I think it's worth a ping because of the credibility the AEI has among conservatives. This is no fringe organization, but a highly influential thinktank. We need the regulars here to refute this nonsense before it becomes respectable.
You're right. I'm cranking up the ping machine ...
About the author, the article ends with this:
Rodney Stark was professor of sociology at the University of Washington for many years and is now university professor of the social sciences at Baylor University. He is author of For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press) and other acclaimed books on science and religion.
Yes, I had a fairly high opinion of AEI. On the other hand, here's a list of their fellows. What field of human learning would you say is conspicuously absent?
AEI has no credibility as a scientific think tank. By pushing really stupid articles like this one (which even uses the cats into dogs or vice versa canard), they lose credibility in other fields. No one can afford to take them seriously on other issues such as the greenhouse effect or social security reform.
Agree completely.
Rather than Creationist nonsense becoming respectable, it's more likely that the AEI (and other Conservative institutions) will be seen as anti-science. When issues needing scientific input come up politically (ABM, greenhouse, public health, etc.), Conservatives will not be seen as credible participants. Things have progressed much farther than most people think.