychological problem that needs to be remedied through education and mental manipulation.
The press release even got the definition of ID wrong: British evolutionary biologist Prof.
The article gave complete credence to Tracys study and opinions. Tracy, Hart and Martens, Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution, PLo S One, 6(3): e17349. Time to turn the tables and psychoanalyze the psychs.
Wasnt it fear of death and judgment that turned many a Darwinist to atheism a convenient escape from worry about the hereafter? And isnt it easy for anyone to call their critics crazy?
Understand: Science Daily and Phys Org are shills for the PR departments of the Darwin-drunk universities. If Darwin-lovers think they can turn the pseudoscience of psychology on their critics, well, guess what; their critics can return the favor.