It can hardly be surprising that the Discovery Institute has picked up on Dean Esmay's ignorant blather about ID and us "Stalinist" evolution advocates and are shouting it from the rooftops as evidence that "even religious skeptics" disagree with us. The fact that Esmay is an atheist or agnostic doesn't mean he has anything approaching a coherent position on evolution, or even a basic understanding of it. His completely incoherent claim that evolutionary theory "tends to hold that mutation is not the primary way by which creatures evolve" a few months ago was proof that he has not even an average high schooler's understanding of evolutionary theory. Hence, it's fairly predictable that the Discovery Institute finds common cause with him.
More like this
Michael Berube is a noted danger to the youth of America (and has the votes to prove it).
I'd like to hear from some other sciencebloggers and science readers what they think reform of peer-review should look like. I'm not of the opinion that it has any critical flaws, but most people would like to see more accountability for sand-bagging and other bad reviewer habits.
Yesterday, I discussed what scientists supported by federal funds do, and do not, owe the public.
Since I've been busy with Dean Esmay, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I tagged in my partner Jon Rowe to put the Worldnutdaily's usual nonsense about church and state into a figure four logic lock.
Okay, here's a question for y'all:
How do you make a society based upon the rule of law function optimally when Dean Esmay represents the better educated classes out there? ;-)
At least the DI noticed that he's a "self-proclaimed liberal and atheist". One of the things that sours me on Esmay is that he's a conservative apologist who is so ashamed of conservative views that he has to hide behind the liberal label.