All too often on social media, I see atheists continously declaring that Intelligent Design is dismissed due to "no evidence" in their scientific/academic journals. Creation science is automatically dismissed by atheists because of this and other reason. They are probably right that there are no publications of studies on ID. Here are some cases as to why as well as cases as to why their journals shouldn't be taken as a holy grail.
In mainstream science/academia, atheist-based science is taught and published/peer reviewed by fellow atheist scientists. This is not to say they're wrong BUT they're only looking at it from their side and most of them (from my experience) refuse to look at cases for ID and dismissing "everything from an apologist". HOWEVER, much of apologetics is discussing the atheist-based science and actually bringing up studies/quotes from actual atheists who agree their science is a long way off. They don't have any inroads on the "origins of life". The origin of life is a base point/foundation for evolution, etc.. If they can't explain/prove the origin of life, then aren't they basing their studies from an unknown basepoint/foundation? Many creationists (such as myself) believe in microevolution as God could have designed us to adapt to our environments, etc..
Their academic journals/publications are not a holy grail. Although I'm sure many of the publications are valid, it should be noted from the following articles that their journals/research/findings should be approached with this in mind (it's worth a click on each one of these)
The origin of life needs to be flushed out before non-creationist evolutionists can prove macroevolution
コメント