Alan G

The latest ICR article on Hiccups is an excellent example of their "science"

It is titled "Hiccups - Intelligent Design?" (and like Kent Hovinds thesis, the contents of the article don't address the title)

Starts "Just one more example of how evolutionism is contrary to good science may be seen in a story ". Yet gives no example of how this is contrary to good science.

"[story mentions possible gilled ancestors]However, science has shown that people have always been people"
no source to back this up either.

Then defines what hiccups are by quoting "Ganong, Medical Physiology, 19th ed. p. 648." A quick look on Amazon shows this book is actually called "Review of Medical Physiology" and is now in it's 21st edition.

"[on hiccups]but there’s a good reason for them and it has nothing to do with Darwinism. Fetal hiccups seem to be designed to help strengthen the diaphragm and prepare the little one for breathing. "
again no source to show when this "good reason" was discovered and how it was "designed".

Entire article - 343 words, including author, title, copyright notice.

Number of sources noted - 3 (the actual story, one out of date medical textbook and the other the Bible)

Total number of accurate and relevent sources - 1

Number of places where a source should have been noted - 6minimum (there are some stories thrown in about a hiccup record etc, which should not have been there anyway so no need to source)

And these people consider themselves scientists because????

RufusAtticus

They're too incompetant to know any better.

GunnerJ

Damn, how could Credence Clearwater Revival sink this low...

Tenek

But hey, that's not science if you can't put "incompetence" in a test tube.