Peer Review History: Fill & Download for Free

I thought about this answer for a while. As someone well versed in evolutionary science, I know there is no credible evidence against evolution…but the question is what is the STRONGEST evidence against evolution, which might include the weakest evidence FOR evolution. But the weakest evidence for evolution is likely weak simply because it’s too dull or arcane to mean much to most people. So instead, here is the BEST ATTEMPT creationists have made against evolution:The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:During the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, in which the court found that teaching intelligent design in schools is unconstitutional, the lead ID proponent Michael Behe admitted that ID proponents have never conducted even a single experiment that refutes evolution:Eric J. Rothschild (lawyer for the plaintiffs): “Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?”Behe: “No, I argued for it in my book.”Rothschild: “Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?”Behe: “That's correct.”Rothschild: “And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?”Behe: “That is correct, yes.”Rothschild: “And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin’s Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?”Behe: “I did not do so.”(From: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe)Behe even admitted that he redefined the word “theory” so that he could claim ID is a scientific theory, and that ID is no more valid than astrology:Rothschild: “Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.”Behe: “Yes.”Rothschild: “But when you call it a scientific theory, you’re not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.”Behe: “Yes, that's correct.”Rothschild: “You don’t always see eye to eye with the National Academy?”Behe: “Sometimes not.”Rothschild: “And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?”Behe: “Yes.”Rothschild: “Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?”Behe: “Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I’m a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.”Rothschild: “And actually you said at your deposition, ‘I don't think intelligent design falls under this definition.’ Correct?”Behe: “Yeah...”...Rothschild: “But you are clear, under your definition—the definition that sweeps in intelligent design—astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?”Behe: “Yes, that’s correct.”(From: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe)At several points during the trial, all the witnesses for the defense admitted that there are mountains of scientific support for evolution, and that there is no objective, independent evidence against evolution. Here is the link to the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s site for the transcripts of the entire trial: Dover Trial Transcripts“Specified complexity”:Intelligent design proponent William Dembski believes he can mathematically demonstrate that one can reasonably infer something was designed by an intelligence rather than occurred naturally. There are several problems with his claim:His formula contains two errors, one of which renders the formula useless for his intent (http://www.riverrock.org/~howard/Dembski.pdf).He misuses terms and uses calculations that ignore the mechanisms natural selection uses to increase information (Specified complexity - Wikipedia).Extremely long odds become highly probable given enough time and trials (which is exactly what evolution has had).We can demonstrate how the basic building blocks of life can develop and become increasingly complex completely naturally (Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum), as well as how life can become increasingly complex on its own, both in nature and in artificial life simulations (through mutation, chromosome doubling, etc.).Peer-reviewed scientific articles:Despite many decades of work and a great amount of funding, the peer-reviewed scientific output from intelligent design proponents is almost nonexistent. There are more peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology every WEEK than in the ENTIRE history of ID peer-reviewed scientific articles. And only ONE article shows any original research. (More: Intelligent Design and peer review)“Of Pandas and People”:Intelligent design proponents often claim ID has nothing to do with creationism. However, the primary textbook for ID—Of Pandas and People—was discovered to have originally been a creationism textbook. The ID version simply had all references to creationism replaced with intelligent design. There’s even a famous typo in the ID version where the word “creationists” was replaced by “cdesign proponentsists,” ironically providing an analogy for how evolution works: “Cdesign Proponentsists”(Updated for better formatting.)

Science is the application of the Scientific Method, which involved coming up with a falsifiable hypothesis (that doesn't contradict existing data), testing it with controlled observation and experimentation, and submitting it to peer review.History doesn't, for the most part, use this entire method.I don't see what Science or History have to do with morality, unless a scientist is studying something like the neural basis for ethical thinking or a historian is studying how ethics was taught in various ages.

I don’t know why this question got suggested to me, but since it did, let me answer. As a matter of fact, yes. There are places in the country where Brahmins do end up coming under OBCs or MBCs.My community for instance, “Naths”, who comprise the “Rudraj Brahmin” community and are primarily Shiva worshippers, are categorised under OBCs in Assam/Tripura.There is a historical precedent. I am doing a sketchy recollection of what I have been told by my senior family members and read on internet. Not from a peer reviewed history journal, so read with a pinch of salt. :)Back in 12th century, the Nath community was banished by a certain King, Ballal Sen of the Sena dynasty due to a tiff between the king and the royal priest, who was a Nath.To survive, the community moved to the frontiers of the kingdom, to what is current day Sylhet, south Assam and Tripura. They picked up weaving as livelihood, and weaving is traditionally not associated with higher social currency. And thus unlike Kulin brahmins, Nath Brahmins didn’t receive the socio-economic benefits of caste system of that era.While a broad brush of looking into the varna is usually correct, there are always exceptions, like the one I mentioned above.