Let’s recite Michael Shermer’s mantra on Baloney Detection:

• When someone provides a new explanation for something, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?
• Do the new claims provide an explanation for the observed phenomena, or do they merely deny the existing explanation?
• Does the new explanation use the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
• Has anyone disproved the claims, or has only supportive evidence been sought?
• Does the overwhelming evidence point to the conclusions reached by the new explanation, or to a different one?
• How do these claims fit in with what we know of how the world works?
• Does the person making this statement often make similar claims?
• Have the claims been verified by an independent source?
• How reliable is the person making the claims?
• Do their personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?