Let me follow this line of thought. I'm assuming he does'nt want science to be settled by open elections, that would be too stupid even for the author. So what does he mean by democratic?
Open exchainge of information (Yes, that's a hallmark of science).
Peer review (Again Yes).
That anybody can declare themselves a peer just by saying so? That's were he is wrong. Common sense just does'nt cut it. You may of course review it, but don't be surprised when your new non-math theory of physics is widely ignored.
Later in the essay he shows his true colors. Bozo is a creationist. The concept of social evolution is more a political thought then scientific. Undermining it does NOTHING to the theory of evolution, so the nepharious motive is gone. The theory of evolution has had predicive value and has a good degree of testing. Consider the following predicition made by evolution. Fossiles of creatures that appear to be related a found 50 million years appart in the rock strata. Evolution predicts that creatures found between these two dates would be in a state somewhere between the two. Expeditions are mounted searching rocks of the appropriate age. Fossils are found and show changes just as predicted. This has happend many times (look at the fossil record of horses for many good examples). Every time is happens the newly discovered creature is given a name and the creationist now claim there is no transitional creatures between the three, ignoring the fact that the middle one is halfway between the early and late ones. This still does'nt properly ammount to a 'Law', all of science is theory from gravity to evolotion. Many of these theorys are supported by a large body of scientific evidence and continue to have predictive value.
Evolution is as much a law as gravity is. If the fossil record was all put down during the flood you would expect all stata to contain equal mixes of primative and complex life. This prediction fails. The theory of flood geology does'nt have any predictive value. The predictions made are found to be false.
Heinlein said it best 'If you want to believe god created the universe 6000 years ago fine, just accept she (my edit) created it OLD as a test of faith'.
Evolution is a theory that has been searching for facts to back it up since day one. How many theories are there that started out with zero facts, zero data? If Darwin had named his theory Adaptation, which most of it actually is, there would be no shortage of facts then or now to back it up.
Later in the essay he shows his true colors. Bozo is a creationist.Really? If he was truly a creationist I'd think he wouldn't wander down the heretical pathway of an earth greater than 6K years old...Evolution may be widely accepted, but the MECHANISMS and RATES (i.e. Punctuated Equilibrium or Gradualism) are open to debate in most circles.
Alfred Wegner was ridiculed for proposing that the continents shifted over the surface of the globe. He wasn't vindicated until his peers were dragged kicking and screaming into the era of sea floor spreading\plate tectonics by the submarine magnetic surveys conducted on the floor of the Atlantic during WWII.
Just because it doesn't toe the party line is hardly reason for Ad Hominem...
I have talked to oil field geologists about the debate and the evidence. Schoch's evidence is strong and factual, however the Egyptogists stated only their theory of events. One geologist told me, that after Schoch's paper, he revisited his photos and memory and was amazed that he just overlooked the evidence of his eyes and training simply because everyone knows how old the Sphinx is supposed to be.
