Well, OK, maybe not everything. But perhaps a third of it:

…a third of medical research articles published in major scientific journals and then cited over a thousand times in the literature are later contradicted or have major questions raised over them.

Remember this the next time you hear about a “scientific study,” particularly about politically charged issues, such as global warming. As Iain points out, this is an important point:

We acknowledge that most studies published should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, rather than conclusive.

At least one of the “four hundred scientists” that the Discovery Institute claims signed their petition against evolution says that he disagrees with it:

Davidson says he was seeking a place where people “believe in a Creator and also believe in science.

“I thought it was refreshing,” he says.

Not anymore. He’s concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

“When I joined I didn’t think they were about bashing evolution. It’s pseudo-science, at best … What they’re doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion.”

Alan Boyle has an interesting story of forensic art history, with another demonstration of the power of the scientific method.

Via Geekpress, here’s a long but interesting article on the current state of research into the question of the origin of homosexuality. It’s also an example of pretty good science reporting in the MSM.

I haven’t read the whole thing (it’s twenty-thousand words) but Lee Harris has what looks to be an interesting essay over at TCS on evolution, ID, religion and beliefs in general with which, at least glancing through it, I suspect I’d largely agree.

[Update a few minutes later]

If you don’t mind registering, or are registered, with The New Republic, and are (unlike me) a conservative, Russ Douthat writes about the danger of Intelligent Design to conservatives.

[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]

A commenter seems puzzled as to why I don’t want to be labeled a “conservative.” Well, simply put, it’s because I don’t think of myself as a conservative, though there are (as he points out) some “conservative” positions with which I agree. There are also many with which I strongly disagree. I don’t just object to the “conservative” label–I object to single-word labels in general, because none of them very accurately describe me, and they constitute laziness on the part of the labeler and are often a substitute for a willingness to actually debate (e.g., see this more recent post). It’s easier to call someone a “conservative” or (for that matter) a “conspiracy theorist” than it is to actually engage in a serious discussion of the issues (in which one might risk actually losing the argument).

Cathy Young has a piece in today’s Boston Globe in which she quotes yours truly. I’ll probably have more on this subject later in the week, but this is my last day in California, and I’ve got a lot to do before I head back to FL tonight.

[Update on Wednesday morning]

David Adesnick says teach the controversy.

David Klinghoffer has a piece at National Review today in which he attempts (and fails, in my opinion) to make the case that conservatives should be opposed to Darwin, or at least open to doubting Darwinian evolution:

One prominent evolutionary psychologist, Harvard

It apparently goes back further than mankind itself. The New York Times reports the first observed case of monkey prostitution:

Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys’ true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

It apparently goes back further than mankind itself. The New York Times reports the first observed case of monkey prostitution:

Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys’ true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

It apparently goes back further than mankind itself. The New York Times reports the first observed case of monkey prostitution:

Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys’ true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)