Several weeks ago I noted Bob Park’s characteristics of Bogus Science, and then, based on his work, I listed some characteristics of bogus history, here in Bogus History 1, and here in Bogus History 2.
Here’s a test, more of the Bogus Science than Bogus History, but still a test: Almost-creationist astronomer Hugh Ross claims to have a hypothesis of creation that is not Darwin, that is testable, and which will be published shortly in his new book.
Do you see any of the warning signs of “bogus” yet? (Some answers suggested at the end, below the fold.)
Read the rest of this entry »