Works for Darwinism. No matter how much of its “evidence” is found not to be, its conclusions are not to be questioned.
(please see the Lucy and Ardi show)
(please see the Lucy and Ardi show)
That's wrong is so many ways...first of all, as far as I know, the factual descriptions of the Lucy and Ardi fossils have not been shown to be inaccurate. Some (including some scientists, from the time of the first announcement) disagree with the interpretation of Ardi--exactly where she fits in with the human line--but they haven't challenged the description of the fossils themselves.
Which is why it's silly to say that conclusions are not to be questioned. The original researchers' conclusions have been questioned by other scientists from the moment they announced them. That's why I always say the Temple of Darwin is the worst conspiracy ever: they can't seem to keep the disagreements and questions from showing up in public--you'd think they almost encouraged questions!
And besides, I was talking about GGG's assessment of Brian's science writing abilities. If you show me a Darwinist science writer who distorts the facts to reach a conclusion as often as Brian does, I'll say they're a lousy science writer no matter how much I agree with their conclusion.