Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: LOW Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Founded in 1997 by Richard Deem, Evidence for God from Science describes their mission as: “The mission of Evidence for God from Science is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and to encourage skeptics to examine the truth claims of Christianity. Having once been a skeptic myself, I understand that most skeptics assume Christianity is false before making a serious attempt to examine the evidence. Therefore, our goal is to present the scientific and biblical evidence that supports a rational belief in the existence and love of God.” Richard Deem holds a “master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976.”
Funded by / Ownership
Evidence for God from Science is owned by Richard Deem. Funding appears to be derived from donations as online advertising is not present.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Evidence for God from Science is a Christian apologetics website that defends belief in Old Earth Creationism (the earth is older than 6000 years, but still created by God) by making a day-age interpretation of the Bible, while rejecting Darwinism and Young Earth Creationism. Interestingly, this source not only rejects the consensus of science on many issues, but also rejects literal interpretation of the Bible. When it comes to political views, Evidence for God from Science holds typical right leaning Christian positions such as anti-abortion, homosexuality is a choice, and a rejection of evolution.
Overall, we rate Evidence for God from Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website based on a rejection of consensus science and promotion of ideas that lack evidence. (D. Van Zandt 12/7/2019)