Although Darrick has stopped me (anyone!?) commenting on his Sciencewatch blog, he can't stop me reading it.
He quotes on his main page that paragon of scientific virtue, the eminent lawyer Phillip E. Johnson, saying these fine words:
"Science should never fear honest intellectual tools such as precise use of terms, unbiased investigation of evidence and refusal to accept unjustified extrapolations."It is utterly bizarre, therefore, that Darrick's posts to his Blog continue to be so woefully and idiotically biased.
His recent post Environmental Extremists Costing American Economy Billions references an article Steve Milloy - who is hardly an "unbiased" source.
His RNA Still Unsolvable Problem for Evolution quotes a scientific paper as evidence against evolution - without mentioning that the authors of that paper see it as nothing of the sort. What kind of dishonesty is that?
Most hilarious is the post Hundreds of Scientists Defect from Evolution Pseudoscience. This links to a list of "more than 300 scientists" who "have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution..." The article is dated 1 April 2004. Why did Darrick post it on his blog this week? I'd say that my recent posts on the overwhelming scientific support for evolution probably have something to do with it. In any event, DD's list contains at most six "Steves".
Compare that with the NCSE's list of over 500 scientist "Steves" who have signed up to this statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.There are also substantially more than six Steves on the list of over 4,000 Christian Pastors who have signed a recent statement saying that they accept standard evolutionary theory alongside their faith.
Darrick's attempt to show the lack of scientific support for evolutionary theory does just the opposite. Instead he has clearly demonstrated that only around 1% of scientists think that there is any real controversy over standard evolutionary theory. And he has also shown that, despite the empty words of Phillip Johnson, his Blog remains a bastion of bias and unjustified extrapolations.
Well done Darrick.