While I was on the Bob Dutko show, he made several claims purportedly supported by peer-reviewed science. It’s a great tactic in any format where such claims cannot be evaluated on-the-fly. This allows superstitious showmen to misrepresent some comment in the abstract of a peer-reviewed paper such that will make creationists feel as though they have the support of some faction of actual science. We see this type of assertion quite often -especially in live media, but it only sounds good until you look into it and invariably find a mirage instead. Knowing this, I directed Dutko’s listeners here -to my blog- where I promised to post links exploring each of his assertions on the air. To that end, I have also posted a thread on the League of Reason forums, which (I think) still works even in protracted, data-intensive, or highly illustrative analyses.