Michael Fitzpatrick's bold new idea for combatting denialism and attacks on scientific fact: pretend denialists always argue in good faith and don't call them out on their denialism.

The first synthetically designed life form has been created in a proof of concept that shows how much we now understand about the fundamentals of microbial life.

When it comes to science denial and illiteracy, the media is one of the biggest source of bad information and misleading opinions.

If Giberson is the best Templeton's expensive finishing school can do in defending creationism, they should ask for their money back.

Being told more people believed something makes you more likely to believe it too, even if science says the exact opposite.

Climate change deniers seem to hold on to a long discredited Russian hypothesis that oil comes from the mantle, not from dead living things decomposing under immense pressure.

Years of studies show that humans may be born with an innate understanding of good and bad, and prefer being nice to others.

In an ironic turn of events, accommodationist Massimo Pigliucci gets lambasted for being offensive to believers for writing a book about separating junk science and belief from fact.

Despite dangling a million dollar prize, with updated bank statements that it's legit, for a demonstration of a supernatural ability, James Randi has very few takers.

Scientifically illiterate politicians on the cultural warpath and their fans convinced millions that scientists lead a charmed life in ivory towers. Spoiler alert: they do not.

If you're looking for surreal, downright astounding beauty and wonder, all you need to do is look up and ask some questions about what's happening in the night sky...

Could the laws of physics step in to prevent attempts at radical life extension?

Can we destroy the world with nukes? It depends on who you ask and what kinds of warheads and damage they include in their calculations...

With friends like accommodationists, science advocates don't need any enemies.

The results of the biannual scientific literacy survey conducted by the National Science Foundation are so embarrassing, the organization felt the need to censor some of the results.